Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 197

Monday Morning Humor

This is for all the single guys out there, for all the men who read Just Do Something and are wondering what you can do to find the girl of your dreams. Let Ken from Toy Story 3 lead you to the promised land.

Just in Case You Were Feeling Too Smart

Always Reformed is the new book edited by R. Scott Clark and Joel Kim in honor of Robert Godfrey. I started reading the book this week. There are a lot of interesting chapters (e.g., Hart on Machen's Warrior Children, Clark on Aimee Semple McPherson, Horton on Always Reforming, Van Drunen on "Christian Culture," Riddlebarger on the Lord's Supper).

One chapter which is interesting, but also has the effect of making you feel a bit dumb is Richard Muller's chapter, rather breezily entitled, "God as Absolute and Relative, Necessary, Free, and Contingent: The Ad Intra-Ad Extra Movement of Seventeenth-Century Reformed Language about God." This is actually an important topic about God's decree and in what ways God operates according to necessity and contingency. But the prose is not for the uninitiated:

Thus, God is said to be both immense and omnipresent, both infinite and eternal, to have a voluntas arcana or beneplaciti and a voluntas revelata or signi, a voluntas immanens and a voluntas transiens, a scientia necessaria and a scientia voluntaria, and a iustia absoluta et in se and a iustia relata, respectu exercitii. (58)

Indeed.

It's truly the case that I couldn't have said it better myself. I have to confess my Latin is a bit rusty (and there wasn't much to rust). All I can recall for certain are the immortal words passed down through the ages: sepmer ubi sub ubi.

You may want to check out the book. And you'll certainly want to follow the aforementioned advice.

In Praise of Ordinary Pastors

I've been thankful for the Ordinary Pastors Project going on at TGC. The stories have been encouraging, touching, and humbling. Let me throw in my two mites.

To all the pastors who may read this blog, to all those praying through the Scriptures each week, praying over your people, and praying down divine favor for your congregation, I say: God bless you and may your tribe increase. I don't know how to say this without sounding as syrupy as Aunt Jemima, but ordinary pastors are my heroes. They really are. I don't know exactly what makes a pastor ordinary—I certainly feel ordinary (and worse than that on some days). But I suppose when people talk about an "ordinary pastor" they are talking about the pastor who flies under the evangelical radar, the pastor who labors in an ordinary place with ordinary people who don't give a rip about the evangelical radar or if their pastor is on it, so long as he is with them.

I think of pastors who see a hundred faces stare back at them in the pews, maybe 130 some years, maybe 85 in others. These pastors can't help but wonder if they've gotten something wrong or if they just aren't as gifted as other men. Both are possible. But more likely, it's just one of those things, one of those "the Spirit blows where he wills" kind of things. I know of pastors who work just as hard as I do. They preach good sermons. They love their people. They probably shepherd better and counsel better and visit the widows better than I do. They endure more hardship and face more obstacles. And yet they keep rowing their spiritual oars Sunday after Sunday, elder meeting after elder meeting, budget after budget, funeral after funeral, all the while with little fanfare and perhaps even little visible fruit. Who's ordinary now? Are not they the extraordinary ones?

My definition of a hero is someone who does the right thing in the right way for a long time whether people notice or not. Thousands of unheralded, unknown pastors personify this definition. They marry and bury, preach and teach, hold hands and pat backs, attend open houses and attend meetings, pray like they believe it and sing like they mean it. Even if the coffee is bad, the pay low, and the church music so-so, these brothers keep loving and keep on proclaiming the same gospel. Some say insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. But that goes out the window when what you're doing is the very thing God has called you do.

Faithful, humble, diligent, reliable, gentle, courageous, compassionate, teachable, imperfect ordinary pastors—of them the world is not worthy.

Got a good pastor? Then tell him you think so.

P.S. If you go to University Reformed Church, this is not a beggarly attempt at cards and cookies. I feel much loved already. Just keep on doing what you're doing.

Jason Carter: Memorable Moments from Lausanne

Jason and Lisa Carter are missionaries to Equatorial Guinea. Currently, Jason is in Scotland working on a Ph.D., after which the Carters will return to West Africa where they had been serving for several years.

Jason was at the Third Lausanne Congress in Cape Town (October 16-25) and recently sent me an email with his highlights. His comments were interesting, helpful, and challenging. I asked if I could share them on my blog. Jason is a sharp thinker, a truly fine missionary, and a great friend. I'm happy to post his thoughts below.

*******

The First Lausanne Congress (1974/Switzerland) was paradigm-changing as Ralph Winter highlighted the biblical mandate to evangelize and disciple all the "unreached people groups"; John Stott chaired a committee which produced a statement known as the "Lausanne Covenant" which grounded the modern evangelical missionary movement theologically.   The Second Lausanne Congress (1989/Manila) produced over 300 mission partnerships all over the globe.  How will the Third Lausanne Congress (Oct. 16-25, 2010) celebrated in Cape Town, South Africa be remembered?  Here are a few memorable moments that stood out to me:

Caste System = Slavery

Perhaps the strongest prophetic voice issuing from Cape Town came from Dr. Joseph D'Souza from India when he spoke out against the Indian Caste System as (a form of modern) slavery in its subjugation of 250 million Dalit peoples.  D'Souza made the point that if apartheid was wrong, then so too the Caste System:  "25% of India's population —  250 million people — has no rights, dehumanized, segregated, and silently enduring an apartheid system in India. We, of course, in India hang our heads in shame…"  D'Souza stated that there are more slaves in our world today than when William Wilberforce fought the Transatlantic slave trade and closed his rousing and prophetic message by calling forth the involvement of the global church:   "I am here to say to you here at Cape Town that nothing but the concerted opinion and involvement of the global church will bring down human civilization's longest lasting slave system."

I think that D'Souza's eight minutes on the Lausanne platform, 20 years from now, might be one of the defining hallmarks of Lausanne III if the global church – working with Dalit Christians – manages to prophetically speak out and live out Christ's transforming power in the midst of this (unbelievably) large-scale injustice, reconstituting Indian society from the bottom-up for the glory of Christ.

Humility, Humility, Humility: Mission Success not tied to National Economic Prosperity

Patrick Fung (General Director of OMF International) made a desperate plea for humility and simplicity to the growing Chinese church.  Although most of the 200 Lausanne delegates from China never made it to Cape Town (having been detained by the Chinese government), Fung warned the Chinese church to not fall into the temptation of linking missionary success with national economic prosperity.  Perhaps the church in China can learn from the mistakes of the English and American church that too often thought (and still thinks) that missionary success goes hand-in-hand with economic power and might.

Maybe it is still not too late for the growing churches in the global south significantly missional in orientation – one thinks of China, Korea, Nigeria and Brazil – to return to the humble praxis of the first missionary who was born in a lowly manger.

Oral Bible Stories:  Making Scriptures Available Now

By some estimates, only 458 of the world's 7,299 languages have complete translations of the Bible, while approximately 4,723 languages are without a single word of scripture in their mother tongue.  While Lausanne obviously wasn't "throwing in the towel" with regards to the thousands of languages still without scriptures, I heard some segments of Lausanne saying:  "Enough already. Let's put 40-60 key biblical stories on CDs in languages that do not yet have the scriptures.  Let's not abandon the long process of scripture translation, but waiting for another 30-40 years while millions of people live and die without hearing the Bible in their own mother tongue is not acceptable.  The modern church has never done a great job with oral learners, but we have a responsibility to reach the nearly 4 billion oral people on this planet.  Let's get going on this one."

A New Day, One Old School Call from Piper

From my perspective, those were the potentially historic and prophetic moments of the Third Lausanne Congress in Cape Town, South Africa.  In many respects, the Congress was a passing of the baton to a new generation of mission leaders as the two names most closely associated with the Lausanne movement in Billy Graham and John Stott could only participate "in spirit" via letters due to their advanced ages.  Yet, perhaps it was a pastor, theologian and writer who did the very best Billy Graham impersonation during the entire Congress.  John Piper, in his exposition of Ephesians 3 during the third morning session, passionately urged the Lausanne Congress not to forget the priority of world evangelization – an important moment within the Congress.  Piper asked if the Congress might affirm the following statement:  "We Christians care about all human suffering but especially eternal suffering."  Piper's charge/confrontation was characteristically an old school call for a new day of mission in the midst of new challenges for the global church.  It was a call for the global church to continue to be bold in making evangelism the center of the church's work and witness.  And, I'm sure, Billy was smiling.

A Sermon on Divorce and Remarriage

I preached this sermon, entitled "What Did Jesus Think of Divorce and Remarriage," at URC on October 24, 2010. The bulk of the sermon moves through seven principles of divorce and remarriage.

1. Marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman and God's intention is for marriage to last a lifetime.

2. Divorce is not always sinful.

3. Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of sexual immortality.

4. Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of desertion by an unbelieving spouse.

5. When the divorce was not permissible, any subsequent remarriage (to someone other than the original spouse) results in adultery.

6. In situations where the divorce was permissible, remarriage is also permissible.

7. Improperly divorced and remarried Christians should stay as they are, but repent and be forgiven of their past sins and make whatever amends are necessary.

Since the topic is so difficult, nuanced, and emotional, I wrote out a manuscript–just to be extra careful. The whole sermon, with a few minor tweaks, is reprinted below.

*******

There are a couple challenges that make preaching on divorce and remarriage especially difficult. One challenge is that there are so many legitimate approaches I could take with this sermon.

I could make the sermon a warning: "Marriage is sacred. Remember your vows. Jesus never encouraged divorce. So don't do it." I could legitimately preach this way because the weight of the New Testament falls on the side of warning against divorce.

But I could also use the sermon to talk about God's compassion for those who have been hurt in marriage, or those left behind in marriage, or those sinned against in marriage.

I could take the sermon in a different direction encourage those who have sinned in divorce or sinned in remarriage to repent and receive God's merciful forgiveness. I could also take more of a theological approach and try to explain the acceptable grounds for divorce and remarriage, asking questions like: Are there any justifiable reasons for divorce? If so, what are they? And if you may get divorced under certain circumstances, what about remarriage?

I wish I had time to go deep pastorally and theologically in all these way, but I just can't in one sermon. That's the first challenge.

The other challenge in preaching on this topic is that there are so many unique scenarios that don't lend themselves to easy answers. Many of you will listen to this sermon not simply for theological information, but you'll be listening to hear if I think God thinks your divorce was acceptable, or whether your parents' remarriage was appropriate, or whether you are free to remarry now that you are divorced. There are so many intricate, specific situations that I can't possibly speak to all of them. These situations require tremendous wisdom because it's not always clear what is the correct counsel.

For example:

•    A wife commits adultery. She is repentant and wants to save the marriage. The husband knows he must forgive, but he wants to file for divorce? Would you grant him that right? Does it make any difference if the wife was frequently unfaithful?

•    A wife gets a divorce because of marital unfaithfulness? You've determined she has legitimate grounds for that divorce. Is she then free to remarry? What if the husband repents, is he? Or only to his ex-wife? And what if she gets remarried, does that change his obligation?

•    A non-Christian couple gets a divorce. Later the man becomes a Christian and realizes the divorce was wrong. Is he obligated to try to win back his non-Christian ex-wife? What if he tries to be reconciled and his ex-wife has no interest, is he free to remarry in the Lord?

•    A remarried couple comes to realize their divorce and remarriage was sinful. Are they committing adultery by staying married? If they stay married, what should they do to make things right? Can they be members in the church? What about leaders?

•    Both husband and wife commit adultery. They both have grounds for divorce and they are both the "guilty" party. Would you allow a divorce? Two years later they are both sincerely repentant. Should they remarry each other? Could they remarry someone else?

There are as many scenarios as there are couples in the world. How do we know what's right in each situation, especially when so many of the scenarios have no parallel in Scripture? The simple thing is to turn a blind eye to divorce in the church. Just pretend it doesn't happen. Don't ask people about it. Don't bring it up. Don't say anything during a membership interview. The hard thing is to take a few biblical principles about marriage, divorce, and remarriage and then try to apply them prayerfully and wisely to a thousand different situations.

Seven Principles

Let me give you seven biblical principles on divorce and remarriage.

1. Marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman and God's intention is for marriage to last a lifetime.

Look at Mark 10:1-12:

And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them. And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

This was a trap. The Pharisees were not genuinely inquiring of Jesus' position.  They wanted to test him and make him look bad. Everyone in Judaism agreed that divorce was permissible. You can read all the same scholarly stuff I've been reading and the same Jewish documents and see that people on all sides of the divorce issue agree first century Judaism allowed for divorce, even required it in some situations. The Pharisees certainly allowed for divorce, and as we'll see in a moment, probably for a lot of reasons. But they have a suspicion that Jesus will be stricter. Maybe they heard his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe they just assume he will be strict. Maybe they want to get him in trouble with Herod who already killed John the Baptist for objecting to his divorce. Whatever the reason, they are setting a trap.

Like a good teacher, Jesus answers their question with a question. "What did Moses say?" "Well," they answer, "Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife." They're think of Deuteronomy 24 which we'll come back to in a minute. Jesus doesn't reject Moses' teaching, but he recasts it. "Yes, Moses allowed for divorce. But this was a concession to human sin. Certainly not a requirement. The law was making the best of a bad situation." Then Jesus takes them back to the very beginning. "Deuteronomy gives Moses a concession, but Genesis gives God's intention. Marriage is one man and one woman. The two become one flesh. They leave their family behind and this new family takes priority over all other allegiances except to God. Marriage is a sacred union. God himself joins the couple together. And what God puts together, no one should separate."

The main thing Jesus wants to say about divorce is this: don't do it. It's not God's intention for marriage. It's not what you promised before God and a room full of witnesses. In fact, Jesus says pretty flatly in verses 11-12, anyone who divorces husband or wife and remarries someone else commits adultery. Why? Because the divorce shouldn't have happened in the first place. There's no reason this man and woman shouldn't still be married. So for them to be married to someone else, presumably having sex with someone else, is like committing adultery. You may be sleeping with someone who is your husband or wife, but you aren't sleeping with the person who still should be your husband or wife.

Before we see anything else about divorce and remarriage we have to feel the weight of what Jesus is saying. The Pharisees want to talk about acceptable reasons for a divorce. Jesus wants to talk about the sanctity of marriage. They want to talk about when a marriage can be broken. He wants to talk about why marriages shouldn't be broken. If all you hear are the reasons a marriage covenant might be broken, it's like learning to fly by practicing your crash landings or training for battle by practicing your retreats. Whatever exceptions there might be, the main thing is that marriage is supposed to be permanent.

2. Divorce is not always sinful.

Is every divorce the product of sin?  Yes.  Is every divorce therefore sinful?  No.  That's why it's not always a fair comparison to say "Look, you Christians are so worked up about homosexuality, but you don't do anything about divorce." Certainly, Christians have too often turned a blind eye to divorce, but the situations are different because divorce, unlike homosexuality, is not always wrong.

Think of the Christmas story.  When Joseph, who was engaged to Mary, found that she was with child, the text says that "Because Joseph was a righteous man he had in mind to divorce her quietly."  The first thing we notice is that Joseph had to divorce Mary even though they were only engaged.  Jewish betrothals were legally binding in the first century.  Leaving that aside, we also see that Joseph was considered righteous for divorcing her quietly.  He is commended for the quietness mostly, but the divorce didn't seem to reflect badly on Joseph.  Mary, it was thought, had committed sexual immorality, and so Joseph was considered righteous for divorcing her quietly.

We also see in some Old Testament texts that the Lord divorced his people. For example, Jeremiah 3:8 says "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." God's people were spiritual adulterers and so the Lord after putting up with them for generations, finally said, "Enough, you've broken the covenant for the last time.  Here's your certificate of divorce.  Be gone."  Now, the love story is that God still woos his wayward bride back to himself, and welcomes her home when she turns and repents.  But if the Lord can divorce his adulterous spouse, then divorce must not always be wrong.

One other thing to note is that marriage is not indissoluble. This means marriage really can end. Now, usually they shouldn't. But they can. The covenant can be severed. When Jesus says "What God has joined together, let no man separate" he implies that the couple can be separated. I mention this because sometimes people will argue against remarriage saying "She's still married in God's eyes." I don't think that's the right way to talk about the situation. Divorced couples are divorced. They are not married in God's eyes. The question is whether they should still be married and hence, they ought not to be with another man or woman.

3. Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of sexual immorality.

We need to look at a few different passages, starting with Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

The key phrase is in verse 1: "something indecent" (erwath dabar).  It's a very ambiguous phrase, and the Jews argued about it constantly. The phrase is actually used a chapter earlier in Deuteronomy 23:12-14.

You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

You can see that erwath dabar means in general something repulsive, something indecent.  It's not a precise phrase. Because of this ambiguity, two different rabbinical schools emerged. On one side was the more conservative Shammai school, and on the other, the more liberal Hillel school, both well known around the time of Jesus.  The Mishna records:

The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.  And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.

They referred to the same verse, but Shammai emphasized "indecency" and Hillel emphasized "anything."  Jesus is going to side squarely with the more conservative school.  Turn to Matthew 19. This is the same incident we read about earlier in Mark. The Pharisees have come to test Jesus. They specifically ask him about the grounds for divorce and what Moses commanded in Deuteronomy 24. But notice Jesus' words here are a bit different. They include an exception in verse 9: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness [porneia], and marries another woman commits adultery [moichaomai]." Divorce is not allowed for any reason whatsoever (like Hillel said), only for martial unfaithfulness (like Shammai said). Sexual sin breaks the marriage covenant because sex is the oath signing of the covenant.  Having sexual experiences with someone other than your spouse is like trying to sign on someone else's dotted line.  That breaks the covenant and is a ground for divorce. Divorce is still not required, but it is allowed.

Of course, all this raises the question: why does Matthew include the exception clause when Mark doesn't? Some people have argued that Matthew's gospel isn't talking about sex during marriage, but sex before marriage. In first century Judaism a betrothal was legally binding. That's why Joseph was going to divorce Mary after he found out she was with child. They were only engaged at the time, but even breaking off an engagement required a divorce. So the theory is Matthew records these words so his readers will be clear that Joseph wasn't doing anything wrong when he planned to divorce Mary for what seemed to be fornication.

Some Christians I really respect hold to this view, but I don't think it will work. For starters, the question from the Pharisees revolves around Deuteronomy 24 which was not about betrothal. Second, the word porneia is a broad word that includes all kinds of sexual sin, not just sex before marriage while engaged. And besides, Matthew 1 never uses the word porneia to describe Mary's supposed sin and nothing in Matthew 19 explicitly ties the situation back to Mary and Joseph.

So how do we understand this–Matthew includes the exception, while Mark and Luke don't? Remember these are parallel accounts. They are describing the same event. You could say the Matthew added something to Jesus' words, but isn't is easier to assume Mark and Luke left something out? And why would they leave the exception out? Because they wanted the saying more memorable? Perhaps. But I think the basic reason they left out the exception is because it was already a given. No one in Judaism disagreed that divorce was acceptable on grounds of sexual immorality. Mark and Luke didn't have to include Jesus' exception because they figured it was a given. It's like when Jesus said "If your brother has something against you, leave your gift at the altar and go be reconciled first" (Matt. 5:23-24). We naturally assume Jesus means "If your brother has something legitimate against you," because Jesus didn't go tracking down everyone who was upset with him. In the same way, when Mark records "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her" the implied assumption is "Whoever divorces his wife without cause…" I believe Jesus spoke the exception clause.  Matthew included it to be clear, while Mark and Luke left it out because they thought it was already a given.

4. Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of desertion by an unbelieving spouse.

Turn to 1 Corinthians 7. Let's pick things up at verse 8.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it  is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul would like everyone to stay as they are (cf. 17, 20), but if they have to marry, then go ahead and marry.  That's what he says to the singles and widows.  This is what he says to the married.

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband.

Paul is saying, "This is not my own rule.  I got this from Jesus."

(but if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and the husband should not divorce his wife.

So if someone does get wrongly divorce, they should try to be reconciled with their spouse or stay single.  They should not remarry after an illegitimate divorce.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):

He means, "This command is not from the lips of Jesus himself, but it's still a command you need to follow."

that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife.

Here's the second ground for a divorce: desertion by an unbelieving spouse.  Now, we should try to live at peace with an unbelieving spouse.  After all, God may save your spouse through you.  Reconciliation is still the ideal.  But if the unbeliever refuses to live with you and leaves, let him do so.  You are not bound to be married when your unbelieving spouse deserts you.

The traditional Protestant position–the position written down in the Westminster Confession and held by most evangelicals–is that divorce is permissible on two grounds: sexual immorality and desertion. In both case the marriage covenant is severed. In one case, because sexual intimacy has taken place with another. And in the second case, because the spouse just plain isn't there.

Let me just add that I am sympathetic to and yet extremely cautious about finding other grounds for divorce. On the one hand, I think it's possible that God did not mean to give us every possible grounds for divorce in the New Testament. Jesus gave one and Paul (admittedly, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), mentioned another one relevant to the Corinthian situation. So might there be one or two other grounds for divorce? Perhaps. And yet, if you say that you open up a Pandora's box of trouble. People will argue that psychological abuse is a ground and emotional neglect is a ground and maybe terrible unhappiness is a ground for divorce. I think it is safer biblically to maintain that there are two acceptable grounds for divorce. But having said that, I could envision in extreme situations the elders might conclude: "This man (or woman) has not completely disappeared but his life is tantamount to desertion." If a guy is strung out on drugs, gambling all their worldly possessions, and has repeatedly beaten his wife, might that count as desertion at some point?

This is why each case needs to be dealt with individually. It's also why we need biblical principles, so we have something to apply in these gut-wrenching, difficult sinful scenarios.

5. When the divorce was not permissible, any subsequent remarriage (to someone other than the original spouse) results in adultery.

We've already seen Jesus make this point in Mark 10. If you are illegitimately divorced, then the remarriage is also illegitimate. This doesn't mean you aren't really divorce and you aren't really remarried. It means you shouldn't have been divorced. The covenant hadn't been broken and shouldn't have been severed. Consequently, you shouldn't be married to someone other than your original spouse. And that means if you are remarried that new sexual relationship is sinful. So what do you do if you are already in a sinful second marriage? I'll come back to that in the last point.

6. In situations where the divorce was permissible, remarriage is also permissible.

Now what about remarriage?  Remarriage is clearly allowed after a spouse dies (Romans 7:3).  But what about after a biblically sanctioned divorce? Let me give you a few reasons why I think remarriage is permissible.

First, I think grammatically it is more likely that the exception clause in Matthew 19 modified both verbs. In other words, when Jesus says "except for marital unfaithfulness" that covers "whoever divorces" and "marries another."

Second, all scholars on every side of this divorce and remarriage debate agree that it was a given for first century Jews that remarriage was a valid option after a valid divorce. To be granted a legal separation meant de facto that you were no longer bound to anyone and thus free to remarry. No one in Jesus audience was thinking that remarriage wouldn't be an option.  If Jesus wanted to teach that remarriage after every divorce was unacceptable, he would have made that new teaching much clearer.

Third, the phrase "is not enslaved" in 1 Corinthians 7:15 probably implies that the spouse who has been deserted is free to marry.  This would have been the default Jewish position and it seems to be the same idea found clearly in v. 39 ("she is free to be married to whom she wishes").  The Greek word is different in verse 15, but they are related words that convey the same idea.

Of course, just because a divorced person may be free to remarry does not mean it is necessarily a good or wise idea. A lot of other considerations come into play. But the general principles is, after a legitimate divorce, there is freedom to remarry.

7. Improperly divorced and remarried Christians should stay as they are, but repent and be forgiven of their past sins and make whatever amends are necessary.

This is where things get really messy. What if you are in a second or third marriage that you now realize is sinful? Should you get a divorce? I don't think so. The principle in 1 Corinthians 7, repeated in verse 17, 20, and 24, is "remain as you are." God does not want you to add to the sin of a remarriage the sin of another divorce.

Does this mean those Christians have gotten away with sin? Not at all. We are never better off for having sinned. There are consequences in our relationships. There may be consequences in your spiritual life. And if you look back at your sinful divorce and remarriage and think "Wow, I'm glad I didn't know all this ten years ago" that is a dreadful sign that something is very wrong in your heart. If the Spirit is at work you will not think "Phew, I really got away with one here." Instead you will think, "O Lord, I am so sorry. I was ignorant of the Scriptures. I was blind to my own sin. I have broken your law and sullied the name of Christ. Please forgive me. Have mercy on us Lord." And you'll not only ask for the Lord's forgiveness, you'll make things right with your ex-spouse, with your kids, your parents, your in-laws–you'll make amends and ask for forgiveness with anyone else you hurt by breaking your marriage vows.

Let me just finish by very briefly addressing three groups of people.

To the married: Stay married. Guard your marriage. Don't think you are above falling. Don't think you are above temptation. Pray together. Take walks together. Get away from the kids to be together. There are few things more precious in life than your marriage. Do not take it for granted. And if you are contemplating divorce, please talk to someone. Please don't give up. If you have biblical grounds for divorce, consider what glory it might be to God to patiently work toward reconciliation. And if you don't have biblical grounds, consider what offense it will be to God to break the promises you made in his name. Consider the harm to your kids. Stay married.

To the divorced and single: If you had grounds for a divorce, the leaders want to do everything we can to make sure no one looks down on you. If you have been sinned against, we do not want to treat you as the sinner. We do not want you to run from the church, but find grace and fellowship here.

If you are divorced but shouldn't be, can you find hope in your heart that God might be able to reconcile you and your spouse? It would be a great trophy of his grace to bring you two back together. If that doesn't happen, don't get remarried. Don't think you can always repent later. You never know: the next time you blatantly sin may be the time the Lord gives you over to the hardness of your heart and puts you beyond the pale.

To those who have sinfully divorced, to those whose sin caused the divorce, to those who are now remarried when you shouldn't be: run to the cross. It is not light thing to tear asunder what God joined together. It is no small mistake to pursue an adulterous second marriage. But God's grace is not light and it is not small. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. There is mercy yet for you. But the contrition must be real, the admission of guilt must be honest, the repentance must be earnest. A broken heart and a contrite spirit the Lord will never deny. Run to God. Plead with God. Know his adopting love. Experience again his justifying free grace. There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Immanuel's veins. And sinners plunged beneath that flood, lose all their guilty stains.

What's Wrong with Theistic Evolution?

Most readers of this blog are probably aware that theistic evolution has been a hot topic in evangelicalism of late. Certainly, the aggressive support for evolution from the gang at Biologos has succeeded in stirring the pot. As did the address this summer from Albert Mohler responding to Biologos (for Mohler's latest on the controversy go here; that link will also take you to the most pertinent links in the debate).

Given the ongoing debate, many of you should be interested in a new book from the Discovery Institute entitled God and Evolution, edited by Jay Richards. The book is not necessarily a defense of Mohler's position, but it is a strong critique of theistic evolution.

Jay Richards (whom you may remember from this work) was kind enough to do an interview with me about this new book..

Hi Jay, thanks for doing another interview for us. Maybe you can start by telling us what you're up to these days. You've left Grand Rapids and are back in Seattle, correct?

Yes, I left Acton full time in November 2008. In 2009, I was a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and worked on a couple of projects related to economics. In September 2009, I also started writing as a Contributing Editor at the The American and the Enterprise blog at American Enterprise Institute, and returned to Discovery Institute full time in February 2010. We're living in Seattle now, just a few miles from the Discovery Institute offices.

You edited this new book "God and Evolution." Who are a few of the others contributors and why did you feel compelled to do this book?

Other than me, the book contributors are John West, Stephen Meyer, Casey Luskin, William Dembski, Jonathan Witt, Jonathan Wells, Logan Gage, David Klinghoffer, and Denyse O'Leary. All of these folks are associated with the intelligent design movement, so you might wonder why a bunch of ID folks would get together to write about God and evolution. We did so for several reasons. First, in recent years, there's been a resurgence of attempts to reconcile theism with Darwinian evolution. Many of these "theistic evolutionists" have claimed that ID is bad theology. Some have even called it blasphemous! These accusations needed a response. Second, while intelligent design arguments are based on public evidence and standard forms of reasoning, the debate over design obviously has theological implications. Finally, speaking for myself, I've grown increasingly concerned that many well-meaning Christians are confused about the question of "evolution." Too many people seem satisfied to say that evolution is just God's way of creating without being clear on what that means.

We've all heard the phrase, but what exactly is "theistic evolution?"

The problem with the word "evolution" is that it means many different things—some trivial, some significant and controversial. We use the term "theistic evolution" in the book to refer to those who seek to reconcile more or less traditional theism with Darwinian evolution. Darwinism has always been defined as a purposeless process, so reconciling it with theism is a grade A dilemma. If, in contrast, a person believes that God guided an evolutionary process in creating the various forms of life, they might believe in "evolution" in the sense of common ancestry, but their view would be very un-Darwinian. They would be a design proponent rather than a "theistic evolutionist" in the sense that we use the term.

I know you've got a whole book on this topic, so I don't expect you to rehearse all the arguments, but perhaps you could briefly highlight one or two scientific problems with theisitc evolution?

The key scientific problems with theistic evolution are identical with the key scientific problems with Darwin's theory. Though we know that Darwin's mechanism can explain some trivial things, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria and variations in finch beaks, there's no evidence that random genetic mutations and natural selection can create major new systems in biology. On the contrary. Much of what we know suggests that Darwin's "mechanism" is quite limited in scope. One of the popular arguments theistic evolutionists use against ID proponents is the idea that most of our DNA is "junk." Francis Collins (head of the NIH) is quite fond of this argument. You would expect flotsam and jetsam left over from the Darwinian process, according to Collins, if the system were cobbled together by a mindless process, but not if the system had been designed.

A decade and a half ago, some ID proponents predicted that many of these so-called non-coding regions (regions that don't code for proteins) would eventually be found to have important functions. Well, evidence for important functions has been reported for years in the scientific literature. It's becoming clear that some religious scholars were so quick to accommodate Darwinism that they didn't check the evidence carefully.

You also talk about philosophical and theological problems. Do you think theisitc evolution presents dangers to orthodox Christianity?

THE central theological problem for theistic evolutionists is reconciling Darwinian Theory—which defines "random" to mean "purposeless"—with theism. The theist claims that God created the world for a purpose and providentially guides it. But it simply makes no sense to say that God directs an undirected process. This basic contradiction at the heart of the project leads many theistic evolutionists either to trade in equivocations, or to jettison major parts of traditional theism.

How should a Christian student or scholar respond when someone dismisses Intelligent Design out of hand saying "It's not science"?

The best thing someone can do to respond to the claim that ID is not science is to take the time to read the responses to this charge from ID proponents. We deal with it a bit in the book. To make a long story very short, any definition of science broad enough to encompass Darwinism, origin of life studies, and cosmology, will allow ID arguments. Any non ad hoc definition of science strict enough to rule ID out will also rule out these other disciplines which we all accept as science. However you define science, however, ID arguments are based on public evidence from science and don't depend on private revelation. So the question remains: Is there evidence for intelligent design in nature, or not? Even if ID were basket-weaving or European history, that's still the relevant question.

What is the relationship between ID and young earth creationism? Are there cautions you would have for Christians in either camp?

ID differs from young earth creationism because it is based on the evidence from nature alone, and is not an attempt to reconcile the biblical text (or an interpretation of the biblical text) with the evidence of nature. ID, strictly speaking, simply claims that there are patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of an intelligent agent. That's consistent with a variety of different creationist views, but is identical with none of them. Of course, many ID proponents have specific views about the doctrine of creation, the age of the universe, and so forth. But ID per se is distinct from these ideas.

To put it differently, if you're a young earth creationist you're going to believe in some forms of design. But you could think that some things are best explained in terms of design, but not be a young earth creationist. The key contrast with ID would be materialism. ID proponents think you need the category of agency to fully explain the natural world. Materialists ultimately deny this.

Monday Morning Humor

You may have seen this already. It's been making the rounds. But it's pretty funny. Worth another look.

Playing Telephone with Science

In light of Thursday's blog post on yet another example of dubious data, a friend sent me this delightful cartoon explaining how scientific research actually gets reported.

The First Indispensable Quality

What is the first indispensable requisite for gospel ministry? I'll let Spurgeon lead off:

That a teacher of the gospel should first be a partaker of it is a simple truth, but at the same time a rule of the most weighty importance. We are not among those who accept the apostolic succession of young men simply because they assume it; if their college experience has been rather vivacious than spiritual, if their honours have been connected with athletic exercises than with labours for Christ, we demand evidence of another kind than they are able to present to us. No amount of fees paid to learned doctors, and no amount of classics received in return, appear to us to be evidences of a call from above. True and genuine piety is necessary as the first indispensable requisite; whatever "call" a man may pretend to have, if he has not been called to holiness, he certainly has not been called to the ministry.

Bang on Chuck! The call to ministry begins with the call to holiness. Even if you have taken your classes, earned your degree, memorized your paradigms, and logged your internship hours, you may not be ready to teach the gospel. School loans and paper work a pastor does not make.

Spurgeon is absolutely correct: the first indispensable quality for pastoral ministry is Christlikeness. I've always loved that line from Robert Murray M'Cheyne: "What my people need from me most is my own personal holiness." I believe this with all my heart. I don't live it like I want, but I believe it. 2 Peter 1:8 promises that if we are increasing in godly virtues we will not be "ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." As Spurgeon put it: "Sanctity in ministers is a loud call to sinners to repent, and when allied with holy cheerfulness it becomes wonderfully attractive."

All this means I need to be with God more than I need to be with it. I need to be godly more than I need to be gifted. No matter how much I may stumble—and we all stumble—I, as the pastor (and anyone engaged in ministry really), must strive to "set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim. 4:12). I must keep a close watch on myself on my teaching (1 Tim. 4:16). When it comes to ministry effectiveness, piety is praxis.

Is It True That "1 in 10 Teens Has Had a Same-Sex Partner"?

Be suspicious of statistics, especially those that seem too good or too bad or too surprising to be true.

You may have seen this amazing news headline: 1 in 10 Teens Has Had a Same-Sex Partner. The story on AOL Health begins this way:

Nearly one in ten teens has had a same-sex partner — double what previous research has shown, according to a surprising new study.

The latest findings, published in the journal Pediatrics, reveal that 9.3 percent of teenagers say they have had at least one partner who is the same sex as they are.

That's about twice as many as indicated in a 2002 study of Massachusetts and Vermont teens showing 5 to 6 percent of teenagers had had same-sex partners.

"I don't know that it means there's an increase in prevalence," said Massachusetts psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Carlat, AOL Health's mental health expert. "As homosexuality has become more and more accepted in society, people are more willing to acknowledge their sexuality than they used to be."

Wow! Who knew? 1 in 10 American teenagers has had a same-sex partner?! That's really terrible/terrific (depending on your point of view). What a revelation!

The only problem with this revelation is that it's false. If the reporter for AOL had taken time to read just the abstract for the Pediatrics article she may have seen the heading "CONCLUSIONS" (in all caps) and noted this summary:

Of sexually active adolescents, 9.3% reported a same-sex partner, a higher estimate than other published rates.

AOL speaks of 1 in 10 teens; the original article concludes 9.3% of sexually active adolescents reported a same-sex partner. There's a big difference. The survey analyzed data from 17,220 teenagers. Of those, 7,261 (or 42%) reported having had sex. So according this study 58% of teens are not having sex with anyone and 9.3% of those have, had same-sex partners, or 3.9% of the total sample.

There are other reasons to be suspicious of the headline. For starters, as AOL reports later in the article: "The new research analyzed data from 17,220 teenagers in New York City who filled out public health surveys" (emphasis mine). The whole Pediatric article is not available online so I can't comment on the ins and outs of the methodology. But I have to believe that a study dealing with "teens in New York City who fill out public health surveys" is going to yield some different results than, say, teens in Dallas or Atlanta or Sioux Falls.

And then there's the disturbing information, which the AOL article also reports, that "About a third of teen boys who had bisexual experiences said they'd had forced sex, compared to 6 percent of boys who reported having only heterosexual experiences." Later the article says that 36% of girls with bisexual experiences and 35% of boys with bisexual experiences endured some kind of "dating violence" in the past year. So, at the very least, a good chunk of the teens with a "same-sex partner" were forced into this experience. Indeed, the journal abstract concludes: "Adolescents with both-sex partners reported a marked prevalence of dating violence and forced sex."

The lesson in all this is, once again, to be wary of dubious data. It is not true that 1 in 10 teens have had a same-sex partner. What's true is that around 4% of teens in New York who filled out a public health survey reported a same-sex experience, and that a not insignificant number of those experiences were forced in some way.

Don't believe everything you hear.