Author: brandonadair85

(Part 1 of this post can be found here)

1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.”

I have close relationships with several LGBTQ+ people. And, not surprisingly given my background, the majority of them grew up as and still identify as ‘Christian’. Some of these dear friends I met as an adult. They have graciously shared with me pieces of their stories. Others, I have known for many years. And I have been a firsthand witness to large portions of their lives.

I know many of them well enough to be assured that they have known what it is to identify with this verse. To know that “not burdensome” doesn’t mean ‘easy’ or ‘effortless’, but that it does mean that there is joy and fullness of life to be found in turning away from things that bring death and destruction.

In short, I trust queer Christians when they say that they know the joys that spiritual discipline and obedience offers. That they embrace Jesus’ assurance in John 15 that the one who keeps His commandments will abide in His love, and such assurance brings joy.

Unfortunately this clarity and confidence stands in stark contrast to the complicated  picture that emerges when we press in on evangelical conceptions of ‘obedience’ for LGBTQ+ Christians.

[As discussed in the previous post, there is disagreement among various streams of evangelicals on how to distinguish ‘sin’ versus ‘temptation’ for LGBTQ+ matters. For some, inclinations and attractions are not seen as inherently sinful, but only become so when they develop into “lust” (so, Wesley Hill). For others (proponents of Christian reparative “therapy” or perhaps someone like Rosaria Butterfield), there is some degree to which the very inclinations toward non-heteronormativity are evidence of “indwelling sin” (to borrow from Butterfield).]

What, then, does it mean to ask queer Christians to walk in ‘obedience’ regarding sexuality?

Evangelical articulations of sexual ethics for heterosexual Christians are not without their own complexities, but, as James Brownson puts it “[I]t is one thing to interpret the appropriateness of one’s sexual desires based on relationships and context, and it is quite another when the whole continuum of desires that are part of sexual orientation are placed under suspicion — that is, as a manifestation of a distorted and sinful nature.”

When evangelicalism can’t even come to a consensus on where the line between ‘temptation’ and ‘sin’ lies for queer people, what does it mean to ask them to walk in ‘obedience’?

Brownson again:

“Where does one draw the line? Where does the sinful impulse begin? Is it when gay or lesbian persons experience a desire for friendship with others of the same sex, admiration for another’s physical beauty, the tendency to frequently think about another person, the persistent desire to be with another person, the desire to be touched by another, the desire to kiss or be kissed, or the desire for still more intimate sexual contact? For most gay and lesbian persons, these desires are part of the same continuum, and they cannot always be readily distinguished from each other.”

The ‘obedience’ much of evangelicalism requires of queer believers is an endless and exhausting practice of introspective vigilance, suffused with constant guilt over potentially ‘crossing the line’. Eventually for some, worn down and fatigued, they resort to numbing themselves emotionally and relationally–suppressing their ability to give and receive true intimacy. Countless stories echo those of Julie Rodgers, who writes: “What I didn’t know before was that you can’t selectively shut down. When I had suppressed my sexuality, I had to detach from my desires, my feelings, my intuition, my capacity for intimacy. That process of fragmentation inhibited my ability to truly know myself or connect with other people.”

None of these outcomes provides what Brownson calls “[an] integrated basis for becoming whole persons.”

So many queer Christians have shared the exhaustion and isolation that such practices bring. Their experiences are far from the assurances of joy and fulfillment that the scriptures declare are the outcomes of obedience. This yoke is not easy, and this burden is not light.

If obedience, enabled and empowered by God’s Spirit constitutes “walking by the Spirit”, then one ought to expect that the product or fruit of this is “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” in the life of the person.

Yet, as noted above, the second guessing, fear, loneliness, depression and shame that so many queer Christians feel when they pursue the path of ‘obedience’, seem incompatible with the promise of love, joy, peace, and patience that the scriptures say are the hallmarks of the Spirit’s work.

I have listened to story after story of LGBTQ+ Christians who spent their years seeking to honor God and be obedient to their understanding of the scriptures, only to reap sorrow and frustration.

I am not suggesting I have spoken the definitive word on these matters. But I am convinced that we need to refrain from using words like ‘temptation’, ‘sin’, ‘obedience’, ‘spiritual fruit’, and ‘sanctification’ with respect to LGBTQ+ matters in the church, unless we are willing to press into the fullness of complexity involved in employing those terms.

It’s sort of strange. Growing up in conservative Christianity, I gave quite a bit of thought to the ‘gay’ issue. Most of it involved affirming a ‘traditional’ point of view, based on the infamous clobber passages. Significantly less of it involved reflections on a ‘theology of marriage’. But essentially none of it focused on the actual experiences of LGBTQ+ people.

And, I get it. ‘Experience’ often plays a subservient role in shaping evangelical belief. But I think one of the most important things I’ve ever done is to develop meaningful relationships with queer people.

It took the presence of these relationships for me to even begin to ask questions like: “What constitutes ‘temptation’ instead of ‘sin’? How are those lines drawn? And who is drawing them?” or “What outcomes do the scriptures claim ‘obedience’ brings?” or “What ought spiritual growth to look like?”

I had never once thought to apply these questions to the question of LGBTQ+ identity and Christian faith.

So, this is my first attempt to press into those questions in any sort of organized fashion. As such, it may be messy, and there may be points to edit, clarify, or refine. More than having a ‘perfect’ reflection on these matters, my desire is to offer up a conversation starter. As such, I invite feedback and ask for grace.

First, ‘sin’ and ‘temptation’:

Elsewhere I have discussed the rise and fall of the ‘ex-gay’ movement in evangelical Christianity. Those reflections can be found here.

The collapse of the ex-gay approach (despite some resurgences), has led to a variety of alternative frameworks.

Some of these, like large streams of the ‘celibate’ gay Christian movement, would seek to make a distinction between ‘orientation’ and ‘behavior’. Proponents like Wesley Hill would see one’s orientation as ‘morally neutral’, with only same-sex lust or activity constituting ‘sin’. Similarly many churches who pursue a “welcoming, but not affirming” approach, conceive of a gay person’s enduring pattern of attraction toward members of the same sex as ‘temptation’; this temptation would only lead to ‘sin’ in the case of pursuing actions/behavior.

Yet another contemporary approach can be found in the stories of people like Christopher Yuan, Sam Allberry, and Rosaria Butterfield. This perspective largely rejects the claims of the ex-gay movement (all of them generally repudiating conversion therapy, with Yuan and Allberry acknowledging continuing to experience same-sex attraction), but it also stands in contrast to the celibate gay movement.

Figures like Yuan, Allberry, Butterfield, and Jackie Hill-Perry all reject the idea of a Christian gay identity (irrespective of behavior/actions). Butterfield in particular rejects the idea of sexual orientation, believing that all sexual desire is rooted in either holiness or indwelling sin. This (admittedly broad) group adds to the complexity about how one might distinguish between temptation and sinful sexual desire.

Having surveyed the main streams of contemporary evangelical thought around LGBTQ+ issues, let us consider how they fit with both the scriptural evidence and the lived experiences of queer people:

One major problem for the “welcoming but not affirming”/celibate gay Christian perspective (or any perspective that makes a strong distinction between ‘sin’ and ‘temptation’ on this matter) is that the New Testament itself does not provide much room for differentiation between sinful ‘acts’ and the inward ‘inclination’ toward such acts.

Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount makes it clear that impulses to sin that arise from within oneself are manifestations of sinfulness that one is morally culpable for (consider his teaching on lust and adultery). As James Brownson points out, one’s inner evil impulses “are seen in Scripture as manifestations of a sinful nature and are to be resisted in the same way that sinful actions are to be avoided (see Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:8; Luke 22:40, 46; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9).”

One could attempt to follow Wesley Hill’s distinction between a morally neutral ‘orientation’/enduring pattern of desires and a sinful lust that such desires could give rise to. In which case, one would read the New Testament passages as pertaining to only lustful desire. But it is hard to argue that desires that are understood to be inherently ‘disordered’ could have some manifestation that was not somehow sinful.

Nor does the ancient understanding of sexual desire (which likely informs Paul’s thinking) provide opportunity for same-sex desire to arise out of anything other than lust/passion run amok (consider Paul’s language of “sinful desires” and “shameful lusts”).

Ultimately, the scriptural evidence regarding temptation, immoral desire, and sin, does not seem to leave us in a place of confidence to affirm clear moral distinctions between ‘orientation’ and ‘behavior’.

And, as we will see, the matter does not become less complex as we turn our attention to the topic of ‘obedience’.

(Part 2 of this post can be found here)

The story (and the ‘Sin’) of Sodom make several appearances throughout the scriptures. Let’s start with the story of the destruction of Sodom as provided in Genesis 19.  In summary: two angels come to Sodom. Lot invites them in (with full hospitality). The visitors express their intent to sleep in the town square, but Lot dissuades them and takes them home.  That night, the men of the city surround Lot’s house and demand that Lot send out the men so that they may rape them. Lot pleads with the men and offers to let them rape his virgin daughters instead. The men reject this offer, complain that Lot came in as a foreigner himself, and claim they will do even worse to Lot than they will to the visitors. Ultimately, the angels strike the men blind, announce to Lot that YHWH has sent them to destroy the city, and urge Lot and his family to leave.

Let’s pause to acknowledge that the context of this story is clearly, unequivocally rape.  There is nothing in the context of the story that would imply any hint of consensual activity. That, in and of itself, should indicate that the passage is not helpful in determining what the Bible has to say about same-sex relationships.  If we were to equate the intended rape of the “male” angelic guests in Genesis 19 as a clear indicator that God is opposed to same-sex relationships, then by the same token, would that lead us to assume that the scriptural accounts of rape of a female (Dinah in Genesis 34 or Tamar in 2 Samuel 13 or the concubine in Judges 19) serve as an indicator that God is opposed to heterosexual relationships?  It is very shaky logic to draw the conclusion that condemnation of same-sex rape = condemnation of same-sex relationships.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to inherently tie together rape and sexual desire.  While, in some cases, the scriptures may see rape as connected to sexual desire (the examples of Tamar and possibly Dinah seem to link lust and rape), we know that rape is much more often tied to issues of power, control, and violence, than it is sexual desire (an issue I’ll be exploring more thoroughly below).

Having said that, I believe the next task is to ask if the evidence in Scripture warrants linking the rape story in Genesis 19 to any larger thoughts around sexuality.

I’d like to examine three topics: (1) The account of the rape of the concubine in Judges 19 (with specific reference to its parallels with Genesis 19), (2) the references to Sodom in the rest of the Old Testament scriptures, and (3) Jesus’ words on Sodom.  I believe these subjects will help inform our understanding of the Sodom story, and whether or not it has bearing on furthering our understanding of sexuality in scripture.

In Judges 19, a Levite is traveling (having had to retrieve his runaway concubine) and decides to stop for the night in the city of Gibeah. As no one had invited them in, they planned to stay in the town square (like the angelic visitors in Genesis).  An old man sees them, inquires as to their situation, takes them in and tends to them and their animals. As in the Genesis story, the men of the city show up, pound on the door, and demand the old man surrender the male visitor, so they may rape him. The old man pleads with them and offers his virgin daughter (again, echoing the Sodom story) or the concubine instead. The men reject this offer, but the Levite visitor throws his concubine to them, anyway.  They rape and torture her until morning, and the Levite finds her dead on the doorstep.

Obviously the stories share several parallel details (the intent of the visitor to stay in the town square, the one person inviting the visitors to his home and showing them hospitality, the men of the town showing up and demanding to rape the male visitor, and the home owner offering his virgin daughter as a substitute).  The biggest difference between them is, of course, there is no rescue for the Levite’s concubine. She is left to the mercy of the men and ultimately raped to death. This story and its similarities to Genesis 19 provide a couple of worthwhile observations: First, it is unlikely (for several reasons) that the passages were written with the intent in mind that the men of the city (in either story) were “gay”.  Passing over the idea that sexual orientation is a fairly modern concept, there are good reasons to think that the stories were not trying to describe men who were consumed with homosexual desire. This is sometimes suggested in analysis of the Sodom account, given that the men are not interested in the virgin daughters. Yet, we see in the Judges account that the men, though they claim to only want the male visitor handed over for rape, eventually settle for the concubine. Either the men of these cities (Sodom and Gibeah) are fueled with “gay lust”, and the men of Gibeah only settle for a woman as a consolation to quench their lust, OR something other than lust/sexual desire (regardless of “orientation”) is motivating them.

Let’s continue look at the evidence in the stories themselves, before turning to evidence elsewhere in the Old Testament.  Note the defense that each home owner gives to the men of the city. Lot tells the men “only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof” and the man in Gibeah tells the men “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly”.  Note what they do and don’t say. In neither case do we see the home owner appealing to the idea that for men to rape men, it would be a sexual abomination. Nowhere do they say “do not do this thing, for it would be utterly unnatural.” Nowhere do they suggest that the men are acting out of an excess of sexual appetite. In their pleas to the men of the cities, sex/sexual desire/natural and unnatural relations are nowhere to be found.  Instead, they both plead on the basis that the visitors are their guests, under the protection of their roofs. As we will see with the rest of the Old Testament witness, one of the chief sins of Sodom was inhospitableness/rejection/oppression of the poor, the vulnerable, and the stranger.

This is a curious thought for us in a modern context where hospitality may be associated with good manners, but not likely something we would imagine would be cause for outrage and judgment.  But in the context of the ancient Hebrews, hospitality was sometimes the difference between life or death for a traveler. Note that (in both stories) there doesn’t seem to be any sort of inn or public lodging beyond the open town square.  If no one were to take the traveler in, that person would be left open to the elements of the weather, wild animals, robbery, theft, physical or sexual abuse, and even death. Hospitality was literally life or death.

With that thought in mind, let us turn to the Old Testament references to Sodom outside of the book of Genesis.  There are 13 references total. For the sake of brevity (ironic, given how long I’ve written already), I’ll quote from author Matthew Vines:

‘Isaiah…castigated Judah as a “sinful nation,” comparing it to the “rulers of Sodom” and the “people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:4, 10). But the sins that Isaiah highlighted were not of a sexual nature. They were sins of oppressing marginalized groups, murder, and theft. Isaiah later prophesied that “the pride and glory of the Babylonians … will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah” (13:19). Jeremiah declared that the adultery, idolatry, and power abuses of false prophets rendered them “all like Sodom” (Jeremiah 23:14). After Jerusalem’s fall to Babylonia, the writer of Lamentations said that “the punishment of my people is greater than that of Sodom” (Lamentations 4:6). Amos and Zephaniah, too, invoke Sodom to describe God’s judgment on those who “oppress the poor” or exhibit prideful and mocking behavior (Amos 4:1–11; Zephaniah 2:8–11). Of the thirteen references to Sodom in the Old Testament following Genesis 19, Ezekiel 16:49–50 offers the most detailed description of the city’s sins. In that passage, God stated, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore, I did away with them as you have seen.”’

So, let’s summarize: in the rest of the Old Testament, the sins of Sodom were characterized as oppression, murder theft, adultery, idolatry, abuse of power, oppression, pridefulness, and that she was “arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned” with the poor and needy.  When we look at this in the context of travelers/strangers/visitors, we should not be surprised that these are cities that people were warned against staying in the square. Cities where every example of abuse, theft, oppression and violence were potential and very real possibilities for travelers.

All of this confirms the details we see in Genesis 19 (and the similar account in Judges 19): that travelers are warned against staying in the open, and the home owners invoke their hospitality as the rationale for protecting the visitors.  So how does the rape/attempted rape fit into all of this?* Remembering that rape is rarely about sexual desire, and always about power and violence, we see that the attempted rapes (and the actual rape in Judges 19) as one more extreme example of the people of these cities attempting to inflict power, violence, and abuse on travelers (those who are, by definition, needy and vulnerable).  Unless both Sodom and Gibeah were exclusively or almost exclusively populated by gay men, their desire to rape these men is based in their hate, mistrust, and prejudice of these needy and vulnerable outsiders. They intend to inflict fear, abuse, and violence on them, because they are terrorists (not because they are sex addicts, gay or otherwise). They offer oppression instead of invitation, hate instead of hospitality.

*(So why focus on the men and reject the offer of the virgins?  To be blunt, men were of higher social status, and to rape them was considered a much greater humiliation than to rape a woman.  Rape of men was understood to be an assertion of power and dominance. To be raped was to be humiliated, violated, rejected as someone of value.  To rape a visitor was to say “you are not of value and you are not welcome here. Here’s how contemptibly we think of you”)

We see a similar theme in the words of Jesus.  In both Matthew 10 and Luke 10, Jesus gives his disciples instructions as he sends them out.  He tells them that if a city does not receive and welcome them as they travel, that the city’s judgment will be worse than that of Sodom. The parallels are hard to miss: unwelcoming, rejection, and mistreatment of Jesus’ traveling emissaries will be met with a judgment like (but greater than) that of Sodom, a city whose destruction was preceded by unwelcoming, rejection, and attempted mistreatment of God’s emissaries.  Jesus’ implication is that Sodom’s judgment was understood to be linked to refusal to receive a righteous visitor.

ALL of that, I believe, informs our understanding of the story of Sodom and the sin that Sodom was condemned for.

Sodom is also referenced in 2 Peter 2:4-10, where we see two potential references to sexual sin.  The first is the word ‘aselgeia’ (wantonness/licentiousness) in verse 7, where Lot is said to be distressed by the wanton conduct of lawless men. The word ‘aselgeia’ is often used in sexual contexts, but is not inherently so. It is defined as “lack of self-constraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable, self-abandonment.”  

Additionally, verse 10 references those who indulge the flesh with its corrupt desires.  For the sake of wrapping up this response (I’ve rattled on far too long), I won’t include a list of the places these terms (“sarx”/flesh, “epithumia”/desire, “miasmos”/corrupt) are used in the New Testament in a non-sexual context, but these are terms that the NT uses to describe sin, broadly speaking, and a sexual meaning is not assured here.

Having said all of that, it is not improbable (and, I would concede, even likely) that the epistle writer has some sexual sin in mind. The reference in verse 4 to the angels who sinned and were punished and then, in the following verses, to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah is likely being borrowed from the warnings in the book of Jude. In that epistle the author (in Jude 6-7) speaks of “angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh”.

If we are to understand 2 Peter as paralleling Jude, addressing the idea of sexual sin in these Genesis stories, we must pay close attention to the specifics of the sexual sin that is actually highlighted.

The phrase that the NASB translates “strange flesh” (sarxos heteras) would better be rendered as “different flesh”.  The word “different” (heteras/hetero) is obviously the same one we use as a prefix for terms like “heterosexual” (which is neither here nor there, but is an interesting side note to demonstrate common usage of the term “hetero” or “heteras”). Jude is not arguing that the men of Sodom were pursuing flesh too similar to their own, but too different.  The “different” flesh is best understood to be the angels they were attempting to rape. Jude’s criticism is that were going beyond the bounds of humanity in their pursuits, a point underscored by the fact that he references “angels who did not keep in their domain” (an allusion to Genesis 6 and the “sons of God” taking as wives the “daughters of men”).

Jude provides both the angels who pursued humans and the humans who pursued angels as a warning to his audience. Using this understanding as a guide for the parallel references in 2 Peter, we are provided with a new angle on the criticism of Sodom, but (having examined the breadth of scriptural treatment of Sodom) we are still not left with a single biblical author whose arguments are grounded in the same-sex nature of the acts.

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.)