Having lived in a broken home myself, I know all too well
the difficult realities and consequent effects that exist throughout the
community surrounding a marriage and its demise. However, I am not comfortable
with simply labeling divorce as sin. If there is one thing that I have learned
throughout my life, in my education and experiences, it is that sin is not
simple, and neither can be our response to it.
Throughout
this paper, we will examine the various facets that contribute to the painful
and very real subjects of divorce, and remarriage. My basic thesis is that
divorce is horrible, but permissible in specific instances other than the
Matthean caveat. Rather, where there is abuse, where there is terror and fear,
in instances of necessity for survival, divorce is permissible. While divorce
definitely is a drastic decision that affects not only just the man and the
woman, but the entirety of the surrounding community for the rest of the lives
of the man and woman involved as well as the subsequent generations that come
through children and grandchildren. As a secondary conversation, we will touch
on the issue of remarriage, as both my wife’s and my own parents have been
remarried. Remarriage seems to be a rather important and natural branch of
interest considering the intimate realities that both my wife and I have had to
encounter. Assumingly, my antithesis is that divorce is not permissible for any
reason other than adultery, and that in no circumstance is remarriage a thing
to be considered.
Every
biblical ethicist, regardless of tradition, will begin their discussion on
divorce with a statement that immediately acknowledges divorce as something
other than the ideal. As far as Christians are concerned, marriage is a
life-long commitment and partnership for those who are married and have been
called to this covenant. It is only because of sin’s pervasive and deep rooted
nature that divorce is a reality throughout the world. As such, any
conversation regarding the matter of divorce begins with a concession, it is
not ideal. The second thing that most biblical ethicists will say is that
divorce can only be thought of as a last resort. There are a whole host of
options available and relied upon that should be considered and attempted
before divorce can be thought of as valid. In keeping with this tradition, I
want to make it plain and clear that I do not think divorce is an ideal, nor do
I think that divorce should be addressed or considered lightly. This being
said, there are few biblical grounds for the allowance of divorce, and even
fewer biblical allowances for remarriage. The third thing that almost all
authors addressing the issue of divorce begin with is understanding first what
marriage is and how a Christian is supposed to understand this covenant, as
Paul Jewett says, “one’s understanding of divorce comes out of one’s
understanding of marriage.”[1]
However, given the limited space allotted for this paper, we will not address
these specific concerns. Rather, I would like to simply jump into the
conversation and address these issues of prolegomena as they arise.
Many
Christian ethicists will also comment on the alarming statistics surrounding
the increasing numbers of divorce throughout our society. Andrew Cornes states
that “between 1901 and 1910, the average number of divorces per year in England
and Wales was 593. By the 1930s this had risen almost ninefold to 5,096 per
year.” He goes on to state that in 1993 it was estimated that approximately 37%
of all marriages will ultimately end in divorce.[2]
John and Paul Feinberg reported that in 1993 the divorce rate in the U.S. was
approaching 50%.[3]
That is 50% of all marriages end in divorce. They go on however to note that
this rise in tendency toward divorce is predominantly a western predicament.
For instance, in Syria there were roughly 8.8 marriages per 1000 people in
1989, while those who were pursuing divorce was .73 per 1000 people. In central
America there were approximately 5.3 people out of 1000 getting married, while
those seeking divorce represented only .18 per 1000. Even in Asia the rate was
5.8:1.27 of marriage to divorce per 1000 people.[4]
While it is obvious that divorce is a common trend in many parts of the world,
it is only those countries who identify with western society where the trend is
astronomically imbalanced.
Stanley Grenz supports this notion of high divorce rates
being a western phenomenon and goes on to posit that it is also a modern
predicament. He puts forth that there are a number of reasons for this rising
trend towards divorce. First of all, the increase in life expectancy presents
in some cases a doubling of longevity for married couples. In 1850, the average
life expectancy for Americans was less than forty years. Whereas in 1985,
someone who was 40 might live for another thirty-seven years.[5]
Along with this increased duration of life comes the increased demands on the
marriage, never before seen throughout history. The most prominent of these
demands includes the developing concepts of companionship and sexual
satisfaction, the shift in society from long-term committed relationships, and
the lack of effective role models for children. Clearly some of these contributing
factors are deeply concerning, as we can see in many celebrities attitude
towards marriage and divorce, there is little wonder why many people who are
looking to them as representing a cultural ideal would not in effect also hold
a lackluster perspective towards divorce. As though picking a spouse is like
choosing a colour of the painting of a room. In an age when people understand
love as an emotion one that can be changed simply by being struck with an arrow
shot by an infant wearing a toga, it is no wonder that divorce is such a
commonplace notion. Emotions can change and if our understanding of marriage
and love is based upon our understanding of love as an emotion, why would I not
change my spouse at the same rate that my desire for a specific food changes?
There is no doubt culture’s tendency towards divorce is something to be
concerned with. Grenz mentions one other contribution to the rise in divorce
rates and it is the one that I think is most often neglected by biblical
ethicists for a spattering of different reasons, that is the changing attitudes
towards women in our societies. We will get to this point later in our
discourse, for now let’s look at the various ways that Christians have
approached the issues of divorce and remarriage.
In his book, The Moral
Vision of the New Testament, Richard Hays talks about this definitive trend
as significantly linked with the breaking down of legal backing in the U.S.
“For a long time in Western culture, up until the middle of the twentieth
century, the church’s prohibition of divorce was supported by a powerful set of
social conventions that made divorce a nearly unthinkable option, a last resort
in desperate circumstances. In the U.S. culture at the end of the twentieth
century, however, divorce has become so commonplace that it is in some
communities virtually the norm.” He continues, “The collapse of cultural
strictures against divorce has left the church in serious need of fresh
theological and pastoral reflection about divorce and remarriage.”[6]
The very
fact that the Christian community is so divided on the issue should indicate
that the issues surrounding divorce and remarriage are not simply, nor are they
black and white. Indeed there are few theological concepts that can be
presented in black and white terms. Even where those theological themes can be
spoken in black and white terms, they have mainly to do with issues that are
relatively unconcerned with matters of praxis, how the church enacts its
theology. divorce and remarriage is only one of many concerns for the church.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the church is so divided on the issue of divorce
and remarriage is because the biblical witness is not consistent with its
depiction of the issue. Certainly there can seem to be a type of discontinuity
between Old and New Testament texts. This discontinuity has lead many authors
to restrict their exegesis to just the New Testament. Richard Hays, Craig
Keener, Glen Stassen, David Gushee, and Paul Jewett all restrict their
conversation regarding divorce and remarriage to the relevant New Testament
texts. The problem with this is that within the New Testament itself, there
seems to be some type of difference
between the various gospel witnesses and Paul which would leave a reader
wondering just where exactly the line should be drawn. Commonly, when the issue
of divorce and remarriage is presented through ethical and theological
discourse there are a few key biblical texts which seem to surface more often
than others.
The most prominent passages that arise in the conversation
regarding divorce and remarriage are the following: Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18,
Matthew 5:27-32, 19:1-12, 1 Corinthians 7. Various authors do recognize the
need to include other passages that do not explicitly address the issues of
marriage and divorce such as Andrew Cornes extensive discourse involving any
Old Testament reference or allusion to marriage, even in the prophets where
marriage is used primarily as an analogy to refer to God’s relationship with
Israel, Cornes utilizes these passages to help shape his understanding of God’s
views of marriage. Hays also utilizes Ephesians 5 wherein the biblical author
addresses the roles of the husband and wife in their marital relationship.
However, these passages and references leave us with the categories proposed by
John and Paul Feinberg. How then can we understand these three categories that
the Feinbergs present and how do these positions fall short of a rounded
understanding of the contemporary issues surrounding divorce and remarriage?
In their 1993 book, Ethics for a Brave New World, John and
Paul Feinberg address the various positions held on the issue of divorce and
remarriage, “The many views on divorce and remarriage can be divided into three
broad groups: 1) no divorce views; 2) divorce but no remarriage views; 3)
divorce and remarriage views.”[7]
While this categorization seems oversimplified at the outset, they admit that
the matter is incredibly complicated. Not only because people can hold and
argue any of these views, but also because anyone arguing these stances can do
so through the use of biblical support.[8]
For instance, the differences between the argument against
divorce entirely and allowing divorce on specific grounds usually comes down to
understanding Matthew’s exception clauses found in both passages regarding
divorce. Matthew 5:31-32 says, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife,
let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who
divorces his wife, except on the grounds of unchastity(porneia), causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery.”(NRSV) Numerous scholars have debated both the
grammar and the term porneia used in this passage. Those who would argue
against the allowance for divorce would understand the grammar to be the
opposite of what it actually says, reading it to be, “anyone who divorces his
wife, even on the grounds of porneia…”
However, this reappropriation of the grammar is a bit of a stretch. Often the
case against the allowance of divorce comes from a tradition that understands
marriage as an indissoluble union understanding that regardless of the
circumstances, marriage is a covenant that cannot be broken until the death of
a marital participant. Those who would argue for an indissoluble union then
attempt to appropriate the text to suit their views. Those who would argue for
the allowance of divorce are further divided into parties who understand this
exception clause predicated on the word porneia
as referring to a specific relationship. Cornes explains, “Some scholars have
tried to make out that it refers , here, to incest and therefore that Jesus did
not allow divorce on any grounds where there had been a valid marriage; he was
merely saying that where a marriage had been legally contracted with a near relative
it was incestuous, and therefore null in God’s eyes, and therefore should be
legally dissolved.”[9]
Those who fall into the second category also point to the passage in 1
Corinthians where Paul explains that if a convert who is married to a
non-believer is divorced by their spouse, the divorce is allowed on the grounds
of peace, “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a
case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called
you.”(1 Cor. 7:15) The Feinbergs continue in their explanation of the issue by
laying out the biblical grounds for the third position being that both divorce
and remarriage are permissible. The Feinbergs state that many of the various
forms of the divorce and remarriage views are all variations on what is
commonly understood to be the Erasmian view, with the understanding that if
there are legitimate grounds for divorce than those grounds also legitimize
remarriage. Furthermore, some variations of the Erasmian view understand Paul’s
allowance for divorce of new converts from unbelieving spouse also allows for
the opportunity to remarry.[10]
I would personally land in the third category, that there
are legitimate grounds for divorce and those grounds constitute legitimate
grounds for remarriage. Since we have already discussed the various biblical
reasons why divorce might be legitimized, I would like to spend some time
discussing the reality of extra-biblical grounds for divorce. While many
Christians especially in the evangelical circles would immediately write me off
for even considering extra-biblical reasons for doing anything, I think that
there needs to be legitimate discussion surrounding issues unbeknownst to
biblical writers. Surely there are a variety of topics that would fall under
this branch of discussion. Considering things like masturbation, use of
tobacco, abortion, genetically modified foods, there are a whole smattering of
topics that many wish were addressed in the Bible because then we could say
with absolute certainty and confidence that, fill in the blank, is the
Christian’s response to the issue. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While
many of these topics are surely matters which would have been in existence in
biblical times, such as masturbation, many of the issues that our contemporary
atmosphere are addressing are too new for us to have an opportunity to look
back on our Christian tradition and provide a historical response to. Under
this sub-category fall things like smoking and various forms of medical ethics.
Divorce and marriage however are not inextricably extra-biblical. As we have
already seen there are a variety of instances in Scripture that refer to the
issue surrounding divorce and remarriage.
What is new however, is the recognition of women’s rights.
In Canada for instance, according to the Dominion Elections Act, S.C.
1920, c. 46 it was not until 1920 that Women were granted the
privilege to vote. Even at this point the vote was only extended to caucasian
women. This was one of many steps towards the recognition of women’s rights in
Canada. And with this relatively newly developed trend towards granting women
rights in society brings the arrival of a various contemporary themes that we
Christians must interact with. And yet, in almost all of the books that I have
surveyed, the topic of women’s rights in general, and specifically as they
pertain to this issue of divorce was only mentioned in passing by one author.[11]
The reality is that this is a drastically underdeveloped subject in Christian
theology. Perhaps because the rights of women are simply assumed, but if this
were the case, it would not be outlandish to imagine that this would appear at
least as a facet in the conversation regarding divorce, if not then as a fully
developed vein of conversation. The issue of abuse and aggression towards
another bearer of the image of God is a severe breach against both the bearer
and He whom the image represents. I do not think that it is a coincidence that
the rise of divorce as a modern epidemic correlates with the establishment of
women’s rights. That is not to say however, that women’s rights is a ‘problem’
that is contributing to the rising trend
towards divorce. Rather, it seems as though the issues surrounding the right’s
of women have been introduced to society with such far reaching depth sweeping
effectiveness that the Christian community has been unable to properly devote
much attention to the matter. As such, it warrants some development and is what
we will spend the rest of our time developing.
Ultimately, the conversation must begin by being included
with the conversation regarding the image of God. Paul Jewett and Marguerite
Shuster’s tome Who We Are: Our Dignity as
Humans represents some of the most extensive contemporary work done on the
image of God. It would be an injustice to their work to attempt to give due
credence to the extensive writing they have done on the subject in the short
amount of space that we have left, but a brief summary is called for at least.
Their basic premise is that for the Christian, our intrinsic value as human
beings is grounded in the concept of God bestowing upon us his image. Jewett
and Shuster seem to follow after Martin Buber’s ‘I-thou’ paradigm throughout
the book, where this inestimably valuable image is understood through our
relations and interactions with a variety of different ‘thous’. We understand
this image in light of our interactions with the ‘thou’ of our creator, we
understand this image in light of our relations with other ‘thous’ of race and
sex, and we understand this image in light of the ‘thou’ of the rest of
creation.
The imago Dei is a
theological theme that has continually been picked up by theologians throughout
the centuries in attempts to understand what exactly this image is. Jewett and
Shuster understand the image as a multi-faceted concept involving various parts
that comprise the human. The image is represented in our bodily form, in our
ability to reason, in humanity’s ability to will, and in our conscience. These
are the various components which comprise the human I. And it is towards the
relations with various ‘thous’ that the ‘I’ has substance and validity. Any
violence done to these forms in which the image is understood is therefore
violence done to the image itself. Any violence that is done toward the ‘thou’
or in some cases even towards the ‘I’, therefore, is a violence done toward
that which the image represents. The reason why violence enacted in war is seen
as so heinous is because
If volume of content is any indication towards the
importance of a subject, 220 of the 465 pages that is the bulk of the author’s
writing is dedicated towards this concept of the image of God as understood in
light of the opposite sex. They begin their discussion of the I-thou
relationship with regards to the male-female relations by saying that “even
when an I-thou encounter is not between a man and a woman, it is always an
encounter of a man or a woman. There are no personal encounters between persons
as such, but only between persons who are male and persons who are female.”[12]
The most profound embodiment of the I-Thou paradigm is established in this form
of the relationship between these two sexes. The man is only understood as man
in light of the real presence of the female. Any damage or violence done to one
is a violence and contortion done to the other. In this relationship it is
imperative that the two halves of this image are maintained as equally important.
This question of violence done to the other as it pertains
to marriage in the relation of the male and the female therefore refers to a
violence done to the image of first-class violation. As such, violence done to
the other in any form as it pertains to the marital relationship should be
understood as grounds for divorce. If the interest of Scripture’s stance on
divorce is a concern for the protection of Covenant, whether it be the covenant
of the guilty party or the covenant of the neighbor against whom the adultery
is being enacted, then the concern for the well-being of the image which is
represented by the ‘I’ and ‘thou’ within the covenant marriage relationship
should take precedence over the institution and covenant of marriage. As such,
abuse within the marital relationship should be seen as valid grounds for
divorce. However, abuse should not be understood as a grounds for the allowance
of divorce, but rather as grounds for the preservation of life. As such these
grounds seek to restrict the pervasive effects of fallen sinful humanity in the
same way that Matthew’s porneia
caveat is understood as restriction and preservation of the importance of the
covenant relationship found in marriage.
Throughout this essay, we have taken a look at the very real
and very important issues surrounding the topics of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
We have understood that the current biblical witness regarding the issue of
divorce is not extensive, nor is it comprehensive. There are in fact a variety
of contemporary issues that demand reflection and response from the Christian
community that Scripture does not explicitly address. The issue of abuse within
the marital relationship as grounds for divorce is just such a topic.
Hopefully, I have demonstrated the necessity of the conversation and properly
argued for the connection between abuse and violence to the intrinsically
attributed value of the image of God as represented by the I-thou relationship
of man and woman.
Bibliography
Cornes, Andrew. Divorce & Marriage; Biblical Principles & Pastoral Practice.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.
Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.
Grenz, Stanley. Sexual
Ethics; A Biblical Perspective. Vancouver: Word Publishing, 1990.
Hays, Richard B. The
Moral Vision of the New Testament; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament
Ethics. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996.
Jewett, Paul. Who We
Are: Our Dignity As Human; A Neo-Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Keener, Craig S.
...And Marries Another; Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New
Testament. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991.
[1] Paul Jewett, Who We Are: Our Dignity As Human; A
Neo-Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1996), 273.
[2] Andrew Cornes, Divorce & Marriage; Biblical Principles
& Pastoral Practice (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1993), 9.
[3] John S. Feinberg and
Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New
World (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993), 299.
[4] Feinberg and Feinberg,
299.
[5] Stanley Grenz, Sexual Ethics; A Biblical Perspective
(Vancouver: Word Publishing, 1990), 101.
[6]Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament; A
Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper
Collins Publishers, 1996), 347.
[7] Feinberg and Feinberg,
305.
[8] Feinberg and Feinberg,
305.
[9] Cornes, 202.
[10] Feinberg and Feinberg,
308.
[11] Craig S. Keener, ...And Marries Another; Divorce and
Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 1991), 105.
[12] Jewett, 136.
No comments:
Post a Comment