Mustaphile said:
I'm willing to learn.
Study can be a full-time occupation though, so I don't think it's an option for the majority of people.
I agree. Why am I replying to messages here when I have so much studying to do?
That being said, I listen to both sides of the argument and draw my own conclusions.
If this is what you do, I think you are making a mistake. I think it is a mistake to view this question as merely framing a two-sided argument.
People can't just drop life and go off and scholastically approach real and immediate problems.
Very true. And exactly how scholastically you approach the scripture, how real and immediate the problems are, and how many similar problems one has seen and dealt with all affect the quality of the result of study.
So they do what they can within using their best judgement. Some opt for the strictest interpretation and others approached it with a view to more liberal interpretations.
This is why one of the principles many Christians use in making difficult judgments is not to do it alone, but to be informed by brothers and sisters. I come from an Anabaptist background, which emphasizes the idea that the whole church interprets scripture together.
In my view the sharpness and/or clarity of Christian philosophical thought has failed to develop alongside rational philosophies and its philosophical thought that is the driving force behind society. We have been stuck in a quagmire of deeply entrenched dogma, as opposed to taking on the philosophies of rationalism head on. We should be brave enough to step out of dogmatic structures and take the battle to the rationalists. In doing so we define our beliefs more clearly and they can be applied more practically to everyday life.
...perhaps...
I've reached some rather unconventional conclusions based on seeing thousands of divorces "up close," and studying scripture and theology. I would love to be able to find someone seriously interested in testing these ideas, because I think they address issues other Christians have missed. I started at the beginning of this thread with the ontological question. I think many Western Christians veered off-track during the Middle Ages by arguing that what appears to be a marriage might not really be a marriage and what appears to be a divorce is not really a divorce. I can find no support in scripture for this view. This view originated in the Latin West, and I have a feeling it was a result of scholasticism and possibly a wrong understanding because of linguistic differences between Latin and Greek.
Here is where it starts: First, Jesus said, "What God has joined together, a human must not separate." In Greek, this is a third-person imperative, or jussive verb. We do not have jussives in English. I do not believe Latin has Jussives, either, or if it does, they look just like indicative verbs. The question, then, is whether Jesus means separating what God has joined is something that is impossible to do, or that it is possible to do, but forbidden. The Greek indicates it is possible to do, but forbidden. There is no reason to command anyone not to do the impossible. If it truly were impossible, Jesus would have said it a different way.
Second, (actually, this should not come second, but there should be a lot of steps in-between, but this is often the second question in the real world) what are we as Christians to do when a command of the Lord has been broken? I think scripture gives a lot of guidance on this. Personally, I think the key scriptures are in Matthew 16-20. WRT marriage issues, Paul then gives real-life examples of how to apply these principles in 1 Corinthians. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever says to the divorced and remarried, "Leave your second spouse." Rather they both say, "Don't divorce." I think this establishes pretty clearly that the end-game is not based on applying logic to the ontological question of whether the past marriage or divorce is valid or not. We never see the validity of a marriage or divorce addressed in scripture. There are some who argue that when Jesus says a divorced and remarried person "commits adultery," this is an ontological statement that the divorce is not valid. However, when Jesus says a person who hates his brother is guilty of murder, Jesus is not making an ontological statement that the hated person is dead. I think this is a misinterpretation.
Instead, when a sin has been committed and things can't be put right again between the sinner and the sinned-against person privately, such issues are to be taken to the church, which has the power to "bind and loose" (Matthew 18). Jesus and Paul have both given advice on when to bind and when to loose. For example, they both say it is better for the married to remain married and for the unmarried to remain unmarried. If this is impossible, we seek the Lord's wisdom and discernment together and go on from there.
Now, in contrast, I'm going to state what I think Heartman's view is, and ask him to correct me if I'm wrong. I think Heartman, or some people he knows, have been hurt by pastors who loosed a spouse too quickly. Many pastors do this when they perform a second marriage. They do not try to help mend the previous marriage. They do not counsel the divorced spouse to stay as she is or else be reconciled to her husband. They do not investigate whether her statement that the previous marriage cannot ever be restored is true or not. They do not make the decision to "bind or loose" within the whole community of faith that knows these people, their families, and their histories, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Now, if I am correct, I agree 100% with Heartman that this is a very grave wrong.
However, I do not agree with him that the solution to this wrong is to say the church can never "loose" anyone and allow them to remarry. This process of discernment and judgment is a serious responsibility of the church, and should be handled in a way that seeks maximum love and wholeness for wounded people. If the spouse who has been abandoned, abused, mistreated, or cheated-on can stay single, waiting for a restoration, this is second-best (best being a healthy marriage). If that spouse can stay single and celibate even after their ex has remarried, still a very good thing. But if that person does not have the gift of celibacy and have tried to restore the marriage, but the whole church has given up hope of ever doing that (as in the example Paul gives of a believing spouse abandoned by a non-believer) then the church is enslaving this person if it uses its power to "bind and loose" to bind, instead of to loose. The Jewish law does this to women, who are called
agunah, or chained women. It is mentioned or alluded to in several OT narratives in cases where a widow's dead husband has a brother who is too young to marry her under the levirate system. It happens today when a Jewish husband is missing in action. There is no proof this woman's husband is dead, and he has not given her a
get or "bill of divorce," so even though everyone is sure he is really dead, she is still chained, bound and enslaved to a dead man and a dead marriage. The same thing happens today if her husband divorces her legally, but doesn't give her the religious divorce. When Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 7, "She is not bound," or "She is not enslaved" (depending on your translation), he is saying the church should not follow the Jewish practice of keeping women in this
agunah state.
Deciding questions of "binding and loosing" is a process that takes time and discernment. It can't be done in a vacuum, but only in a community of faith that is willing to support each other unconditionally in trying to live a holy life.
In a few paragraphs, this is the result of my study. I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
