IS A “LAW OF DIVORCE” PART OF THE GOSPEL?

An ad appeared in a recent issue of the Firm Foundation that distressed me. I would like to say something in this editorial that would cause those who ran the ad to reconsider. I urge them to realize that by the bowels of Christ they might be wrong, as I concede that I might be wrong. I can only ask that they, and you too, kind reader, think along with me. I am persuaded that the integrity of the gospel is at stake.

Our printer will place the ad in question on this page just as it appeared in the Firm Foundation. One gets the immediate impression that our brethren in New Hampshire have a mind to work, and they have a passion for souls. This we commend warmly, and of course we do not question their sincerity.

It happens, however, that there is packed into this one little ad some of our most damaging concepts, and I am persuaded that if these fallacies could be recognized and corrected it would do more for their mission in New Hampshire than all the money they might hope to receive.

Before I discuss the subject that concerns me most, I will briefly refer to those that concern me less, though still very important. There are three of these.

1. Are we not unauthentic as the Body of Christ if we have “conservative” and “liberal” churches? Why not be simply a church of Jesus Christ in Laconia, N. H. or anywhere else, open to all disciples of Christ, whether “liberal” or “conservative” or whatever, if brethren choose to wear such labels? If a church labels itself as “conservative” or “charismatic” or “premillennial” does it not imply that a doctrinal test is imposed in one way or another? Why can’t we simply be Christians, Christians only, with no attending labels, and thus leave people free in Christ?

2. To be a true church of Christ do we have to be the only church of Christ around? Notice the magnitude of our claim: “a city of 30,000 souls surrounded by many towns and hamlets where there are no churches of Christ.” No other congregations of Christ in all that area except our one struggling church? Of all the independent churches, the Bible churches, the Christian churches, not to mention scores of other denominations, our one little congregation is the only church of Christ, and note the lower case c, always an important part of the scenario. It follows of course that our folk are the only Christians around. We don’t have to be sectarian and exclusive. The Scriptures do not require it and it is contrary to our heritage. It is all right for us to believe that we are right and that we are Christians, but it does not follow that we have to believe that everyone else is wrong and that there are no other Christians.

3. Is it not odd, to say the least, that a people grounded in Scripture and devoted to saving souls would ever refer to “a building to begin to evangelize this area”? Are we indeed the people who follow the New Testament to the very letter? We build a building so that we can begin to evangelize? Does this mean that we are to put up a building, then urge sinners to our edifice so that we can preach to them? These days missiologists are saying just the opposite: buildings are often an obstacle in that they tie you to a given area. We must return to “the church in thy house” of New Testament times, they tell us. Do buildings make Christians or do Christians make buildings, assuming they are needed?

While these are significant concerns, there is yet a critical concern, and this has to do with the nature of the gospel of Christ itself. Read the ad carefully and see if it does not imply that a particular interpretation of Mt. 19:9, or a certain doctrine about divorce, is a necessary part of the gospel that they want preached in New Hampshire.

The argument is as clear as it is concise:

1. Divorce is a problem in their area as everywhere else, and they believe Jesus means what he says in Mt. 19:9.

2. Their stand on this passage (or divorce) drastically reduces the number of churches that might otherwise support them.

3. But surely there are some churches --- and notice the wording --- that will “help bring the gospel to a long neglected area.”

4. They go on to say that they want to teach these people (the sinners in their area) what they need to hear, which includes their teaching on divorce, based on Mt. 19:9.

Does this not make the gospel doctrinaire? To preach the gospel does one have to layout certain laws, whether God-made or man-made, about divorce and remarriage?

Does this not make an opinion (an interpretation) part of the gospel? The ad concedes that even most Churches of Christ do not see Mt. 19:9 the way they do in New Hampshire. Issues relative to divorce and remarriage are much disputed, with sincere Christians holding different views, and yet some of our people seek to impose their position not only upon the church but the entire world, making it part of the gospel itself.

Our New Hampshire brethren insist that Jesus meant what he said in Mt. 19:9. And what is it that he said? “Whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery.”

If we limit ourselves to this one passage as the ad does, it is clear that Jesus is teaching that:

1. Divorce is wrong and is contrary to what God intended for marriage.

2. Someone is guilty of this wrong, the one who divorces his or her, spouse.

3. Fornication is an exception; one is not guilty of the sin of divorce if his or her spouse has committed fornication.

Is this not all that can be concluded from Mt. 19:9? Is this not all that Jesus actually said?

With Mt. 19:9 in hand may we therefore conclude that:

1. The first marriage remains in effect when one divorces his spouse and marries again?

2. The second marriage is not really a marriage? Those in such a union are “living in adultery”?

3. The guilty party can never marry again, celibacy being the only alternative for such a sin?

4. When one repents of the sin of divorce, he or she must divorce the second spouse (which in God’s sight wasn’t a marriage anyway) and return to the first spouse (if possible) or remain a celibate the rest of his or her life?

It is evident that these four conclusions, advocated by a substantial number of our “conservative” brethren, are sheer presumption. We agree that Jesus meant what he said, but he said none of these things, and yet these well-intentioned brethren have no qualms about imposing them upon the world and the church alike as gospel. And to do this they seem quite willing to be a party to still more divorces and broken homes --- all in the name of repentance.

The truth is that this “divorce law” is preacher-made, not God-made, and many Church of Christ preachers are particularly guilty. And they add insult to injury when they presume to make their presumptions part of the gospel.

Since we are a people devoted to Scripture, we should allow the Bible to speak to us on this matter. Our New Hampshire brethren, with many others like them, would “preach” a divorce law, imposing the conclusions listed above upon those who would become Christians, calling upon the divorced to separate from their spouses, some of whom have both children and grandchildren. But is this what we find in Scripture?

There were 3,000 responses at Pentecost in Acts 2. Divorce being what it was among the children of Abraham, we can be sure that many were divorced and remarried. But what did Peter and the other apostles do --- except to preach the gospel and immerse those who accepted it! Where in all of the Bible does an apostle call for a “family adjustment” before one can become a Christian. Always the gospel takes people where they are. Jesus as “the way” means that any person can take that way from where he stands at the moment. They treated no sinner as irretrievable, no sin as unpardonable, no situation as irremedial.

Certainly they preached repentance, and this calls for restitution when possible, but repentance was always in reference to the realities of the person’s life.

The person who divorces and “marries another” is married. Jesus names it a marriage, even when the person did wrong in contracting it. Repentance can only mean, therefore, that he regrets what he did, asks God for forgiveness, and resolves to divorce no more and to make his second (or third) marriage a thing of beauty for God. To impose upon him a “law of separation” from his second (or fourth) wife is to impose what God has never enjoined.

We are to preach the gospel to him, the love story of God as demonstrated in Christ Jesus, and baptize him upon a profession of faith. It is just that simple. We are to be ministers of the gospel, not lawyers.

Lest our good brethren in New Hampshire consider me a “liberal” and write me off as dangerous, I will close with a quotation from the late, highly-respected R. L. Whiteside, who resided right here in Denton, Texas (his daughter Inis still lives in the old home place only a few minutes from where I now sit) and was as “conservative” as they come. This paragraph from his pen should be heeded by all our people from Texas to New Hampshire.

“It seems to me that we say a lot more about this matter of divorce and marrying again than did the apostles. Read their letters, and also study their preaching, and see how little they said about the matter; and yet the marriage vows were then treated more lightly, if possible, than they are now. What is the explanation? Were they more lenient toward the ignorant and erring than you and I are? Did they baptize those who demanded baptism without looking into what they had formerly done? Would they have said what I have said about divorce and marriage among aliens? The apostles were the ambassadors of Christ - the last interpreters of His will. Perhaps we should study from this angle more than we have yet done so.” (Reflections, p. 412)

Few paragraphs emanating from this little Texas city have been as reasonable as that one. --- the Editor

We are urging that the church not withdraw itself from a brother who commits fornication and is put away from his wife for that cause, but he later repents of his sin and is restored to the fellowship of the church, then later marries again just as the former wife has done. Why should the church fellowship her but withdraw from him?

--- Gus Nichols, Words of Truth, 1966. p. 3