Recent Reflections
on Divorce
The traditional Reformed view of
divorce is well expressed in Murray's Divorce and Adams' Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, and nothing much more about
that need be said. On this view, there are two grounds for divorce: one
is sexual uncleanness, which includes adultery, but also the
other sexual sins covered by the term porneia:
homosexuality, bestiality, prostitution, etc. The other ground is
desertion of a believing by an unbelieving spouse. Of course when a
believing spouse is deserted by a professing believer, the
professing believer (unrepentant) can be disciplined by the church, so
that the situation becomes that of a believer divorced by
an unbeliever. So in effect any desertion can be, with appropriate church
involvement, ground for divorce.
Recently, however, some Reformed
thinkers have thought that more needs to be said. Spouse abuse, for
example, has become much more visible today (whether by an increase in its
occurrence or an increase in its reporting is hard to say). Can spouse
abuse be a ground for divorce?
I do believe that in a situation of
spouse abuse, the abused partner, usually the wife, may be removed from
the situation for her own safety. The sixth commandment would
mandate that kind of self-defense. Of course, that creates an unbiblical marriage relationship; married couples
ought to live together. But the responsibility for distorting the
relationship rests with the abuser. And it is typical in Scripture for
exceptions to be made to divine laws where human health and safety are at
stake.
But can spouse abuse be a ground of
divorce? Some have argued that it is a form of porneia, since porneia is used metaphorically for a wide variety of non-sexual sins. I
do not think that path is promising. If we granted divorce
for anything that could metaphorically be called porneia, we would have a
liberal divorce policy indeed; but Matt. 19 makes clear that Jesus' own
view of divorce was seen as so restrictive as to be virtually impossible
to keep. Rather, I think we should limit the application of the porneia exception
to those sins which are explicitly sexual in character.
But what of "desertion?"
Could spouse abuse be a form of desertion? A prior question is this: Is it
possible for a spouse to desert a marriage without physically leaving the
home? The answer seems to be "yes." Certainly if a husband
refuses to support his wife and children financially and
continues unrepentant in that pattern, but continues to live with
them under the same roof, we would conclude that he has
"deserted" his family in the most significant sense. He has
refused to take responsibility for them. He has broken his marriage vows
and does not seek to renew his adherence to them.
It does seem to me that spouse abuse
may also be a ground for divorce on the basis of "desertion."
The unrepentant spouse abuser, too, has forsaken his marriage vow. He no
longer loves, honors and cherishes his wife; rather he has become a threat
to her life and health. This is not to say that a person once
abused should file immediately for divorce. Opportunities for
counseling and reconciliation should certainly be taken. (Even adultery
in the most literal sense does not immediately necessitate divorce.)
I am also asked sometimes whether an
adulterer (or one who is guilty of any marriage-breaking sin) who repents
of his sin must be allowed by
the innocent spouse to continue the marriage. I have held both views on
this through my teaching career. Matt. 19 seems to teach that porneia itself,
whether repented or not, can be ground for divorce, and I taught
that early in my career. Later, however, I was moved to consider
the concepts of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation
more deeply. If we argue that forgiveness means forgetting, such
that the forgiven sinner bears no further consequences for his
sin, then it would seem that it would be wrong to divorce a
repentant adulterer. To do that would be to continue to hold forgiven
sin against him, contrary to true forgiveness.
Still later in my reflections,
however, I came to the conclusion that forgiving does not always mean
forgetting, nor does it always mean that the person forgiven should bear
no further consequences for his sin. Certainly when God forgives,
he does not forget, nor does he absolve us of all
earthly consequences for our sins, though he does absolve us of
eternal punishment. Nor does the civil law "forget" the sins of
those who repent of crimes. Even in personal relationships, forgiven sins cannot
often be entirely forgotten. For one thing, to completely forget is often
psychologically impossible. For another thing, it would be contrary to the
truth simply to pretend that the sin never happened. Further, remembering
past sins, even forgiven ones, may often be necessary in our dealings with
people. If a teenager is guilty once of drunken driving, but repents, a
parent may very well choose to allow him to keep driving-- both
because he needs to drive and because he needs to sense the fulness of his restoration. But if a teenager
habitually drinks and drives, contrary to his parents' commands and
discipline, then the pattern cannot
be "forgotten." The parent, in determining the punishment,
cannot forget all the repented sins of the past. Rather he must punish the
pattern. And that will generally result in a more severe punishment, for
the good of the child and that of his potential victims.
It is scriptural for parents and
churches to require repentant sinners to "bring forth fruits of
repentance" before forgiveness culminates is "forgetting."
Therefore, I seem to be returning to
my earlier view, which, again, is the apparent
meaning of Matt. 19. Porneia, even when
repented, may be so destructive of the "one flesh" bond between
husband and wife that that bond cannot again be repaired. I believe I have
seen cases in which that sort of rupture has taken place. When it has, the
only remedy is divorce.
That of course makes it less easy to
tell someone when he or she has, or does not have, grounds for divorce.
Often answering that question requires heart searching. Priority
should certainly be given to reconciliation, for God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). But there are times when that is
impossible, and it is hard for third parties to give advice in these
cases. Difficult as it is to live with such ethical vagueness, it often
appears in biblical teaching. This fact should not surprise us.
Biblical ethics in general is an ethic of the heart.
Some of these thoughts have been
gleaned from the report on Divorce and Remarriage, presented to the 20th
PCA General Assembly (1982). It can be found in the PCA Digest Position Papers 1973-1993 (Atlanta: Committee for
Christian Education and Publications, 1993), 182-293.