“From the Beginning” - Part II

Marriage, Divorce, and Jesus’ Teaching in Matthew 5

Well, this morning we are carrying on with what we began last week as we considered this third antithesis in Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the Mount and so we've begun this series of six and we've worked through anger and lust and now we've come to the matter of Divorce and we began looking at Matthew 5 verses 31 and 32 last Lord's Day.

Of course what we sought to do is to lay out a a broad foundation really following Jesus instinct and answering the the sort of challenging question of the Pharisees about the nature of divorce and whether it's lawful under any circumstances to pursue divorce and Jesus responded by returning to Eden.

In other words, he as we saw from Matthew 19 said from the beginning. It was not so and so we we sought to establish in that way the the larger paradigm of marriage What was true from the beginning as Jesus seeks to build the foundation so we can properly understand What marriage is in order to understand when divorce is permissible and that's what we want to press into this morning as I was sort of providentially encouraged to Pursue a little bit further these matters of divorce and I hope you'll be able to sympathize as we work through Some of these issues together this morning.

This is not an easy subject. It's not easy on the first hand just because there's so much debate. Still throughout church history throughout the centuries There's been a number of debates over how to understand several of the passages how they apply how divorce is to be understood what the ramifications are in Terms of a confession of faith in terms of church discipline.

These things are complex. They're also very difficult because of the personal nature, I know many lives in this room are affected by divorce perhaps Split families broken in the way that you were raised perhaps you yourself have experienced them.

So we're all if you just look at the divorce rates, I think it's something like 48 in our country right now. So most of our lives intersect with divorce in one way or another most of our families Have direct if not indirect experience with the heartbreak and the tragedy and the consequence of divorce.

Deuteronomy 24, Porneia, and the Grounds for Divorce

And so these things are personal these things are difficult for that reason. Well, let me just pull out a few things that we covered last week as we break new ground this morning. Let me first begin by reading Matthew 5 verses 31 and 32.

Jesus says furthermore it has been said whoever divorces his wife. Let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality Causes her to commit adultery and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

So we began with a big picture of marriage from Matthew 19, of course Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 24 at least he's referencing Deuteronomy 24. That is the passage which the scribes and the Pharisees had all of their debates over we talked about Hillel and Shammai these different schools of interpretation last week and Jesus and answering their challenge says from the beginning it was not so I say to you whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality Causes her to commit adultery.

That's Matthew 19 the exact same argument. He poses in Matthew 5. So Deuteronomy 24 is the central text and Deuteronomy 24, which we looked at in detail last week. The whole point is that it's forbidden for a husband.

Once he obtains a certificate of divorce and puts his wife away to ever seek to remarry her. That is the abomination that pollutes the land as far as Deuteronomy 24 is concerned. What Jesus does in Matthew 5 is he takes that term?

Sexual immorality. Sometimes translated adultery that's far too restrictive far too precise in my understanding. The Greek word porneia translated here sexual morality is far more broad and there's a point to that it's it's somewhat ambiguous.

It's not precise. It's uncleanness or immorality of many different kinds and that's true from Deuteronomy 24. Because of some uncleanness Moses permits divorce and so we have to recognize there's a broad term there.

Now the fact that it's a broad term is half of the debate that ever since the church began. There's been this debate this struggle to understand what are the biblical grounds for divorce? Are there any some would say none?

Is divorce permissible but remarriage is forbidden? That was the predominant view in the early church. Oh, is there a grounds of biblical grounds not only for divorce but also for remarriage? And if so, what are those grounds?

These are the things we want to unpack together this morning. We notice how important this is just because as I said the divorce rate today and This is a trend that we can expect to increase 48 I think that's down a couple percentage points from where it was at least a few years ago.

But in my mind, I think it's only down because people are refusing to marry now. It's not because marriage is being salvaged because people will just spend 35 years living together, but refusing to marry.

They'll have everything that marriage often affords and yet they won't actually make that commitment. They always want the escape clause. They want the way out and so we can expect Divorce of a variety to continue and that's part and parcel of having this casual approach to relationships in our day.

Relationships aren't taken very seriously because sexuality isn't taken very seriously in one way our culture absolutely Idolizes sexuality they've become enamored obsessed with it in certain ways. But another way they've so degraded it and hollered it out that it doesn't carry any sort of transcendent value.

It's something almost mechanical in its import as Vodie Bachum points out modern American dating is really just glorified divorce practice. You pursue someone you become romantically entangled with them you make a certain level of commitment.

Not only in sort of your emotions, but even perhaps physically and Then you split for some reason and you start all over again. You do this four five six seven times. What are you doing, but preparing yourself for divorce?

You're training yourself that commitment. It's not really a commitment. It's not something that's going to require self-denial. It's an arrangement for a time it's something that Only serves your convenience your gratification your satisfaction.

And when that begins to dry and wither up then that's as far as your commitment goes. That's essentially how our society views relationships. Well in the days of the New Testament and the days that Paul the Apostle is writing Roman culture.

Viewed relationships in a somewhat analogous way. Romans made divorce very easy. In fact there were property laws that Essentially allowed the the wife and the husband to keep their property separate and the idea was when it comes time to separate it.

It would be very convenient. You don't have to go to a court and hash out who gets what you know. Who gets the dog who gets the camper? Etc. It's basically everything was sort of a clean split remarriage was a way of life.

Especially for the elite class because marriages were often forging political alliances. And so it was out of the hands of the spouse so often if you if you had one that was in a position of authority they could simply say You're going to divorce and marry so-and-so because I need to have a business arrangement with them or I need to sort of build Up that alliance and so they would just will divorces left and right and that was the sort of casual Lax view into which Paul is finding converts coming into the church for example in Corinth.

We'll get there in a moment. The prevailing view about marriage and divorce and the Roman Empire began to drastically change as a result of Christian influence. Now I'm going to give a 10 ,000 foot overview and there's always exceptions that prove the rule.

There's always exceptions. So I'm painting with an incredibly broad brush the bristles run from wall to wall. In a few paragraphs, I'm simply going to try to help you understand the way the debate has forged over church history.

Prevailing views About marriage and divorce began to drastically shift as a result of Christianity. With the exceptions granted most of the church fathers in the early centuries of the church permitted divorce on the grounds of adultery.

Remember I was talking about that word that's translated sexual morality. That's a good translation. The term itself is pornea. It was treated as adultery Exclusively largely because the Vulgate the Latin translation of that term created this terminology of fornicatio fornication and that was translated to mean Not only fornication prior during the patrolville period but also adultery and so for a long time the church fathers were looking very Strictly at the category of adultery as the only biblical grounds for divorce.

Some even required it. In other words, it was out of your hands whether you wanted to reconcile this is what was necessary you must now divorce. At the same time remarriage was usually forbidden again.

Not all church fathers held this but most church fathers did. You could divorce on the grounds of adultery? But you could not remarry. You must remain single. Many in the church regarded marriage as an indissoluble bond.

And that was not only in life but even in death there was this indissoluble bond of this this joining of both body and soul. Now, of course at the same time the church had a lot of baggage in these early centuries.

There was a a huge drive toward what we call asceticism. In other words this renunciation of the flesh and marriage was seen as sort of a Necessary need for procreation but beyond that it was an obstacle to personal holiness.

Far better to actually devote yourself exclusively to God far better to go into the desert in an exclusively devoted life as Perhaps a monastic and so you look you read the desert fathers in this way or even see the rise of monasticism in early church history and so again.

Because of these views because of the repression of sexuality because of the restrictive view of adultery. Remarriage was usually forbidden in the early church. You have early councils like the Council of Orals.

They disallowed remarriage but moved away from excommunication as some of the fathers pushed for that. In time eventually you get toward the fourth century. Augustine becomes the foundation of the views of divorce in the Roman Catholic Church.

Part of that is because Augustine taught and the church ever since had held the Roman Catholic Church that marriage was a sacrament one of the seven sacraments of the church. Of course, we as reformed Protestants only hold there to be two what we call ordinances.

But you might as well call them sacraments as well. Accord occurring between two communicants in the Roman Catholic Church marriage became indissoluble if there was an unequal yoking. Then you could seek a permitted divorce.

Now this during the Renaissance leading up to the Reformation this began to receive a lot of pushback. Thomas Moore Erasmus Among others pushed against this view, but it prevailed. In fact as a response to the Reformation the Council of Trent Trent codified it.

Although within that council they allowed various reasons for marriages to be annulled. So in some ways they ratcheted up. They made concrete the binding indissoluble nature of marriage. But another way they gave all sorts of reasons that a marriage could be granted in a moment.

Well, the Reformation comes in the Reformation seeks to clarify what the Bible has to say about divorce. Again, even in the Reformation there's all sorts of exceptions. But generally speaking the Reformers all rejected viewing marriage as a sacrament.

They saw it as a creation ordinance not as a sacrament and They allowed there to be remarriage by the innocent party if the divorce was upon biblical grounds. Now getting a little bit closer to our own neck of the woods in church history when the Reformation took hold Confessions began to be drafted in order to explicate what was held in common from the scriptures.

So you have confessions of faith being drafted and they're ironing out and working out what they understand the Bible to teach what they commonly confess together for the sake of unity in the churches of God and here when it comes to the confessions we can see very clearly that the divorce was debated.

Divorce is a controversial subject in the Reformation time. So the Westminster confession of faith. All right our confession comes downstream from this the Westminster confession of faith was first commissioned as advice to the English Parliament and Bear with me.

I know this is sipping church history from a firehose, but bear with me. We are getting somewhere. The Westminster confession of faith. This is easily forgotten was published as advice to the English Parliament.

It was published in Scotland in 1646. However, it was not Approved and then republished by the English Parliament until 1648. This is very significant for the issue of divorce. In 1646 the Westminster Assembly had its draft and on their chapter chapter 24 on marriage.

They had two paragraphs paragraphs 5 and 6 on divorce. However, by the time the English Parliament received that advice they felt that those two paragraphs on divorce Were not truly grounded biblically.

We're not surely defensible biblically and so they took them out. The problem is within those two years of the advice being given to the English Parliament. That was the version that had been published universally.

And in fact for a long time after it was the 1646 version printed in Scotland That was held to be the Westminster confession of faith. And so you had these two paragraphs on divorce and let me just briefly read these for you first paragraph 5 Adultery or fornication notice again this restrictive view adultery or fornication Committed after a contract being detected before marriage gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract in The case of adultery after marriage It is lawful for the innocent party to sue a divorce and after the divorce to marry another as if the offending were dead.

Okay, so that's paragraph 5 paragraph 6. Although the corruption of man is such as is prone to study arguments Unduly to put asunder in other words to take apart what God has joined together in marriage yet Nothing, but adultery or willful desertion.

These are the two Exceptions that are given notice. We have an advancement on adultery now. It's not just Adultery, which we would say is more broad sexual morality. It's also desertion. We'll get into that or such willful desertion as can No way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate is cause sufficient to dissolve the bond of marriage.

They say a little bit more about the nature of the civil magistrate therein. So these are the two paragraphs that by the time it comes to the English Parliament. They say no This doesn't belong in a confession of faith.

Ten years later the independents the Congregationalists take their Westminster confession of faith Highlight copy paste and They to say these two paragraphs don't belong in a confession of faith. About 20 years later the Baptist take that Savoy Declaration Highlight copy paste and they agree with the Savoy.

Yeah, these two paragraphs on divorce don't belong in the confession of faith. So our confession doesn't have anything to say about divorce. In fact when the Savoy framers wrote their explanation for how they utilize the Westminster They said this a great part of the 24th chapter on marriage and divorce was omitted.

These portions were so doubtful and so Unsuitable to our confession that the Honorable House of Parliament in their great wisdom thought fit to lay them aside. And so they're seeing something about the contested nature of divorce.

That it was unwise to actually publish these paragraphs. And so our own confession says very little however as a local church We have to have a view about divorce, don't we? Because we have to deal with divorce, don't we?

And.

The Church’s Statement on Divorce and 1 Corinthians 7

So our own church has a book of order within our Constitution and we have there a statement on divorce. Just want to pull out a few of The points that are made there and then use that as a framework to elaborate this morning.

This is what our church holds to in terms of divorce. I hope it'll be informative and instructive. Well, the first thing we say from our book of order is this. Divorce is not a part of God's original design for marriage.

Isn't that what Jesus said in Matthew 5? Isn't that what Jesus says in Matthew 19? So then what Paul says in Ephesians 5. Everywhere read about marriage we understand God's good design for a man and a woman to become one and how this is a presentation of Jesus and his bride the church.

Divorce was not part of God's original design for marriage. However after the fall divorce not only became a possibility but a reality because of the sinful and hard heart of man. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew 19.

Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your hearts.

Therefore.

God has given commandments concerning divorce so as to protect the sanctity of marriage and To protect a marriage partner from intolerable abuse of a wicked spouse. These intolerable abuses are the only grounds for divorce and these grounds must be discerned from the scriptures.

So what are the grounds biblically speaking? The biblical grounds for divorce as set forth in Scripture are uncleanness. We have that in scare quotes, that's that's good. That's right. That's as specific as Scripture is uncleanness.

Deuteronomy 24 sexual immorality of some nature according to Matthew 5. That's certainly Not less than adultery, but it is more very important to say that but also secondly the desertion of a believer by an unbeliever.

The abandonment of a believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse. Now we could be a little more specific that there are cases of Abandonment plain and simple which proved that one who had made a profession is really no believer at all.

And so that's a roundabout way of saying abandonment or desertion. But here we're really hugging 1st Corinthians 7 which I'll read in a moment The abandonment or desertion or departing of an unbelieving spouse toward a believing spouse.

And then we conclude that paragraph by saying divorce must never be considered as a solution To marital conflict between a Christian husband and a Christian wife. All right. Divorce is not breaking the glass case and slamming the red button.

This is not how marital intrigue marital Difficulty is dealt with. You don't clobber each other with the looming possibility of divorce. When there's no biblical warrant when there's no biblical grounds for such that has to be clear.

Now I want you to notice that a lot of the details about That statement as well as a lot of the debate about divorce throughout church history Really centers on the application of 1st Corinthians 7 in conjunction with Matthew 5 Matthew 19 Mark 10 Luke 16 and so forth.

So 1st Corinthians 7 we read before I approach this morning 1st Corinthians 7 beginning in verse 10 Paul says to the married I command yet not I but the Lord in other words This is what the Lord himself has taught expressly a wife is not to depart from her husband.

But even if she does depart now just pause there already Paul is is Giving a command in a way that is perhaps surprising to us here is what the Lord commands a wife is not to depart her husband, but if she does depart let her.

Wait, I just thought you said the Lord gave a command and you said that command is for a wife not to depart. Then your very next sentence is well if she does depart let her do this. So Paul is already Qualifying the command or we could say making a concession.

This is what some New Testament scholars call the Pauline privilege of 1st Corinthians 7 Not to the married I command yet not I but the Lord a wife is not to depart from her husband. You begin there. That is the foundation.

God hates divorce.

But.

Even if she does depart Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. A husband is not to divorce his wife. In other words, it's the same for the husband. Now this is very significant because as we see in Matthew 5 Matthew 19 the parallels in Mark 10 Luke 16 as we see from Deuteronomy 24 where they're all drawing from.

It's all put in the position of the husband the husband is the one who will make a decision about divorce. That's true in terms of the Jewish culture. By the time you get to the Corinthians what we know about Romans is the wife could sue for divorce, too.

Wasn't just the husbands that were pushing divorce. It was the wives that were pushing for divorce, too. And so Paul here lays out wives. You should not separate from your husbands. This is a privilege that wasn't thought of in Jewish culture that the wife could actually pursue Divorce in this way.

And so Paul says a wife is not to depart from her husband neither is a husband to depart from his wife. And he says in fact and he's speaking to the church if There's a separation if things are so bad so volatile that a separation is warranted.

Then they must remain unmarried or be reconciled. Now he presses further to the rest. Now he's speaking not to those who are married within the church. But to those who have a marriage that stretches beyond the church to the rest.

I not the Lord say if any brother has a wife who does not believe I Want you to note those words you're gonna see this as a constant refrain. If any brother has a wife who does not believe and she is willing to live with him Let him not divorce her 13 and a woman who has a husband who does not believe.

If he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him for the Unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they're holy.

But if the unbeliever departs let him depart. A Brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For do you know a wife whether you will save your husband? Do you know a husband whether you will save your wife?

See Paul's main concern here is about the way that the gospel is going to inhabit the marital relationship. Says in the case of those who are married in the church as professing believers. They cannot separate.

They must stay together if things are so volatile so messy so ugly that there must be a time of separation. They cannot go anywhere else. They cannot remarry. They either remain unmarried in other words remain separate from one another or they reconcile.

However, if there's a if there's a marriage where one has come to faith and now there's an unequal yoking. The believer must do everything they can to remain within that marriage. They have no grounds to separate unless the biblical grounds becomes a warrant in that case.

They must abide by their marital commitment unless the unbeliever wants out. If the unbeliever wants out then let them go and you're free. You're not under bondage in such cases and Though there's debate about that.

I would argue verse 15 implies remarriage. So you're not in bondage. You're free in that sense. But notice Paul's language. I love verse 16 this little rhetorical twist. For how do you know Oh wife? Whether you will save your husband.

How do you know Oh Husband whether you will save your wife. Do you see what he's doing there rhetorically? He's reminding them of their marital commitment as he addresses them, how do you know wife? You are married.

You do have a husband. How do you know wife whether you will save your husband? That's why you should stay in your marriage.

Because you are married.

How do you know husband whether you will save your wife? Do you see what he's doing? He's reaffirming the marital commitment reaffirming the time. So he begins with God's affirmation for marriage a spouse is not to depart.

That's what the Lord expressly teaches. That's Matthew 5 writ large. He then moves to the case of an unequally yoked marriage stemming from a later conversion. You don't have two professing believers where they're going, you know, I'm just so much more sanctified and therefore I've become unequally yoked.

No, if there's anything of a profession of faith, then there's no biblical grounds for separation. Paul very clearly urges spouses that are unequally yoked. Because of one having faith and one being an unbeliever not to divorce the unbelieving spouse.

That's clearly his intention first. Peter 3 says the same thing to wives. You get the sense in the early church that generally speaking that the women were converted. Isn't that true of Timothy's own profession?

It was his grandmother his mother. We have no idea where his father was or what he was up to or or whatnot. It was generally speaking a lot of matrilineal conversions in the early church first. Peter 3 Assumes that wives that are married to unbelievers are given the same advice be subject to your own husbands.

Even if they don't obey the word that they might be one without a word by the conduct of the wife. So rather than seeking for an opportunity to get out of the relationship. If only I could have a Christian marriage Paul like Peter says no, this is about salvation.

You don't know Whether God will be pleased to use you to bring your spouse to faith. You don't know wife. You don't know husband. What the Lord's intentions are so be faithful be committed be patient be merciful be winsome.

That's the Lord's command. Now of interest here, of course is verse 15 if the unbeliever departs let him depart. A Brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. This is essentially where the next qualification for divorce is given.

This is desertion or abandonment if they depart. If they abandon you if they desert you. You're not under bondage. In other words, this is a biblical grounds for divorce. The marriage union is dissolved and a remarriage can be granted and upheld in holiness.

Now it's not always appreciated how broadly the Puritans applied This category of desertion. It's not contained within our confession of faith as we say and perhaps the most we can say is the biblical grounds for divorce are sexual immorality and Abandonment or desertion.

But the Puritans had a lot to say about desertion. They had a lot to say about what qualifies as abandonment. And especially this this may be surprising to depending on your view of Patriarchy, it may be shocking to you how certain 17th and 18th century views would seem surprisingly egalitarian in the nature of the cases beginning with Thomas Cranmer.

His circle of influence Peter Martyr ver Migli Martin Booser as they sought to address Reformation in the church according to marriage and divorce and so the beginning push is there and then you come to Richard Baxter who in his his encyclopedic Christian directory lays out almost every Perceivable case of what constitutes desertion and that includes even being driven away by cruelty.

That's Richard Baxter. In other words that a husband or a wife Is so cruel so fierce so hostile in an unrepentant and willful way that this would.

Constitute.

On the part of the inflictors and a sense of desertion or abandonment of the marriage or the marital duty. So there's broad perhaps too broad of a view of abandonment here. Now these took a long time to enter into civil law.

It begins in the church and it takes a long time to seep into the civil courts. And. As it began to seep into the civil courts, it then went way too far far beyond what the scriptures hold out. In fact in England as Peter Masters points out for a long time divorce was only a privilege for the wealthy for the elite class.

Up until 1857 you had to have a private act of Parliament to gain a divorce. That's how serious marriage was taken. A Private act of Parliament to grant an annulment or a divorce. After 1857 people could petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery.

It was only much later actually.

1937.

That the ground of desertion or cruelty or Insanity was granted as a grounds for divorce and then in 1969 the law was changed so that marriage could be annulled or a divorce could be granted if it had broken down in some Irretrievable way as a result of even having a period of separation.

You've been separated long enough. You're practically divorced. We're just gonna grant you the divorce even without a sufficient grounds and then after 1969 by the time you get to the 1990s. Anything though?

You don't need a reason at all. As long as you both agree. You want a divorce? That's good enough for the courts. So this is where we've gone in the past 200 years. Christians are not to play into this degradation of marriage at the same time Christians need to understand there are legitimate grounds for divorce.

Hard-Heartedness, Jeremiah 3, and the Mercy of God

This is the hardest thing to wrap our minds around. We don't want to play into the degradation of marriage. Which a casual lacks understanding a divorce plays into it. It hollows out what marriage really is but at the same time One of the ways you uphold the high and holy calling of marriage is by understanding the legitimacy of divorce.

Moses permits divorce. Jesus seems to uphold that permission when he says any reason except sexual immorality. In other words, that is a sufficient reason to divorce. Instead of trying to find loopholes on the one hand in God's commands.

We want to shout from the rooftops about the holiness of marriage. We want that display case of Christ's relationship to his church to be bright and luminous. We know how winsome that is to a culture that has no understanding of what it means for a man to deny himself and give himself over for a wife for a wife to deny herself and Become one as it were a help meat to her head the culture has completely lost that picture.

So, you know how winsome how powerful that is? But at the same times one of the ways that we uphold the holiness the calling of marriage is by understanding the legitimacy of divorce. Now, let me just make one aside from our book of order.

We say and this is very important for 1st Corinthians any divorce and subsequent remarriage That occurred before a person became a Christian.

In other words.

The situation of the Corinthians. Yet two pagans that got married and one of them converts and Paul is saying in chapter 7. Here's how to deal with that. Well, what about what about the person who had been a pagan is now a Christian?

How do they regard their own divorce if it comes? Maybe they were divorced far before they became a Christian the divorce and years later down the road The Lord finds them and they become a believer. How are they to understand that?

Well, this is really dealt with in chapter 6. As Paul talks about some in the Corinthian congregation being fornicators adulterers. In other words those who really should have been if they weren't truly Divorced.

And Paul says but you were washed you were cleansed you were sanctified. And so any divorce or remarriage which occurred before conversion is considered forgiven cleansed washed. It's part of a past life.

And so that sin is not held to account. God has seen fit to cleanse to cancel the guilt and so the church does as well. Christians do as well. That's not something that's held. However, that doesn't mean that Christians are unaffected by their past.

Christians are those who are always affected by their past. It's not just my present sins that are ever before me it's also my past sins, how could I have been like that? How could I have done that? I shouldn't feel the guilt the enemy can use that as a foothold to torment the conscience.

But I should allow it to bear the fruit of humility. I Should allow that the sorrow of what I was before Christ to bring the beauty of what I am now in Christ. So as believers were wholly different. It's not just because we now have a transformed life as new creations in Christ Jesus.

But it's also because of the humility that is born out in our walks as a result of having a life apart from him. We know what it was like to run in that same flood of dissipation. It's why we're humble and meek.

It's why we're poor in spirit. It's why we're able to be merciful all the things we saw from the Beatitudes. We also know that the remnants of sin remain. We know that new believers will seek not to be callous, but part of that means they'll never justify past sinfulness.

No all's well that ends. Well, no, they'll be sorrow for those scars even though there's tremendous healing and transformation in Christ and so again the godly resolve is born out of a recognition that Although I am forgiven cleansed freed in Christ Jesus.

There are consequences to sin and our lives are still in some ways marked by it.

Now.

When it comes to divorce in our church This is the practice that follows. If there is some reason within a marriage for a member to seek divorce elders are responsible to investigate to adjudicate whether or not there's a biblical ground for divorce.

And of course. The whole time along in seeking to address this we're seeking to do everything in our power to affect reconciliation. All right, let there be peace. As Paul says in 1st Corinthians 7, this is the desire.