Words'nTone

The concert was slightly out of my preference range. Three bands, one of them a headlining alternative metal, (oops) I mean alternative Christian metal rock band, Disciple. Yes, I know, but still it seems we have to justify for some that there is a category for Christian anything rock and roll, let alone for alternative Christian metal or Christian heavy metal. For many the two words and concepts just don’t go together—Christian and alternative metal or rock’n roll.

My family was actually there to support the family who managed the evening event and whose son was playing the drums in the opening band. Like I said, this was not a preference in the style of music, but support for a family committed to reaching out to young people who will never set inside a church building, let alone a “Christian” concert of churchy-music.

There was even a mosh pit. Now that even crossed my own cultural barrier. For those who don’t know, “Moshing” or as some refer to it “slamming,” refers to when audience members at concert or live performance “aggressively push or slam into each other.” I watched them—the kids, some ranging up into the early 20’s, actually did this and enjoyed the experience.

Now, what was truly amazing to me was the presence of a few, perhaps a half a dozen, “older folks.” Now I am not here to judge age, but they were definitely not the moshers, or groupees, and well beyond the possible 30-somethings obviously enjoying the concert. Most that I am identifying here had grey hair—and yes even I have a little grey, so let’s go with an older-than-fifty-group beyond myself. When I saw the first senior citizen (you know, anyone now old enough to enroll in ARRP, which I am a member!) came through the ticket line, I stood there amazed. No way they were in the right place. But there they were. Now, that began the worship and ministry for me. None walked out, so they knew they were in the right place at the right time and on purpose. I was impressed—Christians far removed from both the style of music and the youth culture that enjoys it, but there they were, supporting a small, but loud expression of outreach to a rather narrow, but growing part of our cultural make-up. I believe I saw Jesus walk in too, to a place where hearts sought him to reach out to younger people, fringed by society and the Christian community, where alternative rockers gave solid testimonies of their faith in Christ, and where a Disciple opened His word and shared how even those with alterative music preferences and who enjoy moshing can have hope and find forgiveness.

“There is always more misery among the lower classes than there is humanity in the higher.” ~Victor Hugo, Les Misérables

I was planning a comment about worship.  But something had gotten in the way.  I was with my wife at the Fairfield Stopn’Shop, picking up milk and cheese and bread.  The town bag lady, wheelchair bound with plastic bags filled with her cans and other useful collected items hanging all around, had knocked over an end-cap of cookies.  She was trying to pick them up.  She couldn’t reach them on the floor.  Perhaps working where I do at a Community Action Agency (a human service agency) that helps low-income families made it second nature to respond and help her.  But I must confess, it wasn’t.  I still had to think twice.  What bothered me in this nice super-market on the edge of Suburbia was that she was being ignored, avoided by people who could plainly see she needed help.  I was more angered by that—so I forgot my discomfort, my own tendency to avoid such unbecoming, unkempt, unpredictable, undesirable people and picked up the packages of cookies for her.

She was grateful.  Even asked blessings on me and told my wife to give me a kiss for her.  And she smelled.  Man, did she smell.  I patted her on the shoulder and told her it wasn’t a problem to help and that I was sure my wife would give me a kiss later.  She rolled off.  Lisa and I went to look for some cheese.  My wife commented, “People can be so mean.” I didn’t disagree, but I replied, “I don’t think it’s meanness.  I think people are uncomfortable.  They don’t know what to do with people like the bag lady.  I’d even say they are scared.  Unfortunate people like this are unpredictable, messy, smelly…I bet you anything, that was the first time she had been touched in a long time.”

Here’s where my mind wandered as Lisa and I finished our shopping:  Leviticus 19:9-10 says:

“Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.  Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.  I am the LORD your God.”

What does it mean to the Christian community to worship (see I got to that subject) in a place where there are those that are “needy” and who are “strangers”?  How do we not reap to the “very corners of your fields,” leaving nothing for the needy and economically vulnerable?  In other words, how does the Christian community, my church, your church, obey this command?  Or, do we safely say, it is the Old Testament and we are under no obligation?  We’re excused.  We’re safe.  In worship every Sunday I think about these things.  How can I go before God and not think about it?

“We live in enemy-occupied territory, not neutral ground.  As long as no effort is made to proclaim the gospel throughout the city, the devil may even come to church and make a substantial contribution.  But when signs of community appear in a deteriorating neighborhood, the beast is roused.  His bulldozer engines roar.” ~Rev. Henry K. Yordon, former and long-time pastor of Congregational Church on the Green, Norwalk, Connecticut.

Paul’s confidence in God’s ability to build the Church unshakable and unconquerable motivates him to pray that the Philippians’ “love may abound” (1:9).  He knows that if the love they already possess continues to grow, it will overtake and subdue existing pride and rivalry.  Their Christlike character will overflow in kindness, caring and humility—attitudes that will resolve the problems that hinder the work of the gospel.

Our character will be measured by our love for others, a commitment that produces concern for people other than ourselves (cf.  2:1 4).  Paul told the Galatian believers that the Holy Spirit produces an inner love that humbles rather than exalts selfish pride (Galatians 5:19 23).  He declared to the Corinthians that loveless Christianity is tantamount to a “resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1).  Prideful convictions and loveless orthodoxy produce friction in the household of God and disinterest among the unchurched.

The ambiguity of the word love makes talking about it difficult.  John Stott rightly says,

“Nothing perhaps is more harmful than the easy good nature which is willing to tolerate everything; and this is often mistaken for the Christian frame of mind.  Love must fasten itself on the things which are worthy of loving, and it cannot do so unless it is wisely directed.”

Paul gives weight to the Christian concept of love by telling the Philippians what he is praying for.  “This is my prayer,” he says: “that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight” (1:9).  The NIV renders the Greek words pase aisthesei as “depth of insight.” This leaves the idea vague.  Insight into what? Literally, the Greek intimates “in all—or extensive —perception.” This is the only occurrence of aisthesei in the New Testament, although it is found in the Greek translation of Proverbs (1:4, 7, 22; 3:20; 5:2).  The idea in secular Greek is “common sense.” Thus Paul probably means “depth of insight into making the best moral choices possible.” Love that feeds on the desires of selfishness will produce a weak and malnourished character that cannot withstand the pressures of life.  True Christian love will be tempered by biblical knowledge and godly common sense.

Our love must be rooted in the fear and reverence of God (Proverbs 1:7).  If our gospel is to have relevance and our witness integrity, our Christian love will produce actions that benefit others.

Paul is not praying for mere head knowledge but knowledge that flows from a reverence for God.  It is knowledge manifested by a biblically informed, godly common sense.  Our love is not all embracing and touchy feely.  It is a love that flows from our Christlike character, permeating the fabric of our church and community life.  A wise love “trained .  .  .  to distinguish good from evil” (Hebrews 5:14) gives us the ability to make proper moral decisions in the face of conflicting choices.

Philippians 1:10 points out the result of such love tempered by genuine, godly knowledge and common sense: “so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ.”

In order to be the best people possible and to make the best choices in life, Christians must grow in the knowledge of God and the wisdom of heaven.  In our church and public life we will be called upon to make a multitude of choices.  We are to be motivated by the broad plan of God to influence and win the world for Christ (1:5 7).  So our choices in this life must stem from our commitment to the Church’s task of proclaiming the gospel.  We must place our selfish ambitions underneath our concern for others.  Godly love for others enables us to discern not only the good from the bad, the moral from the immoral, but also the important from the unimportant.

Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life

the book

Now six years ago I finally was able to publish my my work on Philippians.  Every once in a while, I post a portion of the text Words’nTone, but this time I’d like to shamelessly promote the book as a whole.  I appreciate those who have downloaded the free chapter, and of course many thanks to those who have actually bought the book.  I originally wrote the book because a publisher asked me to—but in the end, the manuscript was released back to me (good thing, the publisher went out of business!).  Below is a synopsis of what the book, Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life,is and why I wrote it.

As a preacher and Bible College professor, I had read countless commentaries, and in this case, many commentaries on Philippians.  When I started, I was actually teaching a College Bible course on Philippians and one of the things I noticed was that there was the extremes in commentaries: On the one hand you had detailed, exegetical, very scholarly works, and on the other, lay-works that were short on exegesis and jumped right to interpretation and application.  Most lay-styled commentaries seem very short on how the author arrived at his or her interpretation.  I thought this very unfair to the lay-reader.  So when I was asked to write a commentary on Philippians, I sought to fill that gap and provide a book that helped the lay-reader see how to arrive at one’s interpetation through a careful exegesis of the book—that is, how an exegete works through a text, and in particularly allows the whole of the work (in this case Paul’s Letter to the Philippians) helps to interprete the individual paragraphs.

The Book
Every time the church adopts the surrounding culture’s values, it dies a little. Often it is brought to the brink of the grave. In every age, the church has had to wrestle for its very life. Paul’s letter to the Philippians cuts across the misplaced values of a self-centered culture.

Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life is a lay commentary, written in a homiletical and expositional style, that enables readers to hear Paul’s argument through Philippians and how the church’s flirtation with individualism has affected our faith and the life of the church. The danger of our privatized, modern faith is exposed. Both personal and church-corporate solutions to have “the mind of Christ” are given.

Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life offers the lay reader insight, and offers pastors and Bible study leaders plenty of expositional depth on Paul’s letter to the Philippians.

Why I wrote Destroying Our Private Cities
I began writing the book while teaching at a Bible college, with many of the chapters completed while pastoring a church, and finishing and editing it while I was beginning a new career field in community action.  Although the book certainly is an exegetical work through Paul’s Letter to the Philippian Church, my influences come from the three worlds of higher Christian educationchurch work, and social action.

• I wanted to write a readable commentary my mother could read without dumbing-down the content
• Our contemporary and privatized spirituality seems divorced from church-life.  It’s not so much loving the church that matters, it’s loving a church that counts
• My transition from a church-centered ministry to a human service-centered vocation gives me a new perspective on faith and church-life
• My respect, admiration, and gratefulness to those in human service vocations—they work so hard to help others, and sometimes with little to no recognition, and equally low pay

Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life
Here is a free downloadable chapter, Putting Jesus Back into Our Potential (Philippians 2:5-11).  The book can be purchased on Amazon as well as other book seller sites.

I am hearing the pangs of end time panic again.  We have this greed-caused economic turndown, an administration that seems bent on turning the USA into a socialist-styled government, and of course hurricanes are a’coming.  These temptations are always in the news.  Like back in 2005 we heard from the false-prophet Pat Robertson:

“This weekend’s catastrophic earthquake in South Asia in the wake of recent U.S. hurricanes and December’s tsunami is catching the eye of televangelist Pat Robertson, who says we ‘might be’ in the End Times described in the Bible” (Joe Kovacs in “Robertson: Disasters point to 2nd Coming,” WorldNetDaily.com, Posted: October 9, 2005).

Why is it that celebrity TV evangelists continue to predict that we’re living on the cusp of Jesus’ second coming?  It is all marketing that gives opportunity for appeals for donations and “hey, look at me, I am a bible scholar and prophetic expert”—you know the Rahm Emanuel “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” principle.  Why do we continue to allow and entertain such ‘signs of the times’ predicting?  Don’t we recall Jesus’ warnings that we are to be ware of those false prophets who falsify his “soon appearance.” Pat Robertson is a regular false prophet, along with his co-false prophet Hal Lindsey, who joined the televangelist by stating, “It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun.” (a broadcast of the “International Intelligence Briefing” on the Trinity Broadcasting Network).

Is it for ratings?  For fundraising and building up their financial base?  Or worse, for setting themselves up as the “ones in the know,” the wise, insightful prophets worthy of admiration and acknowledgement of their abilities to understand Scripture (like no one else) and read the signs of the times (like no one else).  Robertson continued:

“If you read back in the Bible, the letter of the apostle Paul to the church of Thessalonia, he said that in the latter days before the end of the age that the Earth would be caught up in what he called the birth pangs of a new order. And for anybody who knows what it’s like to have a wife going into labor, you know how these labor pains begin to hit. I don’t have any special word that says this is that, but it could be suspiciously like that.”

Don’t think for a minute, they’d be as “insightful” without the structures of modern American and the media culture that props them up.  Despite his mis-use of the text, the Thessalonian text Robertson alludes to is acknowledging that the end will come unannounced, suddenly, and that our daily faith and trust in Christ prevents us from being taken by surprise.  Not surprised because we can read the tea-leaves of the times, but not surprised because we are trusting in Christ and are obedient to His Word.  In fact, trusting in these false-prophets will take our eyes off Christ and make us ill-prepared for the end.

“Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you.  For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.  While they are saying, ‘Peace and safety!’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day We are not of night nor of darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober” (I Thessalonians 5:1-6).

A thief does not announce his coming; but a smart thief knows to send distractions, ways to get his victims to be looking elsewhere, tricking them with misinformation whether it be comfort or smartly placed activity to distract them from the real activity of the thief.  Thieves pair up with those willing to bait and switch the victims, con them with false information.  Whose side are these guys on anyway?  Believing friends, don’t be fooled or distracted.  My non-believing friends, don’t believe them.  Please know these guys who are always predicting the future are either simply misguided Christianized media elites who believe in their own greatness or, worse, are working for the other side.  They and their kind have misguided us for 2000 years—full of predictions that “this is it” and “this is the end,” but have never been right, not once.  And as Jesus says about those who predicate the signs of the times,

“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.  For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.  Behold, I have told you in advance.  So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them” (Matthew 24:23-26).

So for us who need an “excused divorce” for vocational Church ministry, do Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19 provide our parameters? Do these texts offer guidelines for those in power over ministry credentials in determining access for those who are divorced? These are the questions that confront both those who are divorced and seeking vocational church ministry, as well as those with institutional power over who has access to Church ministry and who does not. Before I conclude, I’d like to make clear three things:

1) Unless I missed it, there is no text in all of the Bible that states a divorced and/or a divorced-remarried person cannot be a pastor of a Church. Many turn to I Timothy 3:2—An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife—as a “proof text.” However, there is nothing in the Greek nor the sentence to indicate anything other than what it says, namely an “overseer must…be a husband of one wife.” For those that take it as a reference prohibiting a divorced person being an overseer, would also see that the text says “must” and would then apply to a prohibition of single people being a pastor as well! Of course, no one reads it that way because they are after one thing--a proof text for a policy on divorce and vocational church ministry.  Consistency of interpretation is not one of our virtues way too often! Although it is within the right of institutions to make rules and regulations on accreditation and licensing, I only wish for consistency of interpretation, fair readings of the intent of Scripture, and forthright explanations.

2) I am not suggesting God is at all pleased with divorce. Making this assumption about me, would not only judge me wrongly, but miss the point of the discussion and the Deuteronomy (and Matthew) text. God Himself says that He hates divorce (Mal 2:16), while He had presented His own Certificate of Divorce to Israel who had left Him, remarried foreign gods, and now sought to return (Jer 3:8; cf. Isa 50:1ff).

3) And finally, I did not come to view these issues of divorce and remarriage after I divorced. In fact, I struggled with the miss-reading of these texts and views on divorce and ministry even back in my Bible College days. I knew something was wrong then with these proof-texts and their application. I even said back then—perhaps some of my classmates and friends will remember—that divorce is worse than murder in many denominations.

This leads me to summarize what I think these texts imply for application to marriage/divorce and ministry. First, without question Jesus refers back to the creation account in order to address an age-old Israelite (male) question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Mt 19:3). To which Jesus reaches back to the Genesis account to answer that God’s intention did not include divorce and that the only reason He permitted it was because we have hard hearts. The reading from the Deuteronomy 24 text kept the possibility of giving a Certificate of Divorce for any reason. Jesus stops that cold—there is no reason for divorce save for allowing it because of our hard hearts. This context is not about “Can a divorced person be in vocational Church ministry?” It is the land issues in Deuteronomy 24 that are implied through the text, which links the context of Deuteronomy to the Decalogue’s commandments of not stealing and coveting. What it does provide is a text that speaks to the wider issues of protection of the vulnerable and the mis-use of people within a social context. Perhaps in this the “exception” or loop-hole (or excused divorce) needs to be rethought (e.g., single parents who divorced out of protection for themselves or their children are “excused").

The reason for the barrier and the excused-divorce clause is preference. It certainly isn’t based on a real, faithful interpretation of Scripture. In the case of permitting entrance into Church-Ministry, for many divorce is worse than murder.

Regarding the wife (the woman who marries twice) and her defilement, it does not say she is defiled because of her action.  The “Certificate of Divorce” allowed her to marry again, freely, which was also a way to avoid poverty as well.  So the defilement comes not because of her action, but because of her intended use.  I know poor word, but it fits the concept of defilement, namely that the first husband has caused her to be defiled by the (freedom) to marry and be “used” in a second marriage.

The defilement has religious overtones—similar to the defilement of a temple or altar, whereas it is not the action of the temple or altar that brings defilement, but the action toward it.  Again, the text seems to be implying that the first cause (i.e., the issuing of a “Certificate of Divorce”) brought the affect of the defilement—the “use” as a wife of another.  The defilement had no religious, political, or land/inheritance affect until the former first husband wished to remarry the woman (if she became available—again).  The “abomination” relates to remarrying the woman for whom he divorced in the first place.  We tend to think that it’s all the woman (ah, so convenient for us guys, isn’t it?), but it is the man’s action that would bring about the sin/guilt on the land of inheritance (if he does remarry her). 

Someone has rightly pointed out, and I believe is correct, that the purpose of this text relates to “the property aspect of marriage” and “the financial consequences of its dissolution.” The “Certificate of Divorce” allows the husband some justification for divorce without any financial consequences to himself.  This is significant in that the first husband is actually “the sinner” here (not the woman) and in need of repentance; but more so, that there is no mention of a similar rationale of indecency in the second divorce.  Why does this latter observation matter?

The second marriage dissolution is based solely on the second husband either “turning against” his wife (literally “hating” her) or she is widowed—both are mentioned as cause.  Both, also add a financial and/or land/inheritance aspect with regard to the former first husband if he seeks to remarry her.  He, that is, the former first husband might attempt to have another dowry (which is like stealing) and, if the second husband has died, the inheritance of the second husband would infringe on the family inheritance laws, promises, and expectations given elsewhere in the Pentateuch.  And this would especially be a problem if any children are produced in the second marriage in terms of proper land/inheritance.  The first husband ought not to benefit twice by the marriage and then remarriage of the first wife—again this is stealing, and at least dishonest and coveting.  This is an unjust act that the law/code in Deuteronomy seeks to prevent.  Furthermore, God will not allow dishonest gain to corrupt (pollute, defile) his intention and promises of land/inheritance.  This is why such a second remarriage to the first husband brings a curse on the land.

So for us who need an “excused divorce” for voctaional Church ministry, do Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 19 provide our parameters?  Do these texts offer guidelines for those in power over ministry credentials in determining access for those who are divorced?  These are the questions… to be continued in the next post...

Continuing with Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that 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 from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against 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 husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.”

Deut 24:1ff might actually strike some as sexist, for the reciprocal—i.e., the male who leaves or divorces marries another wife and is, thus, prohibited from returning to the first—is not mentioned or prohibited anywhere in Scripture.  Anywhere!  Nor, is there any prohibition for returning to one’s first wife or reference of defilement of the “second” husband.  The prohibition is solely for the woman in this sequence of events.  It seems reasonable to think beyond our moralistic framework and ask larger questions of why God includes this prohibition in the first place?

First, doesn’t anyone think it odd that the first divorce and then first remarriage does not have a defilement aspect (nor any reference to sin or shame) included.  (So why is divorce and remarriage so shameful or prohibitive of professional church ministry?  Certainly it’s not from this text.) It is the potential third relationship (i.e., the second remarriage) that would jeopardize the community.  Some form of distortion is, according to the text, bringing guilt on the land (cf. v 4: “and shall not bring guilt upon the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance”).  This is case law whereby Moses (as Yahweh’s mouth-piece) is creating a series of laws/codes (throughout Deuteronomy) that have an effect on the land of gift.  This code here is not just about infidelity, not even about the right or wrong of divorce, but one that is concerned with land/inheritance.

No question that such divorce-remarriage-remarriage is a defilement to God’s order.  This text states so.  But why is it?  Why isn’t the first divorce, in this case, a defilement of the land?  Why is returning to the first husband a defilement?  Something about the third marriage (the second remarriage) of a woman back to her first husband damages the community and social order.  Here’s a more probably framework to consider for this prohibition:

The first husband has “gotten” out of the marriage without having to hand over any dowry or financial consideration to his wife. The reference to “indecency” (v 1) is not limited to sexual infidelity, but more probably refers to the inability to bear children (i.e., that’s probably the social context and connotative meaning of “bringing shame” which is what the words means).  This makes sense within the context of land/inheritance.  It is unlikely that the “charge” of indecency is related to adultery, because Moses had already indicated that adultery was punished by death, not divorce (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24).  Additionally, we already know that there are many circumstances addressed in the Old Testament for which divorce is certainly prohibited (e.g., a man defiling his wife before marriage, Deut 22:28-29; falsely accusing a wife of not being a virgin, Deut 22:13-19).

We note that the rejected wife is sent out with a “certificate of divorce,” which does not indicate a rationale for divorce, nor its acceptance.  The man just does it.  This “certificate” allowed the wife to remarry freely to another man, but furthermore enabled the former first husband to be free from returning the dowry or from any financial obligation toward his former first wife.  In Israel, the chief deterrent to divorce most certainly was financial, for divorce caused the divorcing husband to forfeit the dowry, and as well was obligated to make “divorce payments” as well (usually).  The “Certificate of Divorce” is not a requirement of the code, but a description of what was culturally acceptable in divorce case law.  It was a matter of cultural custom and seems to have provided the divorcing husband cover or a way of eliminating any financial responsibility toward the wife he was divorcing.

Regarding the wife (the woman who marries twice) and her defilement, it does not say she is defiled because of her action...to be continued…

I was asked why I divorced…but they were looking for only one reason to justify acceptance back into ministry.  I could have murdered my wife, been tried and convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced, even as someone who had “a testimony” but not living as I should, but while in jail got serious about Jesus and (with a little miracle after many, many years) was paroled for good behavior—and I’d be accepted for licensing as a pastor in most conservative denominations.  But simple because I am divorced and I don’t fit the one accepted reason, I cannot be received for pastoral ministry.  Divorce is worse than murder.

The one reason normally looked for to “excuse” a potential ministry candidate who is divorced is that the spouse committed adultery.  All other reasons bar one from pastoral ministry—and in some cases almost any form of vocational church ministry.  Usually the proof-text is an appeal to Matthew 19:7-9:

“They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery’.”

The reference in the text is a quote from Deuteronomy 24: 1-4.  The proof-text’s meaning is narrowed to the action of adultery as the only “exception.” It is the acceptation for an “excused” divorce.  Like when one of my high schoolers missed school, if I call in with an acceptable excuse, the absence is excused and not marked against my teen.  Likewise, when someone is divorced or married to someone divorced, applies for vocational ministry, if the spouse divorced from committed adultery, the divorce is excused—and the barrier is removed for professional ministry.  The problem is, the loop-hole is not really, well, a loop-hole, and is a little—no, a lot—misleading and misses the point of the Old Testament reference, and bars people, unnecessarily, from potential, vocational church ministry.  Divorce is worse than murder…when it comes to who can and who cannot be accepted for professional church ministry.

A text often used improperly over and over and over, especially when it is policy and written in to manuals, is hard to unlock from its faulty interpretation in order to hear what’s really there.  The Deuteronomy 24 divorce-remarriage passage is one such text.  But hopefully with some patience, the text will be heard more clearly.I’d like to review Deuteronomy 24 in order to see how narrow the “exception clause” really is and even if it should be applied the way it usually is by those in power over professional ministry.  This is not meant to be a commentary or a deep and detailed exposition of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.  However, the text in its context offers insight often missed because we are drawn to words isolated from their intended meaning and use in a text. 

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that 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 from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against 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 husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

This divorce-remarriage law/code here in Deuteronomy 24 is intended as social law, and implies both a social/legal and religious sphere as the context, before and after the text, suggests.  The issue at hand is not divorce of marriage or even remarriage, but land and property and how families and individuals related to each other and property.  Both divorce and remarriage (and remarriage again) is not just related to, well, divorce, but the issue of land and property, which were very important within the ancient Israelite world.  This is a text clearly submitting the moral laws of marriage/divorce to the land/inheritance laws and intentions of God—or, at a minimum, a blending them.  Remarriage to the original husband, after having married another, would bring potential land-disputes and confusion over inheritance—especially if children are involved through the second marriage.  This is not just a moral issue (i.e., divorce-remarriage) as so often suggested, but one regarding a public domain/public square related issue (i.e., economical vulnerability and land-inheritance); a code that was instituted to help protect and reinforce the fulfillment of the social order God had intended under His authority.

How typical is this of marriages, anyway?  How many female divorcees return, after marrying a second husband and then divorces or widowed, to the first husband?  Is there no guilt on the divorcing first husband?  Why does this not apply to the males?  The men seem to be free of the prohibition.  No wonder many have turned to this text for “the exception clause” to marriage.  (No wonder men like this text!) But that is not its use (which was corrected even by Jesus himself in Matthew 19 and Mark 10).  I think we need to see this more broadly related to case law that deals with financial and land/inheritance concerns.

First, doesn’t anyone think it odd that the first divorce and then first remarriage does not have a defilement aspect...to be continued..

“...today’s more experiential descendants of American’s early Protestantism apply faith to but a small portion of their lives, and even less so to public life.  If they have a public faith at all, it is known mostly for its quest for political power.  This truncated faith has boundary lines between sacred and secular, with little cultivation of the commonwealth.  This faith has not bothered to translate truth into social ethics, political philosophy, or practical judgment.  And unlike that of the early Protestants, it gives an inordinate attention to the state, while being culturally impoverished.” ~Don E. Eberly in Restoring the Good Society: A New Vision for Politics and Culture

In closing—but far from finished on the subject—I’d like to turn to Malachi 3:5:

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:5).

Here we have another consequence or fulfilment of judgment for ignoring the covenant land-stipulations regarding idolatry and the poor. The context firmly suggests that Malachi reflects the Exodus 22-23 context, recalling God’s social ordinances and indicating a threat to those not obeying them. The Malachi 3 and its immediate context refers back to the Exodus land-laws (and, as well, looks forward to the new exodus as indicated by New Testament usage in the Gospels and elsewhere).

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me and the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts (Mal 3:1).

The verbal similarities between Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20 are apparent, marking a typos or fulfillment of judgment for breaking the requisite land-laws related to the economically vulnerable. Again look at Mal 3:5:

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts.

Even the connection to idolatry is indicated by the judgment on “the sorcerers.” (The accusation against “the adulterers” might very well refer to pagan worship practises rather than simply to sexual promiscuity among Israelites.) The reference to “those who swear falsely” definitely makes the link back to the Exodus land-stipulations even stronger:

“You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness…nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute…You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute. Keep far from a false charge…You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just” (Ex 23:1-3; 6-8).

A composite of idolatry and the disregard for the marginalized form the basis of the judgment in Malachi 3. There is a connection between idolatry and poverty, as the Isaiah 1-6 and the Malachi 3 texts indicated (cf. Jeremiah 4-8). Somehow the activities and consequences of idolatry put the vulnerable at risk. A sure way to poverty is to practice any form of idolatry that has a consequence in providing a socio-economic environment that provokes the vulnerable to cry out to God, which has the ultimate result of expanding the causes and results of poverty (as promised by God).

As the Exodus 22-23 context underscores, there is a connection, a relationship, perhaps even suggesting a cause-effect relationship between idolatry and poverty. The Isaiah 1-6 and Malachi 3 context revealed that judgment does indeed come upon those who disregard that relationship and are not mindful of the economically poor. The impact of beliefs and social mores and structures has a bearing on the issues and causes of poverty.

The issue of idolatry tops the Mosaic concerns immediately after the deliverance from Egypt, for God sets out the foundational 10-Words (Ex 20:1ff), beginning with “You shall have no other gods before Me” (v 3).  In fact after acknowledging that Yahweh was the One who had delivered them, there is a string of Words with commands and warnings against idolatry:

“Then God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.  You shall have no other gods before Me.  You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.  You shall not worship them or serve them…’” (Exodus 20:1-5a).

Furthermore, there is a continuing effect on those who break or disregard the warnings against idolatry.

“…for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments’” (Ex 20:5b-6).

Whether this is divine judgement and soverign action against those who are idolatrous, or the natural consequence of idolatry—it seems a mute point, both are true given the rest of the Bible’s teaching on the effects of idolatry.  This promise (note most Christians only pay attention to the good, beneficial, personally gratifying, nice promises—not the promises connected to warnings) of a continuing generational affect on those who do not heed the commands and warnings against idolatry ought to be taken seriously and, perhaps, note the important connection between idolatry and poverty.

This is played out in two Old Testament contexts, worthy of considering the link between idolatry and poverty: Isaiah 1-6 and Malachi 3.

In Isaiah 19, we find an interesting connection between God, Egypt (a typo of the Exodus?), idolatry (19:1), and the cry of the oppressed. God becomes the “Savior” and “Champion” of those who cry out because of oppression, such as in Isaiah 19:20:

“It will become a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Champion, and He will deliver them.”

What is of interest is, of course the connection to the Exodus, but also that God’s link between idolatry and justice (i.e., the cry of the oppressed) is not limited to Israel.  Oh, of course, Israel was to enact laws and behaviors and cultural mores in accordance with God’s revelation, but they were also to be a “light to the nations” (cf. Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 51:4; 60:3).  So we turn to God’s judgment on Israel was not being that light.

Earlier in Isaiah covenant-keeping and the stipulations in Exodus are linked:

   For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel
         And the men of Judah His delightful plant
         Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed;
         For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress (Isaiah 5:7).

Here in Isaiah we note that judgement has come on those who have not applied the land-use stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable.  Isaiah picks up the Exodus theme of justice, righteousness, and the poor (1:17, 21, 26, 27; 3:10; 5:7, 16):

   Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
      Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight
         Cease to do evil,
         Learn to do good;
         Seek justice,
         Reprove the ruthless,
         Defend the orphan,
         Plead for the widow” (1:16-17).

   Your rulers are rebels
      And companions of thieves;
      Everyone loves a bribe
      And chases after rewards
      They do not defend the orphan,
      Nor does the widow’s plea come before them (1:23).

   The LORD enters into judgment with the elders and
       princes of His people,
         “It is you who have devoured the vineyard;
         The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
         What do you mean by crushing My people
         And grinding the face of the poor?”
         Declares the Lord GOD of hosts (3:14-15).

As you read, you can hear that this thread in Isaiah, culminating in the vineyard parable (chapter 5), is an obvious reflection on Exodus 22-23.  The Israelites have found themselves in the place of judgment—not individually, but corporately—because they did not link their land-living and land-use with God’s concern for the poor.  The judgment in Isaiah 6 solidifies the link to idolatry, for there we hear Isaiah’s taunt against Israel’s idolatrous trust in foreign powers, foreign commerce, and foreign practices.  Throughout Isaiah 1-5, there is a link between God’s judgment and the breaking or disregarding of the “Book of the Covenant,” especially in regards to the words regarding the economically vulnerable (Ex 22-23).  There is a penalty to pay—a judgment to incur—when there is a disregard for the poor.