Ethics and Justice. Part 1: Introduction to the Modes of Moral Reasoning

We, in the western world, live in an age that has been described as “Post-Christian.” In other words, we live in a time when the moral compass of Judeo-Christian values no longer guides people. It is no longer the default mode of human behaviour. We live in a morally confused time.

Here's an example: I am a big James Bond fan. I can name all the movies, in order, and analyze each one, and compare them to the books, and so on - its fascinating stuff. The Bond films follow a successful formula - glamorized violence, drinking, murder and mayhem, nudity, and gratuitous sex scenes. However, when “Die Another Day” was released, one scene in particular caused a firestorm of controversy. In one scene, James Bond lights up a cigar with a Cuban gangster. Anti-smoking groups around the world went hysterical! How dare he glamorize the evil of smoking? Illicit sex, drug use, murder, and theft receive far less condemnation than lighting up a cigar!

Another example of this state of moral confusion is PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) campaign to fight what they see as the evils of raising and killing chickens for food. Their campaign is called, "A Holocaust on Your Plate." Posters show chickens in a pen on one side, and on the other side is a picture of Jews cramped into a railway boxcar on the way to Auschwitz. When you morally equate the killing of chickens for food with the genocide of Europe's Jews, you are in a state of moral chaos!

Ethics and morality have shifted from the micro to the macro. For example, teenagers who think it perfectly okay to download music and software without paying (stealing) would never think about not recycling! So ethics are whatever is good for the planet, not what I have to do in relation to other people. When values are separated from God moral chaos ensues. Only a set of values independent of God could lead people to believe that people burned alive, slowly frozen to death, medically experimented on, stripped naked and machine-gunned family by family, forced to watch their children die, or slowly suffocated in gas-chambers suffer no more than chickens! This is the state of moral confusion that exists in a world where you and I are called on to make ethical decisions, to choose between right and wrong; good and evil, and then to act on those choices.

Imagine that you are a Senior in college. You are about to graduate. All your hard, diligent work is about to pay off. You are engaged to the prettiest girl in the school, and you’re planning to get married as soon as you graduate – her mother is already planning the wedding. And money is no problem anymore – after four years of Ramen noodles and cold pizza for breakfast, you have a job lined up. An advertising agency has offered you a position in their marketing department with a starting salary of $80 000, and to make the deal really sweet, because you have been such a great student, and because they recognize your potential, they are throwing in a new BMW as your company car. But, of course, all this – the marriage, the job, the money, the car, the respect – depends entirely on your graduating. No graduation, and its all off – a deal breaker.

And so you go in to register for your final semester. You do one final degree audit, and your advisor tells you that you missed a Freshman Literature class that is required, so you’ll need to take it. You reluctantly sign up because you need to graduate. Now understand that this class has nothing to do with your major - business and marketing. You sign up for an American literature class in which you study that great novel – Moby Dick, which you have to read in its entirety. But you’re too busy with other things – really important things, to actually read the book, so what do you do? Well, you watch both movies – the old one, and the new Patrick Stewart one, you read the Cliff notes, but you do not actually read the book. And then comes the final exam, and you are prepared. You know all about Moby Dick. This is going to be an easy A – a great ending to your stellar academic career. However, when you get the exam you notice there is only one question: “Did you read the book?” And it is required that you answer truthfully. The teacher makes a very moving speech about honesty, and integrity, and self-respect, and honour. “Did you read the book?”

Now let’s consider your actions:

1) If you answer truthfully and say, “no,” you will fail the exam, not graduate, lose the job, lose the BMW, and ruin the wedding plans.
2) If you say “yes,” you will be lying, dishonouring yourself; you will be guilty of purposeful deception – something the Bible strongly condemns!

What would you do?

I brought up this scenario to illustrate the kinds of ethical dilemmas we face everyday. Not terribly important, not life or death. Our decisions will not affect millions of people. Do we pay the nickel for the mint at the restaurant checkout, or do we just take it and walk out? Those are the types of ethical decisions most people face everyday.

There are really two modes of moral reasoning that we’re going to explore in this series:

1) Consequentialist moral reasoning. Here morality is located in the consequences of an act. Right or wrong depends on the OUTCOME.
2) Categorical moral reasoning. Here morality is located in certain categorical duties and rights, regardless of the consequences or outcome.

My purpose in this series is for us to look within ourselves and ask, “What kind of person am I?” Moral people, when faced with a decision of right or wrong do not ask, “Now what’s the right thing to do? What rule applies here?” They ask, “What kind of person am I? How has faith in God shaped my character?” Moral people will do the right thing instinctively because they are moral people, and because their value system is grounded in the life and character of God.

Set Me Free!

What is freedom? Much of our political philosophy as Americans is based on the presupposition that all people yearn to “breath free.” This is what it means to be created in the Image of God. We are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This is the trinity of choice. Freedom, we reason, must therefore be the absence of obstacles to doing what we want. But what if freedom has a much more stringent moral dimension?

Much of human activity vis-à-vis our notions of freedom involve seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. But this way of living is not really free – it is simply serving our desires. Let me give you an example. Last week two of my students took me to Yogurtland – a new, self-serve frozen yogurt store. They have multiple flavors, and you are “free to choose” any flavor or combination of flavors. Here are some flavors I could choose from: vanilla, strawberry, pistachio, peanut butter, green tea, and pumpkin pie. Of those flavors, the only ones that appealed to me where strawberry and pistachio. In yogurt form, the other flavors are nasty! So my “choice” at the yogurt stand was simply satisfying a built-in preference, a preference which I never chose to begin with. There is nothing wrong with acting according to our built-in preferences and desires, but it is not acting freely.

So, can one be held morally responsible for actions that fall outside of our ability to choose freely? Suppose I am pushed from the roof of a ten-story building and land on another person and kill that person. I cannot be held morally responsible for their death since I cannot choose to not follow the law of gravity. Think about the language you speak? Did you choose English? Did someone who was born in Russia choose to speak Russian? Of course not! What about your set of beliefs? What about your religious identity? Given that we inherit genetic defects from our parents, do we really choose to be healthy – or obese, or depressed? The truth is that we have far less choice than we realize.

But how far can we take this way of thinking about freedom and choices vis-à-vis moral responsibility? If someone is molested as a child, for example, can they be held morally responsible for deviant behavior as an adult? Here, then, is the link between freedom and morality. To act freely in a moral sense is not simply to choose the best means to reach a pre-existing end (the satisfaction of built-in desires). To act freely is to choose a new end for its own sake. This ability to rise above our instincts is what sets humans apart from animals. Back to Yogurtland. True freedom of choice is rejecting my desire to eat pistachio over pumpkin pie, walk out of the store, fast for a day, and then send $50 to feed hungry children in Africa.

MLK Nobel Peace Speech - 1964

Watch this, and really listen. This speech is timeless, and should give you chills as long as there is injustice in this world!

“Keep Your Government Hands off my Medicare” and other Logical Contradictions

Last year I attended the Southlake TEA Party. It was fun, I suppose, in a sort of, “So this is how wealthy white people protest?” kind of way. Even the handful of counter-protesters were charming. Remember, it’s Southlake! One guy, dressed like a clown, held a sign that read, “Ignorance is underrated.” It was a fun-and-games type cheerful environment that balmy April morning. But, 2009 seems like so long ago now. The movement has evolved since then. In many ways I relate to the TEA Party’s critique of the fiscal excesses of the Federal government. I agree with the best American instincts that the movement represents – freedom, self-reliance, and limited government. So, it is with some sadness that I predict the TEA Party will self-destruct before the next presidential election. Liberals should leave them alone and watch.

Look at those pictures. “Keep Govt out of my Medicare.” “Don’t Steal From Medicare to Support Socialized Medicine.” Really? When I first saw those kinds of signs I laughed out loud. What else can you do? It’s what I call a “piñata of asininity.” But over the course of the past year, those signs got me thinking. The inherent weakness of the TEA Party is that it rests ideologically on the fault line of a logical contradiction. Last week Sarah Palin bemoaned the fact that 47 percent of Americans pay no Federal income tax at all. I scratched my head. The “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already,” so isn’t it good that 47 percent of us pay no income tax? What does Palin want? More people to pay more taxes?

Those kinds of statements and anecdotes won’t destroy the movement; they just make the spokespersons look stupid. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since this kind of populism feeds on anti-intellectual sentiments and the eschewing of “elitism.” So what contradiction will destroy the movement? There are two separate ideological strains running through the heart of the TEA Party. The first is libertarianism. As a political philosophy, libertarianism is pure. It believes in limited government. Period. Government exists only to protect the life, liberty, and property of the individual. Nothing else. In Ayn Rand’s libertarian epic “Atlas Shrugged,” the hero, Galt, an inventor disgusted by creeping American collectivism, leads the country’s capitalists on a strike. “We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers,” Galt lectures the “moochers” who make up the populace. “We have no demands to present you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.” “Atlas Shrugged” was published 52 years ago, but in the Obama era, Rand’s angry message is more resonant than ever before. Sales of the book have spiked since being heavily plugged by Glenn Beck. At TEA parties and other conservative protests, you will find signs reading “Atlas Shrugs” and “Rand Was Right.”

The second strain is social and religious conservatism. These are evangelicals who have become politically active. I know these people. They are my “clan.” And trust me, they do not want limited government – they want government to enforce their brand of morality in what they believe is a “Christian nation.” These are the people who supported George W. Bush. And there lies the problem. Libertarians will readily say that “W” is the worst President this country has ever had!

So let’s run through the issues: War in Iraq? Social conservatives generally supported the war, and continue to support our military intervention in other countries. They love the military, and will lash out at anyone who does not “support the troops.” Libertarians do not support the war, have an isolationist view of military intervention, and generally see our invasion of Iraq as a military and diplomatic blunder. What about drugs? Social conservatives support the “war on drugs” and seek even tighter laws and crackdowns. This is a moral issue to them. Libertarians support the legalization of drugs, particularly marijuana. For them it’s cut and dry – it’s none of the government’s business what you put into your own body. Speaking of your own body, what about abortion? This is the hallmark issue of social and religious conservatives. Overturning Roe v Wade is a crusade. In the meantime, they attempt every way possible to make abortion more restrictive. There is no issue bigger than the rights of the unborn. Libertarians are pro-choice to the extreme. Its the woman’s body – what she chooses to do with it is between her and her doctor. Period. And then there’s the ubiquitous issue of gay rights, particularly gay marriage. Naturally, social and religious conservatives abhor the idea and fight it on every front. They claim to protect the “institution of marriage.” Well, not them, but the government. Again, libertarians do not balk. Their understanding of limited government says that it’s not the government’s business, and thus gay marriage is perfectly okay. Social and religious conservatives and libertarians are like oil and water – they do not mix!

The only thing keeping this alliance together at the moment is an outlandish and irrational hatred of Obama. I have often wondered why he has to be so vilified without letting up for a moment. Now I see it. Social conservatives and libertarians must have a common enemy, and that enemy must be as insidious as possible. He has to be a “socialist.” He’s “the most radical president we’ve ever had.” He’s “anti-American.” He wasn’t even born here! Hatred of Obama is the glue that holds the movement together. But it’s a weak bond. It cannot last. I have a strong feeling that before the next presidential election the TEA Party will self-destruct in an ideological explosion of bitter wrangling and in fighting.

My Last Sermon

On Sunday, August 10, 2008 I preached the following sermon at the Kaufman Church of Christ. I never got an opportunity to preach part 2. This is irony defined - particularly the Eugene Peterson quote at the end. It's almost as if no one in the audience heard a single word. Please take the time to read - and enjoy:


BAGGAGE CLAIM (Part 1)

Scripture Reading: Psalm 51:1-17
“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place. Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice. Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity. Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you. Save me from bloodguilt, O God, the God who saves me, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”

Introduction:
- How many of you have taken a trip recently where you have had to pack a bag and check it with an airline?
- How many of you have done that and your baggage has taken a different trip? You went to Chicago, but your bags went to Hawaii – for no good reason other than the person who checked you in was in a bad mood or they were having a bad hair day or something?
- Now, how many of you have taken trips to other countries where you had one or more connections before your final destination?
- And it is a terrible thing to wonder, “Where are my bags?”

- This happened to me on my last trip out of the country. This was not a complicated return route – nothing like going to Zambia – I went to Zambia one year, and this was the route: Dallas to London to Entebbe in Uganda, to Nairobi Kenya, to Harare Zimbabwe, to Lilongwe Malawi, and then we drove over the border into Zambia!!!
- But my last trip wasn’t like that - we checked our bags in Johannesburg, picked it up in Washington, DC, went through customs, and then handed it over to the TSA people to recheck onto our Washington to Dallas flight – and it was at that point that my luggage got lost. After all those crummy airports in all those crummy African countries, my bags got lost in Washington!

- Because we only had 30 minutes to do all this – not that I mind this kind of pressure – I can run through an airport with the best of travelers – completely undignified – sweat pouring off me, shirt half tucked, shoe laces undone – clutching my little Ziploc bag with fluids and gels in 3 ounce containers, yelling “1 more, 1 more for Dallas!”

- We made it onto that flight, and we got to Dallas right on time, but one of my bags did not – b/c the customs people, and the TSA people, and the United Airlines people, at 6:30 in the morning, just didn’t seem to have the same sense of urgency that I had.
- So here I am at DFW airport, the last person left watching that baggage carousel go round and round and round, still wearing the same clothing that I’ve had on for two days!
- So now, my dream, and the dream of thousands of travelers, especially now b/c you have to pay more, is to say, “NO,” when asked, at the check-in, “Do you have any bags to check today Mr. North?”

- But you know the problem, don’t you? None of us can make a trip without baggage of some kind.
- So a lot of travelers only take a small carry on bag and they pretend that they’re flying baggage free.
- Now this idea may work on United Airlines, but it will never fly in real life.

- And unfortunately, through the years, people have come to think that in the church you better not have any real baggage, and if you do, you had better keep it tucked under the pew in front of you so no one can see it because baggage is embarrassing and cumbersome.

- I have heard the welcome and call to worship at some churches extended this way: “Come in here and leave all your problems and struggles outside.”
WHAT? WHY? That’s nonsense! God is not interested in a phony plastic sliver of 1 hour of your life – He wants it all!

- And what I would like to do today is to invite you to claim your baggage because if there is any place in this world where people ought to be able to come in and say, “I have baggage,” it ought to be around other people who claim Jesus as Lord!

- So here are some things to keep in mind:

1) All of us Have Baggage
- There is not one of us who doesn’t have hurts, difficulties, hang-ups, or bitter disappointments lurking somewhere in our lives - and some of it stinks to high heaven, but we’re taught to walk in here and pretend like we have no baggage – that’s why we have “church clothes.”
- I remember getting my first 3-piece suit when I was only 6 – it had a clip on tie, and that’s what I wore to church – and now I understand that there are mental “church clothes” people put on – at home at 9 o’clock it’s, “Hurry up woman, turn out that light, put that down, will you kids get in the car – daddy, you’re speeding! Hush up, I’m teaching Bible class!”

- And the whole family arrives with their hair standing on end, ready to kill each other, and then the door of the minivan opens, and it’s “Hello brother Roy. Good morning Charles, how are you? Fine, Fine – Come on kids, put your baggage away, it’s time for Bible Class.”

- That is an insidious thing because pretty soon people really start to think that church folks have no baggage, no problems, our kids are perfect, everything is peachy, we’re the best dressed people in town, and the preacher stands there with weapons-grade perkiness, and that can’t be real!

- Which is why we learn a very important thing about ourselves in a short letter John wrote to the Ephesian church (Read 1st John 1:8-10):
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”

- If you claim you have no baggage, who are you deceiving? God? No! You deceive yourself!

- When you say, “I have sins, and here’s what they are b/c this burden is too heavy to carry,” it’s wonderful to hear God say, “Come to me all who are weary, and I will give you rest.”
- But this is where we run into a big problem:

2) All of us Learn Early to Hide it Well
- You remember the story, don’t you? A man and a woman in a garden. Eve eats the fruit, and then Adam does as well, and now they have both sinned, but I always wondered, “what’s the deal with the fig leaf cover up?” I mean, it’s not like they’re at the mall. They’re married! They’ve seen it all before!
- But isn’t it interesting that humanity’s first reaction to sin was to cover it up and try to hide.

- But you know how the story goes – and it’s the same today.
- You cannot come here on a Sunday morning wearing your little fig leaf and hide from God – you are only deceiving yourself, because you’re not fooling the rest of the people here.

- And I know what so many people think – “If you saw my baggage you wouldn’t want me in your church, you wouldn’t welcome me into your Home Team.”
- And listen, I can sympathize with those feelings, and when you admit that, you learn something about grace – you learn that you can’t have it until you know you can’t live without it!

3) Pretending Like we don’t have any baggage doesn’t make it easier to carry
- Because that feeling of constantly having to dodge and cover up is oppressive and impossible to keep up.

Illus:
- I remember one Sunday morning – Holly was fixing her hair, and I had some free time – now don’t ask me why, but I was wrestling with the cat on the living room floor!
- Well, the cat bit my nose!
- Now we’re about to leave for church, I have to preach, and I have a bloody gash on my face! That was the day I discovered makeup! Base. But I was stuck with it, because I had to put it on again that night, and then Wed. night until the scratch was healed.

- Once you cover something up you have to keep covering it up, and soon you’ll be too scared to go camping with people because they might see you without your makeup!
- We live in a world where people value authenticity, and can spot a fake a mile away.

Conclusion:
From Eugene Peterson:
“The churches of Revelation show us that churches are not Victorian parlors where everything is always picked up and ready for guests. They are messy family rooms. Entering a person’s house unexpectedly, we are sometimes met with a barrage of apologies. St. John does not apologize. Things are out of order, to be sure, but that is what happens to churches that are lived in. They are not show rooms. They are living rooms, and if the persons living in them are sinners, there are going to be clothes scattered about, handprints on the woodwork, and mud on the carpet. For as long as Jesus insists on calling sinners and not the righteous to repentance – and there is no indication as yet that he has changed his policy in that regard – churches are going to be an embarrassment to the fastidious and an affront to the upright.”

- In Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus offers this invitation:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Christians and Divorce. Part 2.

Over the course of my ministry in three separate churches, I was surrounded by people who needed answers to questions raised by divorce and remarriage. Divorced men and women asked me to conduct their weddings, having been denied in other churches. Some deacons had been divorced and remarried. Should they be thrown out of church leadership? We would lose people I considered some of the most spiritual in the church, people with exemplary Christian homes and marriages. Of course, I never dreamed that someday these hurts and hang-ups would affect me so personally. So, what does the Bible really say?

The New Testament presents us with a problem in understanding what the text says about divorce and its real-world implications. Jesus seems to say that divorce is allowed only if adultery has occurred: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). However, this has been interpreted in different ways. Most Christians say that Jesus allows divorce only for adultery. Beyond what Jesus says, Paul also allows divorce. He permits it for abandonment by a nonbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Yet some, including myself, have found this teaching difficult to accept, because it seems so cruel in certain situations. It suggests there can be no divorce for physical or emotional abuse. As a result, some Christians ignore this teaching or find ways around it. For example, when Jesus talked about “adultery,” perhaps he included other things like abuse.

But does the literal understanding of the text mean what we think it does? If you read the texts like a first-century Jew would have read them, those confusing passages make more sense. One of the most dramatic shifts centers on a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” (Matt. 19:3). A few decades before Jesus’ time, rabbi Hillel had invented a new form of divorce called the “any cause” divorce. By Jesus’ time, this “any cause” divorce had become so popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament grounds for divorce. The “any cause” divorce was derived from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1. Moses allowed divorce for “a cause of immorality.” Rabbi Hillel and his disciples argued that anything, including a burnt meal, could be a cause! They said that the text taught that divorce was allowed both for adultery and for “any cause.” In Texas we call this a “no fault” divorce.

Another sect of rabbis (disciples of Shimei) disagreed with this interpretation. These opposing views were well known to all first-century Jews. And the Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood. “Is it lawful to divorce your wife for any cause?” they asked. In other words: “Is it lawful for us to use the ‘any cause’ divorce?” When Jesus answered “no,” he was condemning the newly invented and rather chauvinistic, “any cause” divorce. Jesus agreed with rabbi Shimei. It meant they couldn't get a divorce whenever they wanted it - there had to be a lawful cause. It also meant that virtually every divorced man or women was not really divorced, because most of them had “any cause” divorces. Matthew summarized the whole debate in one sentence: Any divorced person who remarried was committing adultery (Matt. 5:32), because they were still married. It may not be obvious to us, but their first readers understood clearly what they meant.

Within a few decades, however, no one understood these terms any more. Language and cultural contexts often change quickly. The early church, and even Jewish rabbis, forgot what the “any cause” divorce was, because soon after the days of Jesus, it became the only type of divorce. It was simply called “divorce.” This meant that when Jesus condemned “divorce for ‘any cause,’” later generations thought he meant “divorce for any cause.” Confused? Look at the quotation marks – these are vastly different phrases.

Jesus was simply rejecting a faulty Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. Also, Jesus didn't reject the other ground for divorce in the Old Testament, which all Jews accepted. The church eventually forgot the other cause for divorce, but every Jew in Jesus' time knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Exodus says that everyone had rights within a marriage. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse, usually the wife, had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. In later Jewish and Christian marriages, the language of covenant became more formal, such as “love, honor, and keep.” In other words, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce. In Jewish life, and all of Jesus’ teaching took place within that context, anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce. According to Paul, this includes abandonment. In 1st Cor.7 he says that the abandoned person is “no longer bound.”

When we put all this together we have a clear and consistent set of rules for divorce and remarriage. Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:

Adultery (Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
Emotional and physical neglect (Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)
Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)

Couples list these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage vows. When these vows are broken, it threatens the marriage. As in any broken contract, the wronged party has the right to say, “I forgive you; let's carry on,” or, “I can't go on, because this marriage is broken.” While divorce should ideally never happen, God allows it (and subsequent remarriage) when the marriage vows are broken. Victims of broken marriages can see that God's law is both practical and loving. Trust me – this is a painful truth that I have learned the hard way.

Christians and Divorce

Note: This and other posts may cause people to say that I have too much of a vested interest to be objective. The only thing I can say is that I may have a vested interest, but that doesn't make it less true. If truth is measured on a sliding scale of subjectivity, then nothing can ever be true. The fact that I have a vested interest only means that I have struggled with this issue with both my head and my heart.

Many religious people believe that for the past generation, America has been in a moral decline. Whenever conservatives describe this decline, they include the high divorce rate, along with crime and out-of-wedlock births, as prime examples. I believe they are wrong. Dennis Prager tells a story that happened to him when he used to moderate a show called “Religion on the Line.” Each week for two hours the guests were a Protestant minister, Roman Catholic priest and rabbi (different ones each week), as well as representatives of virtually every other faith. One night, the topic was divorce – “What is your religion's view on divorce?” The Protestant minister spoke against divorce and noted that, “people get divorced too quickly.” The priest then said virtually the same thing, and the rabbi agreed. After each spoke, Dennis asked the minister if he knew anyone who had divorced. “Well,” he said, “my brother is getting a divorce right now.” “And do you feel that he is getting divorced too quickly?” Dennis asked. He then explained that his brother and sister-in-law had tried counseling for many years to no avail, and that their home was a deeply troubled one. Dennis then asked the priest if he knew anyone well who had divorced. He responded that his mother had divorced many years ago. “Do you feel that she divorced too quickly?” “Not at all,” he said, adding that the divorce liberated her from a toxic relationship. Dennis then asked the rabbi if he knew anyone well who had divorced. And, sure enough, his parents had divorced many years earlier, and he was convinced that it enabled him and his mother to become happier people because the home was so depressed. This scenario is typical. Whenever people say, “People get divorced too easily,” they mean “other people.”

Of course, many divorced people should have stayed together, just as there are couples who stay together who should get divorced. But social conservatives look foolish when they say that except for adultery and spousal beating (and many reluctantly agree to this because it is not “biblical”), no one should get divorced and that the divorce rate necessarily exemplifies a society in moral decline. It is simply not true. A truly bad marriage is like life imprisonment, and innocent people do not deserve such a punishment. Second, it only takes one person to divorce. Assuming that all divorced people sought their divorce is as untrue as it is unfair. Fifty percent of marriages may end in divorce, but only fifty percent of those wanted the divorce. Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce's cost to society is minimal. Furthermore, I believe it is far better for society to have people marry and divorce than never to marry. When people marry, they tend to mature, and society desperately needs grownups! Fourth, regarding children and divorce, the effects of divorce usually depend on what happens before, during, and after a couple divorces. By far, the worst consequence of divorce is the large number of fathers who voluntarily or involuntarily (because of selfish ex-wives) leave the lives of their children. When both parents stay thoroughly involved in their children's lives, sharing physical as well as legal custody, the adverse effects of divorce can be minimized, and depending on how bad things were prior to the divorce, a child's life can actually improve. Divorce doesn’t screw kids up; screwed up parents screw kids up!

Let me be clear. I believe that most marriages should never come apart; that every good marriage has periods of alienation and anger; that people must ride these tough waves and try to improve their marriage. But I would not lump divorce statistics with crime and out-of-wedlock births as a barometer of social pathology. There are simply too many exceptions to the rule that people get divorced too easily. Like the clergy on Dennis’ show, I feel that almost every divorced person I know (including myself) deserves sympathy more than contempt. Let's vigorously promote good marriages but have no more knee-jerk condemnations of divorce. It is these condemnations, more than divorces themselves, that are made too easily.

PS: I have purposefully left out textual arguments concerning divorce. This post makes a societal point, not a textual one. However, remember my golden rule for interpreting the Bible: Scripture is supposed to make you smarter and kinder. If your understanding of the text makes you stupid and less kind, you are wrong! That principle applies especially to texts like Matthew 19. Be kind and compassionate . . . and smart.