GETTING DIVORCE WRONG

Daniel A. Crane takes a look at divorce, comparing civil and Christian marriage. He highlights the debate between J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis on the issue:

Let's take for example the law of divorce. In the 1950s, C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien debated Britain's divorce laws, articulating starkly different views on marriage. Tolkien believed that Christian teachings should shape Britain's legal definition of marriage, while Lewis held that secular marriage and Christian marriage are two very different things.

For Tolkien, "no item of compulsory Christian morals is valid only for Christians. The foundation is that this is the correct way of 'running the human machine.'" Tolkien believed that Lewis's arguments for separation between the secular and religious institutions reduced marriage "merely to a way of (perhaps?) getting an extra mileage out of a few selected machines." For Tolkien, "toleration of divorce—if a Christian does tolerate it—is a toleration of human abuse."

Since Lewis married a divorcée, first in a civil ceremony for one set of reasons (compassion) and some time later in an ecclesiastical one and for another set of reasons (love), it is not surprising that his views were different. Lewis believed in "two distinct kinds of marriage; one governed by the state with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the church with rules enforced by it on its own members." Thus, for Lewis, Christians should be willing to tolerate civil rules about marriage that didn't meet biblical standards, since secular marriage was to be governed by an entirely different set of rules.

Crane sides with Lewis (usually a safe bet), but Tolkien had the right in this. By calling divorce "abuse", Tolkien echoes the words of God as recorded by Malachi as He condemned Israel for mistreating the wives of their youth by divorcing them. "I hate divorce," God said.

Crane then turns to Matthew 19 where he claims Jesus backs the separation of civil and spiritual views on divorce:

Matthew 19 records that some Pharisees put a tricky marriage question to Jesus: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason, good or bad? The Pharisees saw a good chance to trip up Jesus, since he had already spoken out against divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, yet the law of Moses permitted divorce without enumerating a list of permissible reasons. Indeed, the only condition specified in Deuteronomy 24:1 was that the wife had become "displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her."

In avoiding the trap, Jesus differentiated between God's original plan for marriage, set forth in Genesis, and the human institution of marriage. Moses, Jesus explained, granted the Israelites a right to divorce because their hearts were hard, not because divorce was part of God's plan for marriage.

This is, of course, exactly wrong. Jesus was in fact reinstituting what God intended marriage to be "from the beginning". He agreed that Moses had allowed divorce due to Israel's "hardness of heart". In one of His "but I say to you" passages, Jesus returns to a pure understanding of marriage and divorce. His disciples got the point: "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."

Crane warns that we cannot let our standards of marriage be dictated by the state, which is what he sees as happening:

The example of divorce suggests that Christians have already lost much ground on marriage and the family by failing to distinguish secular family law clearly from God's perfect plan for man and woman. This is why it is alarming to see many Christians insist that defeating legal recognition of same-sex marriage is necessary to preserving the institution of marriage. If that is true, it must be because marriage owes its definition and legitimacy to the state—a proposition that Jesus squarely denied and that should frighten anyone who takes seriously the Genesis prescription.

Certainly if homosexual "marriage" is legalized by the state it does not mean that they are recognized by God. Yes, God defines marriage, not the state. Just as a Christian can seek to make abortion illegal because it is an affront to God, so can he seek to keep the civil definition of marriage consistent with God's plan. No we cannot fall into the trap of assuming what is legal is right, but neither should we fall into the trap of assuming that what is legal does not matter. In this sphere, I believe the Bible clearly teaches God does judge nations. Ask Babylon. Ask Rome.

I understand where Crane is coming from. As Christians we must not rely on the state when it comes to matters of morals and service to God. But while we must never be reliant on the state, neither should we ignore it.