A few years ago, I listened as a friend unpacked what he believed should be our church’s stance towards same-sex marriage. “God’s intent is ‘one man, one woman,’ he explained. I sat in a horrifed/overwhelmed silence, too chicken to say anything as he talked about how Gay folk can stay married but shouldn’t have sex.

No doubt the Bible has some difficult things to say in this arena, so for many, to be evangelical is to be anti-gay marriage. Most churches have gone so far as to publish their stance and the relevant scriptures on a website, or somewhere else that’s easily accessible to new/would-be members.

For some, this is the litmus test for a good church.

The story of how this has become the biggest deal for us is a complicated one. Regardless, it’s part of our identity, our duty to humanity. We are bible-believers, Jesus-followers, and staunch opposers to the growing popularity of Gay marriage.

For evangelicals especially, this is a bit silly because the bible much more clearly condemns another kind of marriage. If we were consistent – if we truly believed that our job is to condemn all the things the bible condemns – we would go to war with this as well, but we don’t. We know these people. Our churches are full of them. They’re our friends.

Some of them are us.

I choose not to pass judgment on whether or not God’s OK with gay marriage. If I do, I have to pass judgment on this other kind of marriage as well. I don’t want to do that, neither do my evangelical comrades, thank God.

The Bible and Remarriage

Long ago, because of the teachings of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament, it was a sin to divorce. We were jerks about this to be sure, and learned – much later unfortunately – to embrace the love and compassion of God and apply it to people who want to try again. Today, in most cases, it’s OK to remarry and I’m in full agreement.

Why pick on people who’ve been through the hell of divorce and want to remarry?

But the church couldn’t handle the tension between what scripture says about marriage and the compassion required to function in an ever-changing culture. So, we reinterpreted. According to contemporary evangelicals and others, the bible doesn’t condemn remarriage. If you tell us that it does, we’ll call you crazy, and mean.

Before I go any further, let me unpack what the bible has to say about this. As I do, please don’t hear me condemning people. That’s not my intent this morning. I’m simply trying to help my Christian friends better understand the bible that is so often used to acost Gay people.

The religious leaders of Jesus’ day queried his stance on divorce. Jesus answered:

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” ~Mark 10:6-12

In Jesus’ mind, marriage is something that can’t be undone. His disciples took this so literally that they responded with something akin to “who in their right mind would want to get married?”

Regardless of how us humans might approach it, marriage, according to Jesus, is a one-time proposition. St. Paul held a similar view:

To the married I give this command (not I, but Jesus himself): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. ~ 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

Exceptions?

My fellow students of the bible are quick to point out that it’s not that simple. Other parts of the New Testament point to a few alleged conditions under which a person can remarry.

I’ll address these here, but it’s going to get nerdy.  If you want to gain a deeper understanding of this issue, I’d love it if you continue. If you’ve ever used the Bible to judge, belittle, bash, or segregate yourself from the LGBTQ community, you need to seriously consider what I’ve written below.

If you’d rather skip the nerdy stuff and take my word for it (not recommended), feel free to skip to the next section.

Permission from Paul?

After St. Paul prohibits remarriage, he makes a statement that scholars refer to as “The Pauline Privilege:”

I say (not Jesus), If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him… But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 

Note first that Paul goes out of his way to let the reader know that this thought, unlike the one that precedes it, doesn’t come from God. It’s merely the perspective/opinion of the author, downgraded, as it were.

Most importantly, Paul states the abandoned person is not bound (δουλόω) to this relationship. But that’s merely separation, not divorce. Nowhere in Paul’s writing – or anywhere else in the ancient Greek lexicon – is the word δουλόω (literally: “enslaved”) used to mean or to remotely reference “divorce.”

Paul is merely teaching that the abandoned person is free from the rigors and requirements of this particular relationship. Paul’s command is that the person leaving is allowed to go, not forced, compelled, or guilted to stay. Hence his finishing thought:

God has called us to live in peace.

Whether or not a legal divorce has taken place is not mentioned; it’s not the subject of Paul’s thought here. If it was, you’d expect something a bit clearer since he’s already filled us in on God’s very narrow perspective. Paul is not in the habit of saying “here is what God commands,” then making a concession without some good detail as to why.

Paul is simply telling the abandoned person to let the other go in peace. Are the two now divorced, free to marry another? No. Paul clearly stated that in his preceeding thought.

Exceptions from Jesus?

The book of Matthew, in two different places, includes a similar prohibition to remarry, this one from Jesus, but there’s a kink in how he puts it, one that is frequently considered to be a valid exception:

But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, apart from sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery ~ Matthew 5:32

I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, not upon sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery ~ Matthew 19:9

Similar statements appear in the Gospel accounts of Mark, Luke, and in the writings of Paul (above), but they don’t mention a “sexual immorality” exception. We’re compelled to ask why. If there’s only one exception to divorce and remarriage, why did everyone else miss it?

That’s a big deal.

The Matthew 19:9 passage details Jesus’ response to a question the Pharisees (big-deal Jewish leaders) asked about divorce:

They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?

In Jesus’ day, there were two schools of thought, one teaching that a man can divorce his wife for any reason (and remarry), the other teaching that divorce can only happen in cases of sexual immorality. Both believed that divorce was OK in certain circumstances. To this, Jesus nullified divorce altogether:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

According to Moses’ teaching in Torah, “sexual immorality,” a concept with a broad range of meaning, was the only exception allowed. If it was present in the relationship, the two could divorce and marry another. Note that Moses wasn’t referring to adultery, that’s dealt with elsewhere in Torah (another bible verse that Christians thankfully aren’t going to push on anyone).

Regardless of whatever “sexual immorality” is, Jesus nullifies it as an exception. Moses allowed divorce if this was present in the marriage, God doesn’t.

So what does Jesus mean when he mentions “cases of sexual immorality” in his teaching? To be sure, he isn’t saying, “Moses allowed divorce if sexual immorality is present, but God doesn’t, unless sexual immorality is present.”

Our best greek manuscripts don’t read “except in cases of sexual immorality” or “with the exception of sexual immorality.” They say, literally, “not upon sexual immorality (matthew 19:9)” and “apart from sexual immorality (matthew 5:32).”

Both passages remove sexual immorality from the equation.

It’s well within interpretive bounds to read, “whoever divorces his wife, even in cases of sexual immorality, commits adultery.”

Before you accuse me of hermeneutical gymnastics, understand that the early church didn’t seem to read the “sexual immorality” clause as we do. Following is a short list of the leaders, thinkers, and documents of the early church that taught, based on scripture, that there are no exceptions to divorce:

• • Hermas (C.E. 150)
  • Justin Martyr (C.E. 160)
  • Athenagorus (A.D. 137)
  • Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195)
  • Tertullian (A.D. 198)
  • Origen (A.D. 246)
  • Jerome (A.D. 399)

As the church has travelled far into Western culture, there aren’t many scholars and leaders who interpret these passages as the early church did. Is that because we found something in scripture that they didn’t see? Unlikely. They knew more about the ancient languages and their cultural contexts than we do.

In the past 100 years, as divorce rates have grown, the church has changed its understanding of divorce and reinterpreted the scriptures to compensate.

Bible Bullies

Based on all of this, should we resurrect the ages-old and long-dead anti-remarriage campaign of the church?

Nope.

So how do we reconcile the teachings of scripture with the realities of our world? If God condemns something so openly and clearly, shouldn’t we?

My anti-Gay-marriage Christian friends tell me that God is love, that there is compassion and forgiveness for married folks who seek to try again. We should love them as God does, and encourage them, not condemn.

AMEN!!! I’m in full agreement.

It’s when they try to explain why the same love and compassion doesn’t apply to Gay folk that I lose my mind. The bible condemns remarriage much more clearly and frequently than it does same-sex relationships, so why is the latter blessed by God and not the former?

“Gay marriage is not God’s intent for marriage” they tell me. “Neither is remarriage” I tell them. Then they lecture me about anullment and I counter with “anullment isn’t anywhere in the scriptures,” but that upsets people. Again, so many of us have remarried. Why be so mean?

But it’s OK to show the same brand of meanness to the LGBTQ community.  That’s what God wants, right?

What’s heartbreaking is that us evangelicals, one day, will learn to treat Gay marriage as we do remarriage. We’ll finally learn that the world isn’t getting more heterosexual; the cultural relevance of the church (and I’d argue its survival) will require concessions to this particular part of our culture.

But that’s a good 20 years from now. Until then – as the world attempts to make the concessions that we should at least be considering – we’ll continue to segregate, villify, point fingers, and judge, hurting so many along the way, adding more fuel to our rapidly growing dumpster fire of unpopularity.

For today, if you believe that the bible is calling you to treat gay marriage differently than remarriage, understand that God’s intent for marriage is not “one man, one woman,” it’s “one man, one woman, one time.”

If you lose your mind over the “one man, one woman” part, shouldn’t you be losing your mind over the “one time” part? If you condemn Gay marriage, shouldn’t you also condemn remarriage?

The founder of our religion said three things that should help us when we’re stuck in condemnation mode: “I didn’t come to condemn the world,” and, “be like me.”