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