[soc.religion.christian] Divorce; a reference.

ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/23/90)

A while back there was a discussion on divorce in this newsgroup.
There's a book that just came out this year which all of us who
took part in that discussion and all of us who were interested in
it could profit from reading.  It is

	Divorce and Remarriage -- Four Christian Views
	J.C.Laney, W.Heth, T.Edgar, & L.Richards, ed. H.Wayne House
	InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1283-0

IVP have a series of "XXX -- Four Christian Views" books.  Whenever
I see one of them, I buy it.  So far I've seen
	War -- 4 Ch. Vws
	The Millenium -- 4 Ch. Vws
	Predestination -- 4 Ch. Vws
I haven't read more than the introduction yet; I'm rather apprehensive
because there is a serious risk that it may change my mind.  That book
on the millenium left me feeling totally bewildered, to be frank.  The
books really do not give any one of the views prominence.  (I wish IVP
would produce a "Fornication -- 4 Ch. Vws" book, but I seriously doubt
that they'd find anyone willing to offer a scriptural defence for the
position I would like to see explained.)

To quote the back of the book
	Not everyone who appeals to Scripture agrees on how we should
	understand what it says about divorce and remarriage.  In this
	book, four authors present their distinct perspectives.
	- Carl Laney argues that the Bible indicates that marriages
	  are always intended to be permanent, that there is never a
	  need for divorce, and that remarriage is never permissible
	  after divorce.
	- William Heth contends that while there are legitimate biblical
	  grounds for divorce, there are no legitimate grounds for
	  remarriage after divorce.
	- Thomas Edgar defends the position that Scripture allows for
	  divorce and remarriage in cases of adultery or desertion.
	  [He claims that the position I presented in soc.religion.
	  christian can only be obtained by "tormenting" the texts.]
	- Larry Richards holds that Scripture, while decrying divorce
	  and the pain it causes, points to a God of grace who will not
	  condemn those who divorce and remarry.
[This is the bit I like:]
	Each essayist in this collection not only presents his own case
	but critiques the position of the others.  Case studies at the
	end of each essay help to make theory face reality.

The really important thing to me about the books in this series, even
when they don't change my mind, is that they help you (or at any rate
helped _me_) to acquire imaginative understanding that the people who
hold the three (or four!) views differing from yours _want_ to hold a
Christian view and agree that their view _ought_ to be rationally and
scripturally based.  With that kind of explanation before you (at any
rate, before _me_) you can see how a *Christian* can honestly believe
whatever-it-is.

-- 
I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa.		-- Ariadne.

brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (11/26/90)

In <Nov.23.04.56.30.1990.21121@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

>	- Larry Richards holds that Scripture, while decrying divorce
>	  and the pain it causes, points to a God of grace who will not
>	  condemn those who divorce and remarry.

I don't see what an arguement along these lines could have to do with
anything. After God will forgive you for rape, murder, pillage, and
being American, but that doesn't mean he approves of any of these
things.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.

ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/29/90)

In <Nov.23.04.56.30.1990.21121@athos.rutgers.edu>
I quoted the back of "Divorce and Remarriage -- Four Christian Views",
including
>	- Larry Richards holds that Scripture, while decrying divorce
>	  and the pain it causes, points to a God of grace who will not
>	  condemn those who divorce and remarry.
 
In article <Nov.25.21.19.30.1990.26116@athos.rutgers.edu>, brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:
> I don't see what an arguement along these lines could have to do with
> anything. After God will forgive you for rape, murder, pillage, and
> being American, but that doesn't mean he approves of any of these
> things.

The full answer has to be "read the book".  I think you'll be pleasantly
surprised by what Larry Richards actually says.  Example:
	If Christians today would choose to live with their spouses
	in the way Jesus outlined in Matthew 18, the question of
	"is [divorce] lawful" would not need to be asked.  And, perhaps,
	if we who minister the Word of God did a better job preaching,
	teaching and conselling how to live with others in God's way,
	we might not have the plague of divorces that has struck our churches.
As I said, the trouble with the "four views" books is that to read them is to
run a serious risk of having your mind changed.  It's quite evident when you
read Larry Richards part of that book (his is only one of four views!) that
he seriously intends to be faithful not only to the Spirit but to Scripture.

The issue that Richards addresses is: _given_ that divorce and remarriage
are not the ideal, what should the church do about it when it happens?
At least some of the early churches were rigid about this:  commit divorce
and you're _out_, never to be readmitted to the church except perhaps at
the point of death.  This was relaxed somewhat, later.  Tertullian's
comments on that are incandescent!  Perhaps the heart of Richards's
chapter is:
	How strange!  We would invite a convicted murderer to give
	testimony from our pulpits.  Yet we will not permit a person
	who has been divorced and has remarried to praise God in our choir.

This is a very long way from the USA Methodist minister I once heard say in
a service that "there really ought to be a Christian liturgy for divorce".

-- 
I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa.		-- Ariadne.

jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/29/90)

Regarding the diversity of belief on the morality of divorce and
remarriage:

I would like to suggest that Christ never intended diversity on this
subject.

A proper understanding of divorce being so basic to a proper
understanding of marriage, I think diversity on this issue is definitely
a result of infidelity to God's revelation.

One might perhaps think of it this way: God became Incarnate and didn't
even bother to teach us the truth about this, a basic issue relating to
the married state?  This seems to me to be what is suggested when
diversity on the issue is viewed as normal.

Joe Buehler