This is likely to cause a stir, but I'm glad that you are pushing this conversation. If we are going to experience the full renewal we pray for, that will require repentance - and "same sex marriage" was not the only way that our culture has departed from God's plan for marriage. Acceptance of easy divorce, and "no fault" divorce, came first. Even that was made possible by understanding marriage as something that exists for my own personal happiness or romantic fulfillment, which is not the Biblical teaching. It is right for the church to push back against these miunderstandings.
That said, I do take a somewhat different view from you. I agree we should revere and take seriously what the Early Fathers teach. I believe you are correct that the Earliest fathers simply do not allow divorce and remarriage at all. I note that they also required absolute pacifism (Christians could not be soldiers or serve in Law Enforcement) and they enforced extremely rigorous church discipline (even penitent church members were still denied Holy Communion for YEARS for certain sins); so it may be that the later developments are not simply a "falling away" but are actually a pastorally prudent "nuancing" of the tradition.
Most important is what Scripture says, and here it seems to me that Christ does allow divorce in cases of adultery in Matthew 19 and also St. Paul allows it in 1 Corinthians 7 in cases where a non-believing spouse abandons the believing spouse. In such cases, if remarriage were not permitted, then how can we say the spouses are actually "divorced" if they are still "bound"? Yet St. Paul specifically says that such divorced persons are "not bound" (1 Cor. 7:15). In the Christian West the idea developed that divorce may be permissible in cases of adultery, abuse, or abandonment. I think this is based on good Biblical logic, and I believe that in most cases remarriage should be considered an open possibility, but in practice all of that will require pastoral discernment. Yet in every case, "God hates divorce" because it always is a breakdown of love and covenant promises, and always results from sin in "hardened hearts." But hating something is not the same thing as absolutely forbidding it. No doubt, the "innocent party" very likely also hates their divorce, and all that led up to it; but this does not mean that they cannot also accept it and then find some good gifts in a new marriage.
Thanks for the pushback. A key difference between early church doctrine on pacifism is that it was not consensus (see St Augustine of Hippo and Just War Doctrine, for example), whereas early church doctrine on divorce/remarriage was. A few Early Church Fathers, like St Athenagoras of Athens, go further and say that remarriage is adultery even if the spouse is dead, but that also was not consensus.
Das's "Remarriage in Early Christianity" makes an excellent case for both the bible and the Early Church Fathers uniformly teaching that remarriage after divorce is adultery (while the spouse is still alive), and he devotes a whole chapter each to the Matthean exceptions and Paul's "not bound." The short version of his answers is that, regarding the Matthean exception clauses, it's an argument from silence that Jesus allows for remarriage after divorce, and that while separation equated divorce in both Jewish and Greco-Roman societies, it required a certificate of divorce for a woman to remarry in Judaism. He also says, "Most interpreters over the years have taken the exception clause of Matt 19:9 as modifying both divorce and remarriage, thus allowing remarriage after a justified divorce for sexual sin. Except in cases of sexual sin, divorce and remarriage is adulterous. A significant minority of scholars has contended, on the other hand, that the exception clause permits a husband to divorce under these circumstances but not to remarry" (Das 170). Das then argues, in summary, "Intractable problems therefore plague those maintaining that a divorce completely dissolves a marriage from the standpoint of God's will...Another conundrum: if the guilty party of a divorce may not remarry, the marriage does not seem to be dissolved by the divorce" (Das 171).
His conclusion: "In short, the balance of the evidence favors a prohibition of remarriage without exception--even in Matthew. Where Matthew departs from the historical Jesus and the Gospels of Mark and Luke is in his provision for divorce in instances of sexual sin. As the sole passage in the gospels that may allow for remarriage, Matt 19:9 cannot bear this burden alone; many see the same permission for remarriage in the apostle Paul. As for Jesus in the gospels, God's will in creation remains for there to be one man and one woman in marriage" (192).
As for Paul, Das devotes another chapter in relation to the terms 'not bound' and 'free', arguing "Many interpreters, however, seize on Paul's 'not bound' language. The word is better translated 'not enslaved.' The term appears to be a deliberate departure from the 'free' language of the divorce certificates and from the 'bound' language that Paul applies only to widows in 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2-3. In other words, when offered a chance to declare 'freedom' for the innocent, divorced spouse, Paul conspicuously passes on the opportunity. The concept of an innocent partner in divorce being justified in remarriage is absent in Paul. 'Not enslaved' is language Paul uses in relation to the law of Moses and divorce. 'Enslaved' is also language used by the philosophers of Paul's day for those in a marital relationship: Not to be enslaved for the philosophers was to not be in a marriage, whether a first or a subsequent one" (229).
He concludes: "Throughout the chapter Paul urges people to stay as they are in whatever situation they find themselves. They are not to divorce. Ideally, they are to remain single. Paul qualifies and allows for the single to be married, and for the divorced believer in a mixed marriage to become single again. He never allows for remarriage with the exception of the widow in 7:39. Even there, it would be better for the widow to remain single....In making his point about being freed from the law, he [Paul] takes for granted that only a prior spouse's death can prevent a subsequent marriage from being adulterous, and the premise assumes his prior teaching on marriage....One element has been passed over in this discussion: how the earliest Christian thinkers interpreted 1 Cor 7. The Christian witnesses in the first several centuries, many of whom were native Greek speakers, did not understand 1 Cor 7:15's language of 'not bound' and 'free'--or anything else in 1 Cor 7--as permitting remarriage" (231).
I'm am shocked, but in a good way, that a Global Methodist wrote this. While I agree with the article I don't think the GMC will change its position on divorce and remarriage. We have too many divorced and remarried people in the pew, in the pulpit and in the counsel of Bishops....
Also side note: one of the reasons why my generation (millennials) accepted gay marriage so quickly is because our divorced baby boomer parents had no credibility when they lectured us about the sanctity of marriage.... It's hard to oppose same sex marriage when one does mental gymnastics to normalize divorce and remarriage......
This is likely to cause a stir, but I'm glad that you are pushing this conversation. If we are going to experience the full renewal we pray for, that will require repentance - and "same sex marriage" was not the only way that our culture has departed from God's plan for marriage. Acceptance of easy divorce, and "no fault" divorce, came first. Even that was made possible by understanding marriage as something that exists for my own personal happiness or romantic fulfillment, which is not the Biblical teaching. It is right for the church to push back against these miunderstandings.
That said, I do take a somewhat different view from you. I agree we should revere and take seriously what the Early Fathers teach. I believe you are correct that the Earliest fathers simply do not allow divorce and remarriage at all. I note that they also required absolute pacifism (Christians could not be soldiers or serve in Law Enforcement) and they enforced extremely rigorous church discipline (even penitent church members were still denied Holy Communion for YEARS for certain sins); so it may be that the later developments are not simply a "falling away" but are actually a pastorally prudent "nuancing" of the tradition.
Most important is what Scripture says, and here it seems to me that Christ does allow divorce in cases of adultery in Matthew 19 and also St. Paul allows it in 1 Corinthians 7 in cases where a non-believing spouse abandons the believing spouse. In such cases, if remarriage were not permitted, then how can we say the spouses are actually "divorced" if they are still "bound"? Yet St. Paul specifically says that such divorced persons are "not bound" (1 Cor. 7:15). In the Christian West the idea developed that divorce may be permissible in cases of adultery, abuse, or abandonment. I think this is based on good Biblical logic, and I believe that in most cases remarriage should be considered an open possibility, but in practice all of that will require pastoral discernment. Yet in every case, "God hates divorce" because it always is a breakdown of love and covenant promises, and always results from sin in "hardened hearts." But hating something is not the same thing as absolutely forbidding it. No doubt, the "innocent party" very likely also hates their divorce, and all that led up to it; but this does not mean that they cannot also accept it and then find some good gifts in a new marriage.
Thanks for the pushback. A key difference between early church doctrine on pacifism is that it was not consensus (see St Augustine of Hippo and Just War Doctrine, for example), whereas early church doctrine on divorce/remarriage was. A few Early Church Fathers, like St Athenagoras of Athens, go further and say that remarriage is adultery even if the spouse is dead, but that also was not consensus.
Das's "Remarriage in Early Christianity" makes an excellent case for both the bible and the Early Church Fathers uniformly teaching that remarriage after divorce is adultery (while the spouse is still alive), and he devotes a whole chapter each to the Matthean exceptions and Paul's "not bound." The short version of his answers is that, regarding the Matthean exception clauses, it's an argument from silence that Jesus allows for remarriage after divorce, and that while separation equated divorce in both Jewish and Greco-Roman societies, it required a certificate of divorce for a woman to remarry in Judaism. He also says, "Most interpreters over the years have taken the exception clause of Matt 19:9 as modifying both divorce and remarriage, thus allowing remarriage after a justified divorce for sexual sin. Except in cases of sexual sin, divorce and remarriage is adulterous. A significant minority of scholars has contended, on the other hand, that the exception clause permits a husband to divorce under these circumstances but not to remarry" (Das 170). Das then argues, in summary, "Intractable problems therefore plague those maintaining that a divorce completely dissolves a marriage from the standpoint of God's will...Another conundrum: if the guilty party of a divorce may not remarry, the marriage does not seem to be dissolved by the divorce" (Das 171).
His conclusion: "In short, the balance of the evidence favors a prohibition of remarriage without exception--even in Matthew. Where Matthew departs from the historical Jesus and the Gospels of Mark and Luke is in his provision for divorce in instances of sexual sin. As the sole passage in the gospels that may allow for remarriage, Matt 19:9 cannot bear this burden alone; many see the same permission for remarriage in the apostle Paul. As for Jesus in the gospels, God's will in creation remains for there to be one man and one woman in marriage" (192).
As for Paul, Das devotes another chapter in relation to the terms 'not bound' and 'free', arguing "Many interpreters, however, seize on Paul's 'not bound' language. The word is better translated 'not enslaved.' The term appears to be a deliberate departure from the 'free' language of the divorce certificates and from the 'bound' language that Paul applies only to widows in 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2-3. In other words, when offered a chance to declare 'freedom' for the innocent, divorced spouse, Paul conspicuously passes on the opportunity. The concept of an innocent partner in divorce being justified in remarriage is absent in Paul. 'Not enslaved' is language Paul uses in relation to the law of Moses and divorce. 'Enslaved' is also language used by the philosophers of Paul's day for those in a marital relationship: Not to be enslaved for the philosophers was to not be in a marriage, whether a first or a subsequent one" (229).
He concludes: "Throughout the chapter Paul urges people to stay as they are in whatever situation they find themselves. They are not to divorce. Ideally, they are to remain single. Paul qualifies and allows for the single to be married, and for the divorced believer in a mixed marriage to become single again. He never allows for remarriage with the exception of the widow in 7:39. Even there, it would be better for the widow to remain single....In making his point about being freed from the law, he [Paul] takes for granted that only a prior spouse's death can prevent a subsequent marriage from being adulterous, and the premise assumes his prior teaching on marriage....One element has been passed over in this discussion: how the earliest Christian thinkers interpreted 1 Cor 7. The Christian witnesses in the first several centuries, many of whom were native Greek speakers, did not understand 1 Cor 7:15's language of 'not bound' and 'free'--or anything else in 1 Cor 7--as permitting remarriage" (231).
I'm am shocked, but in a good way, that a Global Methodist wrote this. While I agree with the article I don't think the GMC will change its position on divorce and remarriage. We have too many divorced and remarried people in the pew, in the pulpit and in the counsel of Bishops....
Also side note: one of the reasons why my generation (millennials) accepted gay marriage so quickly is because our divorced baby boomer parents had no credibility when they lectured us about the sanctity of marriage.... It's hard to oppose same sex marriage when one does mental gymnastics to normalize divorce and remarriage......
I honestly think he’s pretty correct… and he’s actually living it by staying single. I commend him…
Wait I had no idea any some bishops were divorced and remarried…
A good starting point would be the YouTube Channel of Chris Iverson
and his book. It is very accessible for Evangelicals.