Divorce, Censure, and Session Responsibility
God-appoints difficult providences for all who are in union with Christ, but we must expect God’s grace to be sufficient for all his people to keep the marriage vow of “for better or for worse” unless one of the two exception clauses can be met (adultery or willful desertion). Elders are to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. They are to love their flock according to understanding, which means they are to encourage the sheep under their care in the life of the cross to which we all are appointed. Elders must come along suffering spouses – labor with them indeed, yet censure those who willfully desert their spouses or pursue unbiblical divorce with a high-hand.
We synthesize particular biblical principles in order to compose theology that is biblical, practical and compassionate.
Under the gospel of Christ there exist two permissible reasons for divorce: adultery and willful desertion. (Matt.19:8,9; 1 Cor. 7:15)
Elders often have to judge whether certain acts of the flesh constitute adultery. Elders also have to decide whether certain patterns of life constitute willful desertion. This entry is concerned with the latter provision for dissolving the marriage contract, along with proper ecclesiastical oversight regarding the willful desertion provision.
Whenever a believer is loosed from the marriage bonds due to an unbeliever’s willful desertion, the believer is free to remarry even though the guilty party is beyond the pale of ecclesiastical censure by already being an unbeliever. (1 Corinthians 7:15)
In cases where both parties are regarded as believers, the only provision for divorce and remarriage is adultery. Mathew 5:32 enforces the point by teaching that if one divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication, the husband in such cases causes his wife to commit adultery. Furthermore, even the innocent woman’s future husband commits adultery by marrying her. In other words, under such circumstances not only is the husband culpable for his wife’s sin of adultery; the innocent spouse is not permitted to remarry, lest she commits adultery along with her future husband. Notwithstanding, there is good and affable news for the innocent spouse, if only sessions would do their job.
One may not divorce or remarry under the willful desertion clause as long as both parties are to be regarded as Christians by the church. Yet, if a professing Christian willfully deserts his spouse without cause in the face of Matthew 18 confrontation – then the deserting spouse should be declared an unbeliever. In such cases, the grounds for divorce would not be unbelief but rather willful desertion accompanied by ecclesiastical censure and unbelief. (1 Cor. 7:15). In other words, a believer may not divorce his spouse solely for the sin of unbelief since Scripture requires a believer to dwell with his unbelieving spouse as long as she desires to remain married. (1 Cor. 7:12-13). Nor may a believer divorce and remarry if deserted by a believer (i.e., one in good standing in the church). Rather, (aside from cases of adultery), a believer may only divorce and remarry if deserted by an unbeliever. The theological takeaway is that both conditions of (a) willful desertion and (b) status of unbeliever must be met for there to be biblical divorce and remarriage under the desertion clause.
Pervasive problem in the church:
It has become increasingly prevalent in the Reformed church today to condone divorce between professing Christians for emotional abandonment, in particularly verbal abuse. (This article does not address biblical fenceposts for such thinking. It recognizes there is biblical latitude and seeks to synthesize biblical principles in order to provide a coherent theological paradigm from which sessions might operate.)
When it is deemed by the courts of the church that a pattern of spousal abuse is tantamount to willful desertion, the guilty party should be censured to the utmost degree yielding a status of unbeliever. Only at which point may a professing believer be loosed from the marriage because now an unbeliever has departed. (Please internalize that point before reading further.)
Unfortunately, that is not what we always see, even within churches that practice discipline. Instead, we too often find an unbiblical accommodation for the offended party (assume the wife hereafter) who has suffered under emotional turmoil, which ironically can turn into a situation in which she deserts her husband without cause. (More on that later.)
We also observe instances in which the wife is not granted the ecclesiastical backing of the church that would rightly vindicate her and pave the way for a biblical release from the bonds of marriage.
In other words, one of two unbiblical accounts too often occurs. Either the suffering wife is granted at least tacit approval for divorce, yet without it having been deemed that her husband sinned enough to be excommunicated. Or else, approval for divorce is granted without her guilty husband having been excommunicated. In the first instance the abused wife is denied both the testing and privilege of sanctifying suffering; whereas under the second scenario the innocent wife is denied the peace the church was to have aided her in obtaining by ministering and declaring in Christ’s name that her unbelieving husband had willfully deserted her, and she is now loosed from the marriage.
No husband is to be considered having willfully deserted his wife to the degree in which his spouse may be loosed until there is such “willful desertion as can in no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate” (WCF 24.6) In other words, whether willful desertion comes in the form of emotional or physical abandonment, a valid certificate of divorce presupposes the dissuasion of ecclesiastical and civil authorities has come to naught. Consequently, willful desertion that is sufficient for biblical divorce presupposes that one has already been officially declared outside the church, for how is it possible that one within the church – a Christian(!), can be beyond remedy?
In summary, it stands to reason that if the husband may not be constituted an unbeliever, then he has not yet willfully deserted his wife – in which case the wife has no biblical grounds for divorce. Yet if the wife has biblical grounds for divorce, then her unbelieving spouse has deserted her.
Excursus:
It is conceivable that if a spouse commits adultery and later repents, it can be biblically consistent for the innocent party to “sue out” divorce without an accompanying pronouncement of unbelief upon the spouse. The reason being, adultery is sufficient to file for biblical divorce, and repentance is sufficient to regain one’s standing in the church. Accordingly, one can truly repent prior to being excommunicated; yet notwithstanding the transgression allows the innocent party to sue out divorce “as if the offending party was dead.” (WCF 24.5)
-
What Does “Scripture Alone” Mean, and Why Should You Care?
What led the Roman Catholics astray was their understanding that the church birthed the Word of God, rather than the Word being the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Yes, God gives us consciences, good sense, and even the traditions of the church from which we can glean insight into life, but knowledge of salvation is found in Scripture and Scripture alone.
When we talk about sola scriptura, we are talking about the fact that it is God’s word—not man’s—that gives us the instruction we need to attain everlasting life. It’s not to say that Christians should only read the Bible and nothing else. If your sink gets clogged, a plumbing manual will be of more use than anything in the Old or New Testament. Sola scriptura means that the Bible gives us everything we need to know about everything that truly matters—specifically, our salvation.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
At the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church did not deny the importance of the Word of God but rather its sufficiency. Rome said Scripture was insufficient to reveal to us the way to heaven. Rather, Rome argued that we needed something in addition to Scripture: the traditions of the church. According to theologian Michael Horton in The Christian Faith,The Council of Trent [in the sixteenth century] established the view that Scripture and tradition are actually two forms of God’s Word—”written” and “unwritten”.” (p. 188)
What led the Roman Catholics astray was their understanding that the church birthed the Word of God, rather than the Word being the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Yes, God gives us consciences, good sense, and even the traditions of the church from which we can glean insight into life, but knowledge of salvation is found in Scripture and Scripture alone.
Read More -
Your Depression Is Not Demon Possession
In the clearest terms possible, 1 John 5:8 says that believers are kept by the power of God and the evil one does not touch them. It seems clear enough just from these scriptures that the believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, cannot be demon possessed. Almighty God is not going to share space in a believer’s heart with demons.
Depending on the particular Christian tradition you come from, two “explanations” for mental health issues frequently do the rounds. If you are of a Reformed persuasion, some will try and chart your mental health crisis to some underlying sin. Some will be so insistent that this must be the reason they will deny your need of medication and force you to keep digging away until they can go, ‘aha! This is the sin we must address!’ It is a deeply damaging approach.
I don’t deny that sin may well be tied up with the mental health issues. Sin is pretty much tied up with everything. But that doesn’t mean the cause of this mental health issue must be sin. That makes as much sense as me insisting that your broken leg is a result of your sin. I don’t deny that broken leg might lead you to some sinful actions to mitigate the pain (though it doesn’t have to). I don’t deny that you might have goaded someone so much that they chose to stamp on your leg and break it, so some sin was in the mix there (but the immediate cause of the break was actually the force which could have come from any morally neutral source). Nevertheless, most of us reckon broken legs happen and there is no reason to assume they’re the result of sin. Usually, they are not. The same is also true for broken minds.
The other so-called Christian explanation that does the rounds is demonic attack. Naturally, this tends to come less from Reformed quarters. But nevertheless, it does knock around. Perhaps, some aver, your mental health issues are demonic. Maybe what you need is not tablets and psychological support, but an exorcism. Or, if folks are being less dramatic, prayer and fasting. Cast out the demon and you’ll be right as rain. I want to spend the rest of my time in this one pointing out why I think this explanation is a big mistake, particularly if you are a believer.
The reason I say particularly if you are a believer is that believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside them. If the Holy Spirit is dwelling in you, do you really think a demon might be able to have possession of you? Can a demon really take control of you? Even if the answer does not seem immediately obvious (and it should), the scriptures are fairly clear on this.
Here is what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6:
15 What agreement does Christ have with Belial?[c] Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we[d] are the temple of the living God, as God said:
I will dwelland walk among them,and I will be their God,and they will be my people.[e]
If we are the temple of God, and God’s Spirit dwells with us, what space is God going to make in his temple for demons? What space is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in our hearts, going to make for Satan? Scripture seems pretty clear that the answer is none!
Again, Paul in Romans 8 is clear that nothing can separate us from God’s love for us in Christ, including angels and demons:
35 Who can separate us from the love of Christ? Can affliction or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
Because of youwe are being put to death all day long;we are counted as sheep to be slaughtered.[m]
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Indeed, he says we are ‘more than conquerors through him who loved us’. Paul says in Colossians 1:13 that God ‘has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son he loves.’ 1 John 2:13 tells us that we have ‘conquered the evil one’ in Christ. He goes on in 4:4 to say the Holy Spirit is greater than Satan, who has been conquered: ‘You are from God, little children, and you have conquered them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.’ In the clearest terms possible, 1 John 5:8 says that believers are kept by the power of God and the evil one does not touch them. It seems clear enough just from these scriptures that the believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, cannot be demon possessed. Almighty God is not going to share space in a believer’s heart with demons.
Read More
Related Posts: -
When Humans Don’t Procreate: An Update
Written by Mark W. Hendrickson |
Tuesday, January 11, 2022
If more and more people view children as a burden instead of a gift, and life as a dreary nuisance rather than a splendid opportunity to enjoy God’s creation—our population will indeed implode. If taken to an extreme, societal suicide becomes a possibility.Two years ago, I wrote about the pending global population implosion. Demographers predict that 90 countries will lose population between now and the year 2100. Shrinking populations have portentous implications, including major shifts in geopolitical power and the possible financial collapse of welfare states.
The United States’ population is part of this global trend. In a truly stunning article in The New York Post, journalist Suzy Weiss reported, “Last year, the number of deaths exceeded that of births in 25 states—up from five the year before. The marriage rate is also at an all-time low, at 6.5 marriages per 1,000 people. Millennials are the first generation where a majority are unmarried (about 56%).”
The story gets grimmer: An increasing number of 20-something American women are reportedly undergoing voluntary sterilization. There is a growing anti-natalist movement in America. Once again, the vital question is: Why?
I will offer three explanations that overlap somewhat with what I wrote two years ago: ideological indoctrination, stunted psychological growth, and alienation from God. (Please note: I am not stating that every person, female or male, who chooses to remain childless is doing so for these reasons. What I am saying is that there are sweeping sociological currents in play.)
Ideology
The opening paragraph of Ms. Weiss’ article told of a young woman from a conservative background who went to college and had a “political awakening … toward progressivism.” A key component of progressivism is environmentalism. According to one professor interviewed for the article, many 20-somethings have come to conclude that “humans are the problem” and “a mistake.” This anti-human animus is one of the major tenets of environmentalism I was subjected to myself as an undergraduate a half-century ago. Then, the “green bible” was Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb and its related activist group ZPG (Zero Population Growth). The message then was that there would be mass die-offs of humans as the world’s population swelled. As it turned out, a more populated world became a less poor and less polluted world.
Read More
