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.

Can You Sin on a Deserted Island?

Some time ago ACU professor, Richard Beck posed the question, “Can you sin on a deserted island?” I became weirdly fascinated with this question. Much of my thought here is borrowed from the discussion on his blog.

Most people I’ve spoken to say yes. Examples I've heard are: You can kill yourself. You can harm the environment. You can lust. You can blaspheme God. But these examples are a little forced. I suppose you can run around cutting down trees and killing monkeys, or commit suicide, or fantasize about someone not on the island, or even scream things at God. But these things don't seem to be typical “sins,” and I can get quite a theological argument going about the ethical meaning of “sinning in your heart.” At what point do thoughts become sins, and what gradation of sin? Further, if you saw this behavior on the island, I doubt your first thought would be, “That is a sin.” You'd probably think that the person went crazy, and thus it weakens any categorization of “sin.”

But now, let's imagine that there are two people on the island. Can you sin with another person? Now we can imagine all kinds of sin: Lies, stealing, violence. The whole point of the question is to make this painfully obvious: Sin is a social event. I think one of the worst mistakes in theology is to consider sin to be only, or even primarily, a God/human issue. The island question is trying to point out that if it is just you and God, your sin repertoire is pretty anemic. But sin categories abound when we find ourselves in human community, when we see sin as a human/human issue. In other words, God's judgment against sin is judgment against human-to-human infractions.

I think this is what Jesus was getting at in the Sermon on the Mount. Before you offer your sacrifice to God, first be reconciled to your brother, then come offer your sacrifice to God. It's also the theme in 1st John - you can't say you love God when you hate your brother. Love your brother first and then you can say you love God with authenticity. If you wander through life thinking there's a rift between you and God, that focus leads to guilt, shame, and religious paranoia. But if we see sin as a human/human rift, then I can focus on reconciliation that I can actually do something about! Before you go to church, ask, “Is my brother offended by me?” Because if he is, what's the point of going to church?

The Healing Power of Laughter?

Humor is powerful. It can heal or it can cut like a razor. One of the best episodes of Seinfeld has Jerry’s dentist, Tim Watley, convert to Judaism and then tell Jewish jokes. This offends Jerry, not as a Jew, but as a comedian. Consider these three jokes (borrowed from Richard Beck’s experimental theology blog):

1. Why was Helen Keller such a bad driver? Answer: Because she was a woman.

2. What is great about having Alzheimer's on Easter? Answer: You can hide the eggs and look for them.

3. What does an Ethiopian chicken look like? Answer: Ethiopian chicken? What’s that?

Good jokes are highly compressed, which demands that the listener fill in a lot of background assumptions, values, and beliefs that make the joke work. If the listener cannot fill in this background he doesn’t “get it” and the joke fails to produce laughter. Last month I was on a flight from Nairobi to London when a woman sitting next to me sneezed. I turned to her and said, “You’re soooo good-lookin.” She laughed, but others sitting near us did not. If you don’t “get” a joke, no amount of explaining makes the joke suddenly funny to you. You can’t explain a joke into being funny. You either get it, or you don’t. This feature of a joke - its demand for you to supply the background information - makes jokes a form of community building. When someone likes our jokes we’ve found a soul mate, a kindred spirit, someone who sees the world the same way we do. People are attracted to people who make them laugh. This is the joy of laughter and humor. But there is a dark side. This feature of jokes also makes them forms of exclusion.

Take the three jokes above. All three are compressed and require you to fill in backgrounds and stereotypes. The Helen Keller joke works only if you share a stereotype about women drivers and know that she was a blind and deaf mute. The Ethiopian chicken joke only works if you know that country has a long history of famine and if you understand certain livestock and agrarian patterns of east African cultures. Those shared stereotypes and knowledge make the jokes work. But what if you didn’t know any of that? Does my explaining this to you make you laugh? No. If you have to have a joke explained to you it only intensifies your feeling of exclusion. Getting it or not getting it immediately marks insiders and outsiders. No amount of explanation will offset the realization that you were “too stupid” to be an “insider.” Also, if a joke is a stereotype then the joke adds salt to the wound. Some of you (women) might have found the Helen Keller joke offensive. Why? Because as a woman, you are excluded by the joke and offended by the negative stereotype that functions as the mechanism of exclusion.

How about the Alzheimer's joke? Is it funny? It all depends on who makes the joke. If a person suffering from Alzheimer's tells the joke then we see the joke as funny, because it is a form of dark humor. An Alzheimer's patient has a right to tell this joke because he is an insider to the world of the joke. If told by an outsider (me), the joke is mean. This is why black comedians can use the “n” word and white comedians cannot. It's a matter of insiders versus outsiders. Jokes are boundaries. Jokes mark off a space of shared attitudes and experiences. A joke is compressed because it functions as a kind of test. Do you share my view of the world? Are you with me? Are you an insider or an outsider? This is why jokes are both wonderful and wounding. They are wonderful when they are shared, but jokes wound when they exclude people and use stereotypes. Jokes become contested when outsiders attempt to enter the space before gaining the consent of the insiders. This is why the ethnicity of a person telling an ethnic joke is vital to understanding the nature and function of the joke. Jokes are complex and morally treacherous (eg: All in the Family). They bring us together and force us apart. Jokes are serious business!

What Does This Mean?

I saw this video in church a month ago. So, what does it mean? What do you think?

Boma Update

I have spent the better part of a week recovering from the trip to the Sudan. This week I will be editing a video that will be disseminated in a number of places. Soon my blog will return to its original purpose: questioning traditional thinking on everything concerning religion, politics, and popular culture. I will continue my involvement with the Boma project. Please check (and bookmark) the Partners in Hope web site (www.partnersonline.org). Under the Ministry tab you will find a blog link, as well as Twitter and Facebook feeds. Please stay involved in this project with me. As things unfold there will be a great need for all kinds of support!! For now, check out some of these pictures from the trip. Take note of the wreckage of a U.N. transport plane that crashed on the muddy airstrip a couple of months ago.

Back Safely!

I just got back into Nairobi tonight (Wed). I feel tired and extremely DIRTY! The Sudan is like nothing I have ever experienced in Africa! Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw and experienced over the past 6 days. It is wild beyond anything I imagined. There is a vibrant community of NGOs and other aid workers (mostly American) operating from Nairobi, Loki, and into southern Sudan. I have met so many other Americans and some Europeans who are working here. The UN World Food Programme has a warehouse in lower Boma. We transported tons of US AID up the 3500 ft climb to our compound in upper Boma. I don't know how we got that truck up that mountain, because it is dishonest to call that rocky trail a road. Owww! Right at the end of the muddy airstrip we saw the burned out remains of a UN plane that crashed a few weeks ago. That's what you want to see when you are coming in to land! I spent 6 long days up on that mountain. What did we do? We had meetings (negotiations) with the area chiefs, we made bricks, helped with construction of the second set of classrooms, conducted a pastor training workshop, trekked to several villages with a 60-pound generator to show "The Jesus movie," and maybe most important - we spent the afternoons sitting under the mango trees drinking tea. And then there's the truck getting stuck in the mud halfway up the mountain. We had to go dig it out. But we won't talk about that right now :( On Saturday the Murle tribe had a strange chest-thumping partnering dance - kind of like an ancient mating ritual. Seeking adventure, I joined in. When someone told me that I may have to take a Sudanese woman home, I ran back to the compound and hid away! We were in an area of the Sudan controlled by SPLA rebels. I managed to befriend their commander, "Chief Lino." It would have been awesome to pop off a few rounds of his AK47. I asked, but he said no. He did offer, however, that any of his soldiers would come to my aid any time. Nice! On Sunday we went for a walk to check out the old airstrip on the far side of the plateau. A few hours later we ran into a de-mining team from the UN who informed us that we had been walking through an area with landmines!! That's too much danger. Good thing we are off that mountain and back in the relative safety of Nairobi, Kenya.