Several years ago, our church leadership was asked to undertake a reassessment of what
had been a longstanding, but unwritten, stipulation for the selection of
deacons: anyone who had been divorced could not be considered for a deaconate
position. It was not merely an academic question for us: there were two men in
our congregation who were men of outstanding character and showed clear signs
of giftedness in leadership, discernment, and teaching, but they both had been
divorced and remarried before coming to know Christ, and so had never been
considered for the deaconate (though they would have been at the top of
everyone’s list if the no-divorce rule was gone). So we approached the subject
through careful study, knowing that our first step would be to tackle the
ethics of divorce itself—specifically the thorny question of whether it is
morally permissible to divorce.
This question is thorny for several
reasons. First, because it almost always misses the larger point. Second, because it
has a tendency to expose our biases rather quickly, whether they tend toward
legalism or permissiveness. And third, because the New Testament answers to
that question are not without their gray areas.
To put this matter in the clear context of
an ethical question, though, we ought to begin with a statement of our basic
convictions on the subject, since that is where our principles and rules will
flow from. As regards the character of God, we can affirm that our convictions
tell us that God is a God who enacts permanent covenants of love with others
(and that we, as Christians who ought to image forth God’s character to the
world, ought to do the same)—thus we hold to a basic conviction of marriage,
derived from Scripture, that it was intended by God to be a lifelong covenantal
union which stands as a theological sign for the love of God. On the other
hand, though, we also affirm a basic conviction that God is a God of compassion
for the broken, and especially for those who are being subjected to injustice
(including, one would imagine, spouses suffering under abusive conditions from
their partners).
With our basic convictions in place, we
then turn to the relevant Scriptural passages to try and discern and clear
“principles,” and, if possible, “rules.” We begin with the earliest Gospel
account of this question, addressed in Mark 10:2-12. In this passage some
Pharisees ask the question of Jesus “whether it is lawful for a man to divorce
his wife.” The clear answer to the question as stated would be “Yes” (cf. Deut.
24), but the parallel synoptic passages make clear that what they are really
asking is the hotly-debated question in 1st-century Judaism of under
what specific conditions it is permissible for a man to divorce his wife. There
were two rival schools of thought on this question, championed on each side by
the famous rabbis Hillel and Shammai, one side holding that almost any
imaginable cause was legitimate grounds for divorce, the other that only in
situations of marital infidelity could a man divorce his wife. Within the
practice of contemporary Judaism, it is important to understand, divorce was
almost always practiced as a means toward remarrying someone else (not many in
that culture would have thought the single life desirable). Jesus, however,
changes the rules of the game in his answer, focusing not on the Mosaic rule
where they were basing their practice (and Jesus also clarifies that that rule
was only a concession given by God, not an ideal), but focusing their attention
further back, on the early chapters of Genesis and the nature of marriage as
first enacted by God. In this light, Jesus affirms the marriage of two people
as something that God has done, and therefore not to be tampered with by
humans. In the following verses he then expounds further,
equating divorce-and-remarriage (most probably, what he has in view is divorce with intent to remarry) as tantamount to
adultery, and even (shockingly for his time), grants equality to the female
partner by declaring that such an act can be adultery against her, something that no other contemporary teacher had dared
to say (such questions were always phrased with the male in view).
A parallel passage occurs in Matt.19:3-9,
of which the most notable feature is that an exception clause has been added:
Jesus gives us once again his parallel between divorce/remarriage and adultery,
but this time says, “except for immorality,” an exception repeated in the
Sermon on the Mount version of the teaching, found in Matt. 5:31-32. (It is
worth noting, then, that when Jesus equates divorce/remarriage with adultery,
it does not represent a fully one-for-one parallel: while adultery is morally
impermissible without exception, divorce allows at least one exception.) A
further parallel is found in Luke 16:18, thrown in very quickly in the larger
passage and without any contextual setting, and this verse also records the
teaching that divorce/remarriage is tantamount to adultery (this time with no
exceptions stated). It ought to be noted that in all of these Gospel passages,
special stress is laid on the initiator of the divorce as the one who is most
morally culpable.
The final relevant bit of NT data comes
from 1 Cor. 7:10-16, where Paul touches on these teachings of Christ and then
expands them to deal with a scenario unaddressed by the Gospels—that of a
Christian married to an unbelieving spouse. Similarly to Jesus, Paul gives us a
very firm starting ground: don’t divorce or separate. But then he goes on to
soften it a bit…if you do separate, then don’t divorce; instead, seek
reconciliation. And, further: if your unbelieving spouse leaves you, then you
are not bound in that situation. Paul here shows a willingness to expand on the
basic rule by applying it to new situations and even to add a possible further
exception clause to the one given in Matthew.
With these verses in mind, what does the
main ethical principle seem to be? From both Jesus and Paul, it is clear that
the principle is to focus not on divorce first and foremost, but on
marriage—aim at creating lifelong, healthy marriages; and in the case of
discord, to seek reconciliation as our first impulse. The principle would seem
to be: “Love, and be reconciled to, your spouse, because marriage is a lifelong
union enacted by God.”
From the evidence of these verses, a few
“rules” can be posited. But, once again, we must point out that Jesus and Paul
both place their stress on the principle of marriage-and-reconciliation, not necessarily
on the rules. We need to keep in mind that sometimes a desire for clear-cut
rules is a desire to evade the spirit of the principle, and too often the
“rules” of divorce have led to Christians becoming (ironically) more legalistic than the Pharisees on
this particular issue. I would suggest a handful of possible guidelines:
1.)
One
ought not to divorce one’s spouse except in extreme cases (sexual infidelity or
abandonment, as well as abuse, criminal endangerment, or gross immorality). The
further exception for abuse, etc., represents my willingness to enter into the
spirit of the NT teaching on this subject, as Paul did, and try to relate it to
situations unaddressed by those texts. This exception derives from my basic
conviction in the character of God as a God of compassion for those suffering
injustice, as well as my personal experience in witnessing the devastation
wrought by such marriages, and the healing liberation that can come as a result
of a divorce from that union.
2.)
Even
in such extreme cases, separation with an aim to reconciliation is probably the
best first step.
3.)
If
that step fails (perhaps due to the unresponsiveness of the other partner),
divorce is permissible. The original OT law still stands as a God-given law—it
may be a concession to human “hardness of heart,” but the sad fact of the
matter is that even we Christians still need such concessions from time to
time. If divorce is undertaken in this kind of case—prompted by one of the
extreme affronts to the marital union mentioned above—then the divorcee is not
morally culpable. Even so, however, it is the place of all Christians to mourn
the tragic end of a union that was meant to be lifelong and holy.
4.)
If
a divorce is initiated by the other partner and not a result of any major
transgression by the one being divorced, then that person is not morally
culpable. As noted above, most of the NT texts specifically point out the
culpability of the initiator, not the one being divorced.
5.)
If
a divorce occurs in either of the cases of #3 or #4, the person should feel
free to remarry. Paul seems to leave this option open in his exception clause,
and Jesus might also (for the innocent party, not the offender/initiator). I
feel it is better to err on the side of grace, hoping for the possibility that
a second marriage can be a redemption, at least in part, of the experience of
the first (and I have seen just that sort of situation play out and bear
wonderful fruit in the life of a divorcee).
6.)
Further,
it seems reasonable that if a person divorces (and/or remarries) for any reason
before coming to faith in Christ, that
person ought not to be held responsible during his subsequent life as part of
the church for any sin thus entailed—“he is a new creation!”
Once this matter is in hand, one can then
address the question of congregational practice, specifically regarding
deacons. The key text here is 1 Timothy 3:12—“A deacon must be the husband of
but one wife/woman.” To put it briefly, it is not entirely clear what situation
the author is addressing—perhaps it is against polygamy (but that would not
have been a common practice at the time); perhaps against someone who has
divorced and remarried (but no one in that situation was commonly spoken of as
being “the husband of more than one wife”; he was seen as the husband of his
present wife alone); or perhaps against someone who had a wife and a concubine,
or a female slave used for sexual purposes (a more common failing
in that day). Without clarity on that point, one is forced merely to step back
from the text and note that the “big picture” is concerned with the prospective
deacon’s character. With this in view, our church decided to amend our informal
rule of previous years, and not to make divorce/remarriage an automatic veto
against someone being a deacon. Rather, we would progress on a case-by-case
basis and assess carefully the question of what the circumstances of that
divorce had to say about the prospective deacon’s character, if anything, and
then, if nothing further stood in their way, they could be nominated for the
position. The results of this decision, I’m happy to say, are currently bearing
wonderful fruit for the Kingdom of God in the leadership and ministry
of several of our new additions to the deaconate.