Divorce, Queer Issues, and the Church

I had a conversation recently with a friend, who was discussing the ways in which the evangelical church has altered its approach to the subject of divorce.  And how that perspective might do well to inform the church’s approach to LGBTQ+ issues.

This was not a new idea for me; I have heard variations of this suggestion over the years (“the church has found room to move on divorce over the past 50 years, why not ‘homosexuality’?). But, for some reason, this time the argument struck a chord with me.

I’d like to spend the rest of this post covering: the germane New Testament passages on divorce, contemporary application of those passages, and what I believe to be the relevant inferences to be drawn regarding LGBTQ+ issues in the church.

There four passages in the Gospels where Jesus offers teaching on the subject of divorce:

• In Luke 16:18 Jesus declares “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
• In Mark 10:2-12 Jesus is questioned on the matter by some Pharisees who want to know if divorce is lawful. Later, after the discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus is questioned on the matter by his disciples. He tells them “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
• In Matthew 5:32 Jesus declares “But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity [Gk: porneia], causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
• In Matthew 19 Jesus is questioned by some Pharisees.  The conversation parallels the story in Mark 10, and Jesus concludes by declaring “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [Gk: porneia], and marries another commits adultery.”

This is the extent of Jesus’ relevant teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage, as recorded in the Gospels. At most, there are four separate teachings (though, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Mark 10/Matthew 19 and Luke 16/Matthew 5 are parallel accounts of the same teaching, with Matthew twice softening the absolute prohibitions in Mark and Luke.

Regardless of whether there are two or four separate teachings in view, we see a handful of principles emerge: (1) Divorce is not permitted (with the exception of sexual immorality [porneia]). (2) To violate this command is to be guilty of adultery (and, according to Matthew 5, it makes the other partner a participant in adultery). (3) Anyone who is divorces and remarries (or anyone who marries a divorced person) commits adultery.

(I’d like to focus my comments on Jesus’ teaching, but I do want to give brief voice to Paul’s teaching on the subject.  In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes that a husband with an unbelieving wife who consents to live with him, should not divorce her. Likewise, if a wife has an unbelieving husband, but he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. The implication seems to be: if one is a believer and one’s spouse is not, the believer is not guilty of sin if the unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage.)

Having covered all the relevant New Testament passages, it seems worthwhile to see how various evangelical voices have articulated teachings on the subject:

• The Gospel Coalition (article here):
  • Porneia in Matthew 19 is to be interpreted in light of Leviticus 20. Therefore scenarios for acceptable divorce include: adultery, homosexual sex, bestiality, and incest, as well as the scenario Paul outlines in 1 Cor 7.
  • Physical abuse is a sin, and if an abusing spouse will not repent, such a person may be excommunicated from their church body. According to this logic, the person is now married to an unbelieving spouse and may be permissibly divorced from their spouse, as outlined in 1 Cor 7.
  • Remarriage is permissible for a “victim” or “wronged party” if the grounds for divorce were permissible.
• Focus on the Family (article here):
  • If a spouse is guilty of sexual immorality AND “is unwilling to repent and live faithfully with the marriage partner” (emphasis mine), divorce and remarriage are acceptable options.
  • Unrepentant sexual immorality, the desertion of a ‘believing’ spouse by an ‘unbelieving’ spouse, and divorce that occurs prior to the conversion (or ‘salvation’) of the individual are the three acceptable grounds for divorce, according to Focus on the Family.
  • Focus on the Family has online resources regarding remarriage (here and here), neither of which take into account Jesus’ rebukes concerning remarriage.
• Christianity Today (article here):
  • The article invites input from a variety of evangelical authors, including three biblical scholars:
    • Dr. Andreas Köstenberger: divorce is permissible on the grounds of sexual immorality (“in context, adultery”), and when an unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage.
    • Dr. Craig Keener: the explicit statements in scripture are applicable more broadly to other contexts (namely, domestic abuse). Köstenberger response indicates that he is less comfortable applying such an interpretation.
    • Dr. Beth Felker Jones: porneia should be understood to refer more generally to “any violation of God’s intentions for lasting, faithful ‘one flesh’ union…[It] can…include violence or abuse against one’s spouse because to abuse one’s spouse is also to violate that one flesh union.”
  • Additionally, the article invites input from author and counselor Leslie Vernick, who argues that ‘chronic hardness of heart’ is grounds for acceptable divorce when there is “a serious sin issue, a serious breach of the marital bond, a serious trust breakdown . . . and there is no repentance or willingness to look at that and how that’s affected the marital bond and the bond of trust.”
• Desiring God (articles consulted here, here, and here):
  • John Piper takes the view that porneia is meant to reference “sex prior to marriage” and that “Jesus is saying, ‘I don’t have that situation in mind when I forbid divorce.’ “
  • He also articulates that he does not believe remarriage is ever condoned by the teaching of the New Testament.

While we see a range of interpretations in the evangelical world, it is striking that most voices from these major outlets (as well as many other evangelical institutions) make some allowance for divorce and/or remarriage that is outside the bounds of what is permitted in scripture.

Once more (for emphasis), I would like to summarize the content in the New Testament, regarding divorce and remarriage:

• Jesus’ teachings do not grant any grounds for acceptable divorce, with the possible/likely exception of porneia
• Jesus’ teachings do not grant the allowance of acceptable remarriage for the “offending” partner in a divorce
• Jesus’ teachings don’t explicitly offer allowance for acceptable remarriage for the “innocent” partner in a divorce
• Jesus’ teachings claim that a divorced person who remarries commits adultery, and that someone who marries a divorced person commits adultery (any interpretation of these texts that makes exception for the “wronged” party is going beyond the text, rather than taking Jesus’ words at face value)
• Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 does not give a ‘believing’ spouse permission to leave an ‘unbelieving’ spouse, but it does seem to absolve the ‘believing’ spouse of any sin for the dissolution of the marriage.

Consider, by contrast, the following:

• The article on The Gospel Coalition website allows for unrepentant physical abuse as grounds for excommunication from the church.  It says that divorce is then permissible, in light of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7.  Leaving aside the issue of whether this is a legitimate understanding of “unbelieving”, Paul doesn’t grant believers permission to leave unbelieving spouses. In fact he encourages them to remain together if the unbelieving party is willing. It is only if the unbelieving party instigates divorce that the believing spouse is absolved of guilt.
• At least three of four academics consulted in the Christianity Today article feel comfortable expanding the definition or understanding of Jesus’ lone exception to include things like ‘abuse’ and ‘chronic hardness of heart’.
• The article from The Gospel Coalition also states that purpose of a ‘permissible’ divorce is to allow the “wronged or abandoned party [to] remarry’. Yet, this is far from clear in the New Testament passages (and seems to contradict the explicit commands and teachings contained therein).
• Many evangelical churches and institutions (including those known personally to me), have allowed–often as an accommodation or concession–for ‘guilty’ parties to remarry and remain in good standing with the church (some even in leadership positions).

To be clear, I don’t agree with Piper’s conclusions. I don’t think the other authors, scholars, and institutions referenced in this post are wrong in their verdicts regarding divorce in cases of abuse, the condoning of remarriage (including, potentially, remarriage for ‘guilty’ parties in a divorce), or their apparent lack of desire to call such remarriages ‘adultery’ (which Jesus explicitly does).  But, their willingness to provide accommodation for–or even alteration from–the clear and unambiguous teaching of the New Testament on this topic is very revealing.

Many of these same institutions, authors, scholars, pastors, and churches are unwilling to provide similar accommodation (let alone outright alteration) for LGBTQ+ persons in the church.

When people advocate for full inclusion and affirmation of such persons, they are told that the clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture clearly addresses and prohibits their behavior.

When people contend that the context of the prohibitions in scripture are best understood to refer to pederasty or temple prostitution, they are told that if the biblical authors were talking about these situations, they had the vocabulary at their disposal to do so.

When people argue that scripture doesn’t account for the realities and complexities of human gender and sexuality that we are now aware of, or the experiences and stories of real LGBTQ+ persons, they are told that they are prioritizing experience over “God’s word”.

Yet, with divorce and remarriage we see a topic where:

1. Scripture provides clear and unambiguous teaching (divorce is unacceptable except on grounds of porneia or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, and where remarriage is spoken of, it is always described as ‘adultery’).
2. Deviation from this strict understanding (e.g., allowing ‘abuse’ as another permissible context for divorce) needs to contend with the fact that surely Jesus and Paul were aware of domestic abuse, had language for it, and yet chose not to address it.
3. The church’s willingness to embrace beliefs and practices outside the bounds (and, regarding remarriage, in specific opposition to) the teaching of scripture, reveals its willingness to prioritize experience over the ‘clear teaching’ of scripture.

If the church is willing to find nuance and accommodation on the topic of divorce, where the clear teaching of scripture offers none…

If the church is willing to prioritize experience (‘clear, repeated, unrepentant domestic abuse’ is grounds for allowable divorce) over the teaching of Jesus (whose words offer no accommodation for domestic abuse)…

Then it seems eminently reasonable to provide at least the same level of nuance and accommodation for our LGBTQ+ siblings.

(P.S. – I believe that the church can and should and must do better than mere ‘accommodation’ for both divorced persons and LGBTQ+ persons. But at the very least, if accommodation is offered to the former, we have every right to demand it be offered to the latter.)