This essay was downloaded by permission of the author from www

This essay was downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where similar articles are available for free.

SHOULD DIVORCED OR REMARRIED CHRISTIANS

BE TREATED AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS IN THE CHURCH?

by David R. Leigh

God's people have wrestled with legalism ever since someone added to God's words in the Garden of Eden (Ge 2:16-17; 3:3). Jesus rebuked the leaders of his day for adding to God's Word and for treating it rigidly and overly literalistic. Yet today many of Jesus' followers treat Jesus' own words with as much, if not more rigidity and hyper-literalism.

The main culprit of legalism today is the popular use of proof texts as pat answers. We should always beware of pat answers, regardless of their supposed source, simply because they tend to be simplistic and fail to consider the complexity and depth of some issues. Proof texting is itself dangerous because it tends to take sentences and phrases of Scripture at face value without respect to literary, theological or cultural contexts. The danger is compounded when coupled with a biased selectivity. This often leads to ``hermeneutical ventriloquism" and rampant inconsistency, as is so often the case in modern Fundamentalism. Thus few Fundamentalists require women to wear veils--a New Testament matter; yet many forbid the use of wine--based on Old Testament proverbs!

The struggle with legalism can be seen today, of all places, in the area of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Many are quick to parrot Jesus' and Paul's words on these matters, but few manage to probe their meaning. Thus they fail to emulate the spirit and attitude of Jesus and Paul, which stood opposed to the spirit and attitudes of Pharisaism. Like the Pharisees, many sincere Fundamentalists strain at gnats yet swallow camels.

One aspect many people overlook when they read Jesus' words is that he was a master at communicating truth through hyperbole. When he spoke, for instance, of plucking out an eye or chopping off a hand to avoid sin, our common sense tells us that the real point here is that sin is so harmful to our souls that we should be willing to sacrifice life and limb rather than give in to it. We would violate Jesus' intent if we literally began amputating body parts to overcome temptation. In the same manner, Jesus spoke of hating one's parents, selling all one's possessions, and taking up one's cross as requirements for being a true Christian. Unless we realize Jesus' tendency to use hyperbole, we will miss his real teaching. We will be worse off in our use of his words than the Pharisees were in their use of the Law.

It has always interested me that while many of my fellow Fundamentalists willingly take Jesus' strongest statements about divorce in the most rigid sense, they are almost liberals in their treatment of Paul's teaching on marriage. He recommends that none should marry!

But it is by paying attention to the contexts of statements made by Jesus, Paul, and the other biblical writers that we will find their intended meanings. This is the only way to capture not only their meanings, but their spirit and attitude.

There is no doubt that we must hold marriage in high regard as Jesus did. Like Jesus, we must hate sin. Like Jesus, we must be firm. But like Jesus, we must also understand God's power and his desire to forgive sinners and to create for them new life. We must understand that because we humans are weak and hard of heart God may allow what is less then ideal (Mt 19:8).

For instance, no Christian should advocate divorce, premarital or extramarital sex. These things are forbidden to us. But they do happen. And people entrapped or victimized by such things often do seek remarriage and a fresh start. At this point we must ask which is to have greater power over people's lives, the impact of sin or the impact of the cross?

We live in an imperfect world and we cannot always have our ideals. God makes allowances for this. Therefore, Paul concludes that ultimately ``it is better to marry than to burn" (1Co 7:9) and on this basis Paul goes on to allow Christians to remain with unbelieving spouses (1Co 7:12-14,16). Although not what God desires, Paul recognized that some people are forced to settle for the lesser of two evils. Yet Paul was so convinced of the superior nature of God's grace and of the gospel's power to cancel sin, he wrote that even in such a marriage the unbelieving spouse and children are sanctified in some sense (1Co 7:14). Grace triumphs even here.

How different this is from the legalist, who sees law and sin as the superior principles to be used in treating God's people. Rather than recognize the liberating power of the blood of Christ, the legalist labors as though the certificate of debt still hangs above each man and woman's head for sins committed in the past, especially the sin of divorce. Ironically, it would not matter to a Christian legalist that a person seeking to be a pastor or Christian leader may have once lived with several partners out of wedlock, aborted a child, or even persecuted the Christian Church. These things, they recognize as being forgiven. But let such a person say he or she was divorced--even before being converted, and suddenly all kinds of barriers go up in many churches that limit how this redeemed saint may serve. And why? Because the Law teaches that divorce is wrong? No; the Law teaches us that divorce is acceptable (Dt 24:1-4; Mt 5:31; 19:8). This is the same Law that God chose to send by means of a lawbreaker--Moses the murderer of an Egyptian guard. No, it is not the Law which these legalists treat as law. It is the teacher of liberating grace whose words they use to make it appear as though it is the Law that liberates and the gospel that binds the redeemed from doing good.

Jesus' words about divorce and remarriage are among his strongest, jolting even his disciples. He calls all divorce and remarriage adultery (Mt 5:32). But here again we must be alert to Jesus' use of hyperbole to communicate truth. We must remember that in the same chapter and discourse Jesus also calls mere lust adultery (Mt 5:28). This is the same passage in which he speaks of gouging out eyes and chopping off hands (Mt 5:29-30). This is also the passage in which Jesus admits that divorce is Lawful (Mt 5:31) even though not what God intended (compare Mt 19:8).

Yet the Psalmist tells us that this same Law of the Lord, which does in fact allow divorce, is perfect! (Ps 19:7) Jesus explains that God allows divorce because we are imperfect, hard of heart. And if the perfect Law of stone was gracious in this respect, how much more gracious and understanding will be the one who sympathizes with our weaknesses and through whom are realized grace and truth!

Yes, Jesus called divorce adultery. But Jesus chose not to condemn the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8:3-11). Yes, remarriage may be adultery. But Jesus accepted the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well who'd had five husbands and now lived with a man out of wedlock (Jn 4). That woman became the first missionary to the Samaritans! (Jn 4:39) Yes, adultery is wrong. But lust is adultery. Friendship with the world is adultery (Jas 4:4). All sin is adultery. And we all commit it. The good news of the gospel is that all sin has been defeated. It no longer has a right to run or ruin our lives. The result is not that we become soft on sin, but that sin becomes soft on us--it is, in fact, powerless. We exult in victory over it. There is rebirth, new life, a clean slate each day for all those who will believe. His mercies are new every morning.

Paul works out the implications of these great truths for the divorced in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. ``Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you should marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned...." Notice Paul recognizes some Christians will be released from their spouses. The context makes it clear that Paul is referring to divorce and not just widowhood. In fact, it refers to Christians whose divorces happened after their conversions. These believers, Paul says, are "not bound" (7:15) and are as free to marry as are virgins--without it being sin. It is also important to note that the word "bound" in these verses is essentially the same as the one found in Romans 7:2, where Paul says a woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. Yet here in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says that anyone who has been released from that same bond is free to marry and will not sin.

How then, can the church hold something against its members which Paul the apostle does not? Even if it were sin, it would be washed away in the community of the redeemed. It is unfair, therefore, to make a blanket policy that discriminates against those who have a divorce or remarriage in their pasts -- even, in some cases, in their Christian pasts. Each case should be reviewed on its own merits.

To sum it up, we must keep forgiveness and restoration emblazed across the forefront of all intra-church relationships. The church must stand first and foremost for the power of the gospel and of the blood of Christ to defeat, neutralize, and reverse the power of sin for the sake of rebuilding broken lives. Rebirth and renewal in the Spirit will not be hampered by the record of any degree of sin. Redemption and forgiveness must and will be complete. If they are not complete even for the worst adulterer who comes to Christ--as well as for the greatest Christian leader who falls but truly repents--then it is complete for none of us (1Co 6:9-11). And if it is complete for none of us, then Christ died and rose in vain.

In the military, a general is superior to a corporal. But once the general and corporal leave the military and join the civilian world, the former corporal may be the former general's supervisor or warden. What they were in the military is no longer relevant. So also, in the community of the redeemed what sinners were according to the old order of the flesh no longer has bearing here. One may have been the chief of sinners, now he is the Lord's bond servant. Another may have been the least in the world's eyes, in Christ's kingdom she has become the greatest. Nowhere does the New Testament allow us to treat the new creature on the basis of the old order. To the contrary we are challenged to live as new creatures who, having set our hand to the plow must never look back. If the church is truly to be the community of the redeemed, then the sins of the past, once repented of, must never be held over a Christian's head again. Just as there are no sins too great for Christ's blood to cover once and for all, so too, there are no second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God, because all have been made equally clean by that blood.

To contact the author, send e-mail to Dave@RethinkingFaith.com