QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Our Evolving Understanding of Divorce -- and Homosexuality

Could consideration of divorce help us understand how we make use of the Bible? And might that help us in understanding what God asks of us with regard to homosexuality?

In Luke 16:18 Jesus says¹⁸“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” That’s pretty clear. But Matthew 19:9 has Jesus saying exactly the same thing and adding “except for immorality.” Matthew has Jesus giving a reason why divorce might be acceptable. That’s an important difference. Let’s also note that what might constitute “immorality” would need some further interpretation. (The Greek word is porneia, about which there is disagreement about the precise meaning. Note that there is another Greek word, moichao, that is commonly translated as “adultery,” as it is, for example in the NIV translation of Matthew 5:32. Since the author of Matthew uses moichao, it is unlikely porneia means simply “adultery.”)

There is more about divorce in the Gospels. In Mark 10:2-12 and Matthew 19:3-12, we get two very similar but not identical accounts of an exchange in which some Pharisees test Jesus by asking him “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” In both accounts the Pharisees cite Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) as saying that it was permitted for a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away, and have Jesus saying (following Genesis 2:24) that “what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew’s version has Jesus, again, add the “except for immorality” escape clause to the prohibition on divorce and remarriage.

To this list of important New Testament verses about divorce we should also note Paul’s guidance in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: “¹⁰To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. ¹¹But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” Paul is apparently referring to the same accounts that the Gospels tell, or at least so most Bible commentators have assumed.

There are differences we can note among these various passages, but the overall New Testament guidance is pretty clear: divorce is not right, and remarriage is adultery pure and simple.

And yet we accommodate ourselves to divorce and remarriage, do we not? Be honest now: do we not?

We welcome to our churches and invite into leadership those who have divorced and remarried. (I say this as a person who is divorced and remarried.) The Richmond Declaration speaks of marriage as “an engagement for life,” but says nothing further about divorce or remarriage. I am unaware of any IYM Minute declaring divorce or remarriage as sins.

What should we make of this posture when we rail firmly against other sins?

One possibility is to admit that we have simply been weak and wrong in this matter. On this possibility we should acknowledge that we have accommodated ourselves to practices that are sinful, and we should recommit ourselves to taking the Biblical guidance fully and seriously. Down this road, we would declare divorce and remarriage to be (both) sinful practices, expecting those who do these things to repent, and expecting those who have divorced either to reunite with their spouses, or else to remain celibate for the rest of their days, providing appropriate material support to the spouse from whom they live apart.

There is another possibility, one that begins by asking the purpose of the Biblical instruction against allowing divorce and remarriage. Surely that guidance is intended to discourage wanton lust and instead to focus our sexual desire on one person to whom we have a steadfast commitment. In a world where women have no independent rights and are always under the dominion of men, the prohibition of divorce serves a second purpose, to prevent men taking advantage of women and casting them adrift without any means of support. Such male dominion was a solid feature not only of the Old Testament world but also of the world in which Jesus preached and the New Testament was written.

Today we have a different understanding of the proper relationship between men and women, one in which there is mutual respect and equality before the law. Men no longer have unquestioned dominion over wives and unmarried daughters. Women can hold property and aspire to positions outside the home once reserved exclusively for men. The prohibition against divorce no longer serves that second purpose to nearly the same extent.

In a world where women have a measure of equality with men, another purpose for the prohibition against divorce comes into view: we want to encourage enduring intimacy between married couples. So today, recognizing that achieving such intimacy can be difficult, we counsel against divorce because we want married couples to try hard to work through differences and conflicts. Often, we believe, a truer intimacy can be achieved.

But, today, we don’t say never to divorce. Instead, recognizing intimacy as the essential core of marriage, we acknowledge that sometimes married couples come to a place where they conclude, and we conclude with them, that intimacy simply is not possible. In these cases we resign ourselves to divorce, and we encourage both parties to seek new partners, new marriages, in order to achieve that intimacy we believe they should seek.

Recognizing intimacy as the essential core of marriage still leads us to counsel against divorce. But it also leads us to tolerate divorce when people have honestly tried, but failed, to make a marriage work. Then what we ask of them is neither reconciliation nor a life of celibacy. Instead we ask of them to seek enduring intimacy again.

Honestly, I believe this is our true understanding of divorce today. It is why we welcome divorced people in our churches, even encouraging them into positions of leadership. I do not believe it is simply a lack of courage or fortitude that leads us to a different understanding than the literal texts of the New Testament.

If we believe the experience of intimacy is essential, if we believe it is a core purpose of marriage, then do we not want this experience to be available to everyone, even same sex couples? If the literal texts of the New Testament do not lead us to be absolutists on divorce, why do the literal texts of the New Testament lead us to absolutist condemnation of homosexuality?

0 members like this

Comment by Marianna Boncek on 7th mo. 3, 2012 at 5:14pm: Doug, thank you so much for "speaking my mind" on this issue. Though I am not from Indiana, I am deeply pained to watch this division occur. Quaker testimonies tell us what is true in the world. We don't need a bible to know what is true, that is what the testimonies are all about. If something is true it is true without a book, including the bible. I know that love is true. Love is the greatest truth. When you know lesbian and gay couples and watch them live the truth of love, you have no doubt that meetings should bless them and accept them with no reservations. I don't need the bible to define love, marriage or any other covenant relationship. I am witness to it. Let's keep living in love. It is the language of the spirit.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 4, 2012 at 12:19pm: And I remain saddened by people who think the message of the Bible is to afflict ourselves with inflexible constraints.

If I had stayed with the first woman who came close to being a wife, I may well have had a happier life. (But I was emotionally clueless and in a long-term unrecognized panic at the time, and had already ruined my academic prospects as a result.) If I hadn't afterwards married a woman unsuitable to me ( and me to her!) through guilt and loneliness, I might have been spared a long period of having my life and creativity ground underfoot. Her subsequent rejection of me was a blessing. If none of this had happened, or if Anne hadn't come to feel, about her first husband: "I would do anything for that man except live with him another twenty years -- I would have missed these last 30-odd years with this odd and wonderful little person.

Has this been easy on the children involved? Probably no worse than the scars inflicted on us by the parents who'd inexplicably gritted their teeth and remained to fight to the death over our necessarily ungrateful little selves.. . "Hardness of heart" doesn't come from putting persons above institutional arrangements -- though often times this will be what throws them bloodily out from institutions intended for our happiness. Forgetting that "The sabbath was made for human beings, not the other way around," is often a contributing factor.

Love and reconciliation, yes. Imprisonment, no.

Comment by Mackenzie on 7th mo. 5, 2012 at 12:58pm: Barbara:

In Baltimore Yearly Meeting, each Monthly Meeting decides about same sex relationships itself. IIRC, a defunct Quarterly Meeting put out a statement in favor of same sex marriage some years ago, and most Monthly Meetings have found unity with it, and a few have not.

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 8th mo. 2, 2012 at 10:25pm: I actually think that divorce is wrong and sinful, and I don't think that intimacy is the right core of marriage. However, I think that before we start counseling people to never divorce and remain celibate if their spouse divorces them, we need to offer a few things: rigorous pre-marriage counseling and robust clearness committees AND consistent marriage support.

The fact of the matter is, divorce is often a disaster. Women are the hardest hit, but both men and women suffer from higher rates of poverty and greater likelihood of death from all causes than their non-divorced peers. Children who grow up without mom in the home suffer from worse health outcomes; children who grow up without dad in the home have greater rates of delinquency, mental illness, teen pregnancy and dropping out of school. Marriage isn't just about the adults involved and the feelings they experience.

With all of these ill effects, I think that "intimacy" as the main goal of marriage seems selfish and short-sighted. The degree of intimacy that a couple experiences waxes and wanes naturally. How low does it have to be to justify a divorce? How do we know when intimacy is "no longer possible"? Is that like saying that we believe in peace, until it's no longer possible, at which point we pick up our guns and shoot? Isn't God capable of all things, including healing troubled marriages?

But this is where the work comes in: couples married under the care of a meeting should be willing to submit - to each other, to God, to the discipline of the Meeting. The meeting should support them and be actively involved in nurturing their relationships. Without this support, it would be cruel to say that they could not divorce or remarry. But that doesn't make it right.

Woolman killing the chicks after he had killed their mother may have been better than leaving them alive. But it would have been better still not to kill their mother. The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. It may be merciful to permit divorce and remarriage. But it is far, far better to live in the Spirit that takes away the occasion for divorce.

Comment by Barbara Smith on 8th mo. 3, 2012 at 7:44am: Adria - You articulated some of my evolving concerns so well. Thank you. This is an area where the culture has become so accepting that we are no longer even thinking too hard about it. We all need to go back and listen prayerfully for God's will on divorce and all human relationships. But it is only now, at age 58 and 33 years of marriage that I can understand what the true basis of marriage is - and it's not intimacy.

You wrote:

This is the crux of the matter: lack of trust in God's help and power in all aspects of our lives!

Barb

Comment by Barbara Smith on 8th mo. 3, 2012 at 7:46am: Oops! My last post is not complete. I forgot to include what you wrote that I was commenting on! And that was:

Amen!
Barb

Comment by Marianna Boncek on 8th mo. 3, 2012 at 8:16am: Divorce is neither wrong nor sinful. Just because two people divorce doesn't mean their relationship didn't work. It just means it is over. Yes, often times divorce is a "disaster" but just like anything else difficult done in life, it is is done with forethought, love and care it can work out. I know many marriages that are disasters. I am divorced now over 15 years. I am very good friends with my ex-husband. We co-parented while divorced. My ex has a new partner, as do I, and we all get along and even go on vacations together with the kids (even though they are now grown themselves) It would have been wrong--and therefore sinful--to have stayed in a relationship that was not working and could not work. I know that God does not want people to be unhappy. I don't think there are any "brownie points" in heaven for staying in a bad relationship. I look at my own parents, married almost sixty years and they absolutely hate each other. I seriously can't believe that is God's will.

Comment by Barbara Smith on 8th mo. 3, 2012 at 9:17am: For some reason my cut/pastes are not coming through! Anyway, here, once again, is the section I tried to copy out of Adria's post:

"How do we know when intimacy is 'no longer possible'? Is that like saying we believe in peace until it's no longer possible, at which point we pick up our guns and shoot? Isn't God capable of ALL things, including healing troubled marriages?"

Now my "Amen"!

(Sorry for the multiple posts.)
Barb

Comment by Marianna Boncek on 8th mo. 3, 2012 at 10:03am: God is capable of all things. It doesn't mean that he wants "all things." We are human and,as such, are not perfect. It is in God's mercy to allow us to correct our mistakes and move on to healthy, happy, relationships.

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 8th mo. 3, 2012 at 10:31am: Marianna, I certainly agree with you that our loving Father doesn't want us to be miserable. But he doesn't want us to be liars, either! When we promise do be loving and faithful spouses as long as we both shall live, God expects us to do it (think," testimony of integrity"). Thankfully, he doesn't leave us on our own: he gives us his strength and patience and comfort to rely on.

Now, you have said your parents hated each other and remained married. This is not God's vision of marriage. But what if your mother had loved your father, or vice versa? What if one had given gifts or planned romantic meals or bought tickets to see the other's favorite performer? What if, fortified by God's love, one of your parents had made plans for the dream vacation that the other had always wanted to take? Mightn't this have rekindled the love in the other one's heart?

I am not talking about getting brownie points with God. I am talking about saying to God: " Lord, I don't feel loving right now. My spouse is treating me unfairly and my heart is cold. But you loved me while I was a sinner. So help me to act loving and share your grace with my spouse, even though I don't really feel like it." And guess what? Praying for your spouse makes it easier to love! Acting loving makes it easier to feel loving! God doesn't leave us to work out our marriages alone- he will help us!
It isn't about suffering and "making martyrs of ourselves." It is about trusting God to see us through!

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.