-
This
is part of “A Statement of Policy” issued by the
Downtown Church of Christ in Lamesa, Texas and signed by its six
elders. This is tantamount to saying that those who are divorced
(and remarried) cannot be a part of that Church of Christ. The only
exceptions are those who have “a scriptural cause,”
according to the policy statement, and that is fornication or
adultery. All others need not apply!
-
-
Take
the case of the couple that ran off while they were both in high
school and got married. With their parents’ help they were
able to keep their marriage intact for several years. By the time
their two children came along they were determined to make it, for
the sake of the children. But they never really had much of a
marriage. Bad came to worse, and they eventually separated and
finally divorced. Incompatibility. They were by then only in their
late 20’s. After a while they both married again, and this
time they are both making it work. Let’s say one of the
families moved to Lamesa, Texas where they meet a Christian couple
that leads them to Christ.
-
-
The
couple that led them to Christ introduces them to the Downtown
Church of Christ. But the church will not accept them into its
fellowship because of the divorce in their background. The “reason”
was not adultery or fornication. The divorce dates back a decade or
more by now, and all parties involved are trying to forget it in
their struggle to put life back together. The original couple now
has other children in their second marriages. One may as well talk
about sweeping back the ocean as to suggest that the original
marriage be reconstituted. The only other alternative that would
satisfy the Downtown church would be for the new Christians to
separate, causing still another divorce, and live in a celibate
state
for
the rest of their lives.
This is what the Downtown Church of Christ in Lamesa understands to
be the will of God in such a case, as well as a lot of other of our
churches. Our leading periodicals are running articles by leading
ministers upholding this kind of teaching.
-
-
Such
a couple, with a divorce in its past, cannot be accepted into the
fellowship of the saints, irrespective of how much they love Jesus
and want to serve him. They could be forgiven of any and every sin
you might name, including unfaithfulness to each other since their
marriage,
except
divorce.
The
Church of Christ is the only place in the world where divorce is the
unpardonable sin!
-
-
These
well-meaning but misled brethren in Lamesa are selling the
forgiveness of God for a mess of Church of Christ tradition. and it
would cheer my heart to help deliver them from such oppressive
religion. Let us all look at that great promise in Heb. 7:25:
“Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come
unto God by him. seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
them.” God’s mercy has no measure for those “who
draw near to God through Him.” as the New American Standard
has it. It is dangerous business for a church that bears the name of
Christ to draw the line on
any
sinner
that seeks to draw near to God.
-
-
Let
our churches be as forgiving as Psa. S6:5 says the Father is: “For
thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy
unto all them that call upon thee.” He is merciful to
all
those
that call upon Him. and He is
ready
to forgive them all. Who will dare say that this excludes the
divorced? Eph. 1:7 says that in Christ we have “the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.”
Has God’s storehouse of grace become barren so that He is poor
in mercy toward some of those who call upon Him? God’s grace
is so rich that it can afford to reach out to a proud man like
myself. or to “the chiefest of sinners.” Saul of Tarsus
himself, a persecutor of Christians. If Jesus could enfold the
harlots, the despised tax collectors, the lepers, the slaves, and
the sinners within his loving embrace, why must we exclude the
divorced? Indeed, Christ taught that every sin that one commits,
except the one unpardonable sin, will be forgiven. Is the sin of
divorce the unpardonable sin?
-
-
The
Lamesa brethren would no doubt say that they will forgive and accept
into their fellowship the divorced person if she will repent, and
then
they
determine the character of that repentance, based upon what they
presume “the Bible clearly teaches.” Their terms are the
breakup of still another marriage or a celibate life, in case the
original marriage cannot be reconstituted! They do not realize that
they are making their own cruel deductions (which elders and
preachers do not follow so stringently when divorce strikes their
own family!) the word of God. I deny that the Bible teaches any such
thing. To the contrary, this view of
hopelessness
for
those who divorce and remarry is a repudiation of what the Bible
teaches. And it is a case of laying upon folk burdens too heavy for
them to bear. It is cruel, oppressive, insensitive. irresponsible,
pharisaical, and sinful.
-
-
I
say it repudiates what the Bible says because they would put asunder
what God has joined together, and Matt. 19:6 plainly states:
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
So as to get a couple to do what they call “repent,”
they would have them break up their marriage. In their more gracious
moments they might allow the couple to remain legally married so
long as they have separate bedrooms and not sleep together, for they
are “living in adultery” so long as they continue their
normal relationship. Needless to say that “living in adultery”
is part of the language of Ashdod, born of ecclesiastical
speculation and philosophical deductions, and is nowhere in
scripture. Furthermore it is a nonsensical statement, for it is an
impossibility for anyone to “live in adultery.” She
might
commit
adultery,
just as she might
commit
murder.
No one referred even to Eichmann or Hitler as “living in
murder.”
-
-
What
is odd about this clerical jargon is that it is applied
only
to our poor brothers and sisters who have gone through the horror of
a divorce and then remarry, “except for the cause of
fornication.” It is never applied to the most licentious
playboy who shacks up with every gal that will have him. They never
say of such a one. “He is living in fornication.” But
some dear brother, who may never have committed adultery in his
life, is stigmatized with “living in adultery” if he is
married for the second time.
-
-
The
basic fallacy in this oppressive doctrine is the supposition that
the person who divorces and remarries, without a scriptural cause,
is not really married or is in some way unlawfully married. This
being the case the clergy has no qualms about tearing asunder what
God has joined together—for God has not
really
joined
them since they didn’t have the right to marry. Repentance
therefore implies the breakup of an illicit relationship.
-
-
This
does not conform to the facts of scripture. Jesus says, “whosoever
shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery”
(Lk. 16:18). Two facts: he puts away his wife: he marries another
woman. He is
married
to
her, and Jesus recognizes that as a fact. They are man and wife, one
flesh. If they are married, God joined them together. And when
people are married they are not committing adultery when they sleep
together. Jesus makes it clear that a man sins when he divorces his
wife and marries another. But still he
is
married
to the second woman. Jesus nowhere suggests that repentance implies
that the man’s second marriage must be dissolved.
-
-
Jesus
said to the woman in John 4 “You have had five husbands, and
the one you now have is not your husband.” Why didn’t he
say something like “You had one husband and you’ve lived
in adultery with four other men, just like the one you now have.”
That would fit Church of Christ doctrine, but is not what is said.
The woman at the well had no doubt lived a sinful life, and there
were surely some bad marriages in her persistent efforts. But all
five men
were
legal
husbands, and Jesus does not fault her on this score, but that she
was living with a sixth man who was
not
her
husband. She would therefore be committing adultery with him every
time she slept with him, not “living in adultery.” But
she was
not
guilty
of adultery when she had relations with the other five men, for she
was married to them. Jesus says so. Should such a woman present
herself at my congregation, we would advise her to honor the
institution of marriage and marry the man she now
-
lives
with or else move out and be sexually celibate, until some good
Christian man comes along who wants her as his wife. If there were a
string of divorces from those five husbands she has had, I would
urge that we forget what has gone before and press on toward the
goal of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
-
-
We
would accept her because of her faith and repentance, realizing that
the past is irreversible and the sins we have done cannot always be
made right. That is what God’s mercy and forgiveness means.
But the woman at the well would apparently have a hard time being
accepted by the Church of Christ in Lamesa. They would have her look
up husband number 1, who would be the only lawful husband she ever
had, and go back to him, then repent of “living in adultery”
in the four succeeding “marriages,” which were really no
different from being shacked up with the sixth guy. If husband
number 1 in the meantime became a Christian and is living happily
with his present wife and their children, then
he
would
have to break up
that
home
and return to his first wife, scattering children and tears along
the way. And what a marriage that reconstituted relationship would
be!
-
-
Either
that or our dear sister at the well, as young and beautiful as she
still is, has to live alone for the rest of her life, even when God
said it is not good for a woman to be alone. Only the clergy could
concoct so ridiculous a doctrine, outdoing the weirdest witch doctor
and his magic potions. And I have more patience with the witch
doctor since he doesn’t blame his concoction on the
scriptures.
-
-
I
t is enough for the church to recognize divorce for what it is, a
tragic failure and a sin against God, though maybe not always
wilful. As with any other sin, it can and will be forgiven. However
dark one’s past may be, however tragic, however sinful, “God’s
wonderful grace is greater than all my sins,” as the old hymn
goes.
-
-
The
scriptures set forth a principle that reveals how the heavenly
Father deals with us amidst all our hangups, whether it be our
divorces or our sectarianism. It is in 2 Cor. 8:12: “If the
readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a man has,
not according to what he does not have.” The apostle set forth
this principle in reference to the Corinthians helping the poor
saints in Judea. but it applies generally.
-
-
If
the
readiness
is
there, if one truly desires to do God’s will, God expects of
her only what is within the range of her capacity. God does not
expect us to do the impossible. It is
acceptable,
and
what a beautiful liberating word that is!, according to one’s
ability to respond. Since God does not demand of His children that
which is cruelly oppressive, but rather that which is within their
emotional, economic, and intellectual capacity, we should avoid
overbearing measures on our brothers and sisters.
-
-
It
is easy enough for elders and preachers who have not had to suffer
through the trauma of divorce to lay upon the unfortunate ones a
standard of response that is unreasonable and impossible. John tells
us that God’s commandments are not grievous and Jesus assured
the downtrodden that
his
yoke
was easy. Should we seek to make it otherwise? —the
Editor