New Thoughts (11/30/09-12/04/09)
I have taken somewhat more liberty with the two texts in forming my paraphrase than has been usual. Reading the two accounts, it is sufficiently clear that they review the same events, but their memories, or their purposes in relating them, lead them to differences in the specific ordering of those events. My liberties, then, are largely taken in the hope of reconstructing, as it were, the real sequence from what is found in these two accounts. Admittedly, there are other places, particularly in what Jesus says to His disciples in private, where I have sought to supply some sense to a rather obscure statement. Obviously, in both cases, I am quite capable of error, but it is a starting point for me in coming to grips with what is contained in this passage.
As far as the question posed by the Pharisees, it would seem those who asked could have a reasonable expectation as to the answer they would receive. After all, Jesus has already addressed the topic as early on as the Sermon on the Mount, and has doubtless had opportunity to teach on the matter repeatedly since then. Looking particularly at Matthew’s recording of that question, the question posed represents one of the points of distinction between the two major rabbinical schools of thought at the time. On the one hand, there is the view posed by Jesus Himself, that only adultery on the part of the woman constitutes grounds for divorce. On the other, any offense the man might take is reason enough.
Which school of thought held sway in that particular region, I could not say, so it would be difficult to determine a priori what these Pharisees considered the correct answer. However, as the NET reminds us in its footnote to these events, we are in the realm controlled by Herod Antipas, the same Herod Antipas who had suffered John the Baptist to be imprisoned and later beheaded for declaiming against Herod’s own indiscretions in the realm of divorce and adultery. As such, the footnote suggests that the primary aim of these interrogators, the main trap, may well have been to lead Jesus into a statement that would irritate Herod as greatly as John’s accusations had done. Phrasing it in the terms of a well-known rabbinical dispute would neatly disguise their purpose, or so they might think.
In light of this, there are a couple of other details that become rather interesting. First, there is the phrasing chosen by Mark in introducing the scene. The Pharisees did not just come up and accost Jesus this one time with the question, they were persistent. They kept on asking Him, as Wuest translates it. They made pests of themselves, badgering Jesus, and doing their best to ensure that He answered in some way that they could fashion a controversy from. This persistence could be seen as giving the lie to their couching of the question as a simple rabbinical debate, and might explain in part why Jesus does not give them the direct reading they desire.
As Matthew recounts it, the answer He gives is strictly in line with the more conservative rabbinical school, and so can not cause Him difficulty without embroiling that whole school in the same trouble. As Mark recounts it, He does not ever give them any direct answer to the question, but saves it for a private lesson with His disciples. In my attempt to correlate these two accounts, I have followed Mark’s lead. Jesus was never fearful, that He would cower before such questioners, but neither was He a fool, that He would willingly put Himself at risk to no heavenly purpose. These questions and their proper answer were not a matter of God’s purpose, and therefore did not demand a clear response from Him at all cost. Indeed, one could easily view this as a case of pearls before swine, or the Proverbial instructions on how to deal wisdom to a fool.
[12/01/09] Turning back to the question that these Pharisees pose: they ask, “is it lawful to divorce for any cause whatsoever?” Now, I know I have looked at the lexicons on other occasions with regard to the word lawful. I know, as well, that I have wondered how the coiners of that word arrived at the concept of lawfulness from the words it is derived from. Ek eimi. Out of I exist. That’s a painfully literal translation, to be sure, but there it is. Strong’s provides these two roots for the word, and then provides the combined meaning of “It is right.” As I say, how these concepts correlate has not been immediately obvious to me. But, in reviewing my material for this study, it suddenly jumped out at me. From or out of ‘I exist,’ it is right. Let me turn that around. It is right because I exist. Or, more specifically, it is right because I AM.
Suddenly, the connection is laid plain. The law, the very concept of legality requires God. How often I have heard the point made that morality and the sense of right and wrong require the reality of God in order to have any validity. In other words, where God is denied, right and wrong are reduced to opinions and there is no reason for me to accept your opinions nor you mine. What is law, though, but the defining of right and wrong? Well, once again, why do we accept the law as binding upon us (apart from the force of arms which backs it up)? Why did we as a society conclude that it was in our interest to have these laws as binding upon us, and on what basis were they determined? I come back to this definition before me: from the foundation of “I AM”. Because these are the precepts I AM has set forth as defining.
Certainly, at the base of any theistic society such as Israel was, there was this sense of a God-decreed definition of what was right and good and what was not. But, it is not by Israel alone that such things are deemed right and good. Look to any of the ancient legal codes, and the concepts are little different. This, of course, will make sense to the believer, for we have long known that God said He would write His law on our hearts. Indeed, if He is our Creator, and if His creation reveals His character, then it is only reasonable to suppose that we creatures would find His definitions of right and wrong to be the valid definitions. Arguably, it would be rather absurd to suppose mankind agreed on said definitions for any other reason.
One other point is worth noting at this point, because it bears greatly on the scene laid before us. The definition of lawfulness lies in the fact that God has decreed it so. This is the point I take from the derivation itself, and it is the point laid out clearly in all of Scripture. God determines. As the Sovereign Lord of all, there is no other who could settle the Law, and as a good God, He has not shirked His duty to do so. Yet, the Pharisees, for all their desire to be known as godly men, do not appeal to God for their answer as to what is lawful in regard to divorce, but to Moses. They look to Moses as the Lawgiver, but as great as Moses is, He is not the Lawgiver, only the tablet bearer. God remains the Lawgiver, and it is to God that Jesus turns their attention.
Again, I have taken liberty with the text to emphasize this refocusing of the attention. From Mark’s account, we have the point that Jesus asked them specifically what Moses had said. Now, in Mark’s account, we hear Jesus ask what Moses commanded and the Pharisees replying as to what Moses permitted. I notice that Matthew’s account reverses the two terms, with the Pharisees speaking of what Moses commanded and Jesus commenting on what Moses permitted. I have followed Matthew’s wording, but Mark’s questioning. I have also inserted a more explicit turning of the attention to the true Law with Jesus asking, “what does God say?” This may be rather fanciful on my part, but considering the two texts together, it does feel as though it captures the flow of events rather neatly.
This, however, is the part that truly captures my attention right now. They have been asking about the legal limits on divorce. Whether they were asking about the legality of divorce in general, as Mark’s account might seem to imply, or about the legal grounds for divorce per Matthew’s account doesn’t impact the arc of the narrative very much. That said, I am inclined towards Matthew’s version because there could be little doubt as to the legality of divorce under at least some circumstances. The only question, really, was what circumstances. How little has changed!
The cultural bias is also clearly evident, as they give not thought whatsoever to a woman divorcing her husband. Such a concept was not even thinkable to their society. It was the man’s prerogative, and only the man’s. The only question on their minds was what limitations the man had upon his prerogative. Neither does Jesus answer them in any terms other than fit the culture. When, however, He has turned their attention back to the foundational law, with its clear declaration that no room was made for divorce at the outset, their true feelings are laid bare by their reaction.
“Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” So, two points here: When God’s commandments are too much for them, they drop back. Moses is our Lord. If he has lowered the standard, then we will gladly take that lowered standard. Don’t try and push us back under the higher law of God Himself. See? He gave us the loophole. The only question remaining is how big is that hole?
The second revealing aspect of the answer is in their choice of saying that Moses commanded the divorce. This is the way of the deceptive heart of fallen man. The allowances made for our weakness are translated into commands to accept our weakness. We see that this avenue has been left open for us in which we may have our sin and be counted as righteous, and in our minds it is no longer a merciful allowance, it is a commandment! Go, and sin! Have at. God doesn’t care. See? He put this law in place just for you, so you could do the thing you like and still find a place in Him. What a guy!
Jesus will not allow this mental slight of hand to go unchallenged. Moses commanded nothing of the sort. Moses permitted divorce because of your weakness, and your resistance to true righteousness. And, we might say, you can see how well that has worked out!
Can I just point out from this that the current problem that the Church has with divorce is clearly nothing new? The reasoning may change, and the societal norms for divorce may change, but the fact of divorce and its abuse by fallen mankind does not. As to the societal differences, those are visible even in this passage. For the Jews, the question was solely about men divorcing their wives. But, as Mark fits his gospel to the Gentiles, it has to be noted that the same rules apply to women divorcing their husbands. In our day, yes, it has become worse in many ways. We now (or soon will) have to deal with questions of men divorcing their husbands and women divorcing their wives, and who knows what other depravities society can yet cook up in that department!
But, divorce itself is a constant problem because sin is a constant problem. That doesn’t make it acceptable that we who are the Church share that problem with the world at large. It doesn’t make it acceptable that we are all but indistinguishable from the world as regards divorce. Oh, we talk a good game. We know it shouldn’t be that way. But, it is that way, and in the end, we have developed a tendency to simply shrug it off. Our thinking is, no doubt, that we can’t change the situation so we may as well accept it. That is, however, a wholly non-Scriptural mindset. That’s the psychiatric answer, but it’s no answer. In reality, it’s not even leaving the situation unchanged. For, by appearing unconcerned about the present state of affairs, we encourage those who would further erode the definitions.
It is of a piece with John’s warning not to even offer greetings to the false teachers. Those who saw you being polite might take it for acceptance of the views of the one greeted, and thereby gain that one a hearing he ought not to have. Better to be rude in the service of Truth than to politely accept the lie. That’s our mandate. That’s our proper course. It’s not a matter of being rude for rudeness’ sake, nor is it permission to become prideful in the clear accuracy of our own personal views on matters of faith. We are all eminently capable when it comes to error, and all sadly deficient when it comes to adhering to the truth faithfully. The heart is evil, deceptive beyond measure, and the mind is no better. We are forever lying to ourselves about our own status, and about those around us. If, then, we are to stand for Truth, we must do so prayerfully and with deepest attentiveness to the guidance of our Tutor, the Holy Spirit. We must do so, as well, with a teachable spirit, as the phrase goes. Not so teachable that we will accept any teaching that comes along, no. But, teachable enough to recognize God’s correction of our views and to change them accordingly.
As we turn to the private instructions that followed this encounter, the thoughts of the disciples are once again rather reflective of the society from which they were drawn. Why, if a man can’t get out of a bad marriage, it would be best not to get into a marriage at all, they reason. It would be like buying a lousy car and being unable to sell it and get a new one ever again. Who wants to have to deal with that! How revealing this is, though. They, like the society at large, failed to look upon marriage for what it was. They did not see the commitment of covenant here. They did not recognize the reflection of God that was intended. They did not see the relationship. They saw a commodity, a property, a status symbol. But, if they saw the human being to whom they were married, it was being kept very quiet.
So, they rebel against the degree of commitment implied in what Jesus has said. I have to take it that seriously, if we get married? Well, then, forget it! I’ll just stay single, thank you. Jesus doesn’t take issue with this directly. This should not be taken as His assent to the proposition. It is just that He has a better lesson to teach than to correct this particular deficiency just now. Indeed, His response is rather interesting. “If you can do it, go for it!” But, you can only do it if it has been given you to do it. At least, this is the only way to do it in righteousness.
Face it. We have a society around us where plenty of men and women remain single, so far as the marriage contract is concerned. Yet, they do so apart from righteousness, entering into sexual unions with a freedom and liberty unthinkable, giving no thought to anything remotely like commitment, and making certain of their escape routes. Divorce is no longer an issue because marriage hasn’t even been entered into. If it has, as often as not it has been entered into as a financial calculation. It’s become a cost / benefit analysis, and various contractual fine print is attached to make sure that no future change of mind on the part of one partner or the other can adversely impact the calculations.
Those who avoid marriage in this fashion do indeed remain unwed, but there is no virtue in it. For, it wasn’t given to them to be single in purity and righteousness. It was just sin in them seeking pleasure without cost. The cost remains, but the blinders of sin have kept them from seeing it.
I don’t say this from a place of superiority, by any stretch. As Paul would remind his converts: I was once just as they are. I, too, sought my sinful pleasures with total disregard for righteousness and righteousness’ God. But, the blinders have been removed, at least as regards these issues. I am not the same, and I cannot pursue the same course.
I can also say with clarity that it was not given me to be single. I often wonder whether it was given me to be married, either, for it is hard work, this married life. Relationships require effort, and when the relationship is day in, day out, the effort is that much greater. There is no escaping. It’s not that divorce is an option that comes to mind, it’s simply that one wearies of the work. But, oh! The benefits! No, I’m not thinking of fleshly gratifications, as nice as those are. I’m thinking about the fact that this effort goes both ways. As hard as I may have to work to treat the relationship as I ought, this one to whom I am married is making just as much effort on the other side of the relationship. She is just as committed to me as I am to her.
Let me say that again, read that again: She is just as committed to me as I am to her. The key word there is committed. Whatever my shortcomings, and believe me they are manifold, she is committed. She won’t give up. She won’t go elsewhere. And, she won’t stop loving me. I can reverse the equation and know that it holds true for me, as well. I am committed. I won’t give up. I won’t go elsewhere. And I won’t stop loving her.
There’s another aspect of this that I know with all clarity, and I know that this, too, is something equally true for both of us: If it were not given us to hold to this commitment, we could never do it. We would both have given up a long time ago, and found better things to do with ourselves. But, it IS given! I am furnished with the strength, granted the faculty, endued with the power and filled with the virtue required by this commitment. I am made able to treat this marriage as I ought by the One Who established marriage.
As marriage and faith are conjoined, I come to understand more deeply what Paul is talking about when he equates marriage to the relationship of Christ and Church. As I consider how deeply I am committed to my wife, and she to me, I am given to know just how fully Jesus is devoted to His Church, to me! I am also given to know just how fully I and the rest of the Church with me are to be devoted to Jesus, our husband. I am reminded of just how much effort I should be putting into that relationship, even as I must put effort into the marriage relationship. And, I am forever brought up against the reality that unless it were given me to endure in this relationship with my Savior, I should inevitably fail of remaining in the relationship. I would have left long ago, for if I thought being married to my wife was hard, being married to the Christ of God is much more difficult!
But, praise be to God! He has furnished the strength, the power, the faculty and the virtue required. He has done it not only in my relationship with Himself, but also with the wife He has blessed me with. He has done this for His own good purpose. Let me be exceedingly and abundantly clear on that point. Does it bless me? Absolutely! Is it great boon to me? Beyond measure! But, behind it all lies God’s purpose, and His purpose is good, indeed. For, His purpose in marriage is exactly as I have been saying for my own understanding: that the world might know of His love for His bride, and that they might know of His bride’s love for Him. Marriage was given to mankind to reflect this heavenly order, this higher spiritual reality. How marvelous, then, when God empowers us to live out the married life that He has instituted! How awful, when we fail to do so.
This is another point where I have taken somewhat more liberty with the text than usual. For, Jesus does not explicitly say that God gives the capacity for married life. He speaks solely of the celibate life. But, the first is implied in the last. If it is not given to man to live in celibacy, and that man is in Christ, then it must be given him to live in marriage, for there is no third option.
I must also reiterate that neither condition is being declared more righteous, or more fit for the believer. Marriage is not given as a concession to our sinful lusts, providing us with nothing more than a legitimate avenue for satisfying the flesh. It is more, far more! It is, as I noted a modeling of the relationship of God and Church. But, this fact does not denigrate the celibate life, either. That life, too, honors God, as the one living it does so for that very purpose. As Paul explains it, the one who is single has not conflicting call upon his time. He is free to dedicate himself fully to the cause of Christ in a degree that the married cannot.
Understanding this, we are empowered to avoid a number of false beliefs. It is not, clearly not, required that those who would serve in God’s house be celibate. That could be answered by the very beginning of the Gospel accounts, where we find the father of John the Baptist is a priest in good standing, and long married. From the outset, priests married. It would have to be thus or the tribe of Aaron to whom the priesthood was first assigned would rapidly have died out. So, that point should have long since been laid to rest.
However, I note a complaint that I have heard from the pulpit a few times, particularly as regards the younger folk in the church. It is pointed out how both man and woman have been most dedicated to God’s service prior to marriage, and that after marriage, it seems that the woman continues with a similar degree of dedication, but the man does not. This is claimed as being some sort of failure on the part of the man. But, I am not certain that this is so. It may very well be that the man is doing exactly what he is called to do, what he has been given the capacity to do, which is to live the married life well. Having entered into the covenant of marriage, that man has taken on certain responsibilities towards the woman which are not fully reciprocal in nature. However the vows may get rewritten, it remains true: the man has duties which marriage requires of him that are applied only to the stronger vessel. His is to provide. His is to protect. His is to see to furnishing the necessaries of life to his household. Of course, he cannot hope to do this apart from God, for it is God who provides, even in this. Yet, the responsibility lies on him in a way it does not lie on her.
If a man is handling marriage well, if it has been given him to live the married life, he must take this responsibility as seriously as the responsibility for the spiritual well-being of all who dwell under his roof. God provides, it is true. Undeniable. But, God’s provision more often than not comes through the hand and the labor of man. Just as we are called to be ‘the hands of Christ’ in this life when it comes to matters of salvation, spreading the Gospel, and all the other ministry aspects of the Christian life, so, too, we are called to be His hands in these matters of provision. Why would we think otherwise? We are not to be made anxious by the responsibility, knowing with utmost certainty that God has our back in this mission as in any mission He has assigned us, but we are to take responsibility.
Not all men can handle it. No more than all men (or even many) can handle the single life. This is the key point we should understand from that conversation Jesus has with His disciples: Each state is for those to whom it is given. This is the same instruction Paul later echoes: Let each walk after the manner to which God has called him (1Co 7:17). If it is given you to be single and still you insist on marriage, that’s a problem. If it is given you to be wed and you reject it, insisting on a celibate lifestyle for which you are not equipped, that’s definitely going to be a problem.
Is this, perhaps, a contributing factor to the issue of divorce, that people who have not been given to live the married life are entering into it? It takes effort and commitment, and not everybody is ready to make that effort, make that commitment. And, be very sure, it is a commitment.
Here is one of those spots where I really like what the Message has come up with for a translation. Having entered into marriage, man and woman are “no longer two individuals, but forming a new unity” (Mk 2:8). They are so closely united one to another as to be effectively one single being. How can we not see the commitment inherent in that statement? How readily would you part with your foot? Your eye? Yes, I know, there are those occasions where one may donate an organ to the cause of allowing another to live, and that’s truly a fine and sacrificial thing. But, these are generally organs we don’t see, organs we don’t absolutely need to survive. OK, no matter how I chase this, the analogy is bound to break down, but I think the point is clear enough. Love your spouse as your own arm. Take this relationship that seriously, that to lose your spouse would be like having a leg taken off.
This starts to turn my thoughts towards a point that has been chasing me as I have been considering this passage. And, that is that while Jesus is addressing the question of divorce, He is actually teaching on the subject of marriage. It is, in the end, a very positive message, for what He is doing is reinforcing the sanctity of that estate. Marriage, He insists, is a very serious business, a very holy business. It’s not a convenience. It’s not a commodity. It’s not something to enter into lightly. It’s for life, and it’s for ministry. It’s for demonstrating to the world what commitment looks like, what God’s commitment looks like!
As I reminded myself at the outset of this study, so I remind myself again: Let me therefore commit anew to the effort this marriage deserves and demands, and may God give me the strength and the grace to keep that commitment. The effort. Good marriages don’t just happen, just as good kids don’t just happen. That doesn’t mean I’m going to see everything eye to eye with this woman I have been graced with. Nor, is such a thing required. The unity to which God calls us is not monochrome, any more than the unity to which He calls His church is monochrome. It’s not unison, it’s unity. It’s commitment to serve one another and to serve the same God. We may not do so in the same exact way, and we may not perceive Him in exactly the same way. But, as concerns the fundamentals, absolutely! We must concur.
Here’s something that ought to amaze, though: God so highly values marriage that even where one or the other of those so married rejects Him, He does not reject that marriage. He does not value it any less. He insists that the believing partner, insomuch as it lies in their power, abides by their commitment. This is so expressive of what Jesus concludes: “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” If God, Himself is unwilling to separate them, even for the sake of belief, then what cause have we to consider it?
Do you see, from what is taught here: even that matter of infidelity is not enough to necessitate divorce. Even then, it is but a concession. The higher call is reconciliation. The higher call is to make that marriage work, even if it feels unworkable at the moment. The higher call is ever commitment, particularly where relationships are involved. It is only made more important when we recognize, as Paul did, that this mystery of marriage is the image of Christ in relation to the church (Eph 5:32).
Marriage is a high and holy calling for this very reason. It trains us to the commitment we ought to feel towards Christ. It assures us of the commitment He has for us. What does it say to an unbelieving world when there is no evidence of commitment? What does it say to an unbelieving world when everything around them says that there is nothing in which they can trust? Is it all that shocking that they come to the conclusion that there is nothing that is true, nothing trustworthy? Is it all that shocking that they cannot even arrive at a conception of God any more? If there is no truth, no fidelity, nothing so unchanging as to be relied on, what is there left to them by which they might even imagine God as anything even approaching what He is?
Marriage, when it is lived well by two to whom it has been given to do so, and who have taken upon themselves to do as it has been given, is a first model of that fidelity, that trustworthiness. It is an evidence that there is truth and beauty, that there is something more.
Now, let me say this. As it is with marriage, so it is with the Church. An unbelieving world that sees those who claim to be believers flitting from one congregation to the next, refusing the commitment that this relationship deserves just as the marriage relationship does, it is equally destructive to the capacity for belief. We are in an age when a Christian who feels the least bit of discomfort or disappointment in his current church can easily take himself to a different church more to his taste. This is really a major part of the problem. For many, church has become more a matter of taste than truth. It’s just another consumer choice.
This is the same poison that impacts the marriage commitment. With the so-called sexual revolution of the sixties and the various depravities which have become semi-normal since, marriage no longer matters to many. It’s a social convenience, a financial consideration, maybe a health decision. But, it’s not a commitment. It’s something we choose to do for the moment, but if our attitudes change, well… we’ll cut out of that engagement and go search for something better. Likewise, our attendance at a particular church is not felt like a commitment. We’ll stay there so long as it suits us. But, if the worship sours, or if the preaching hits too close to home, or the lighting’s bad, or any other little thing bugs us, we’ll go shop for a new house to worship in. It’s a trade in, trade up culture, and we’ve carried that sensibility right into the house of God.
But, hear the antidote of Scripture. “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. This is indeed a deep mystery, but I am talking about the church.” Now, clearly, I am borrowing from two distinct locations in Scripture, and paraphrasing to boot, but the point stands. Jesus, the Christ of God, and His Church are in a covenant relationship just as binding as marriage is intended to be, and far more successfully maintained, at least so far as Jesus is concerned. Paul’s point continues in noting that Jesus, the husband in this relationship, went so far as to die for the protection of His Church, the weaker vessel. But, it’s not the building and it’s not the specific denomination that is embodied in this relationship. It’s God and His people. The Old Testament has many references to this relationship of God and His people in marriage terms, and always, it is His people, the weaker vessels, who are unfaithful. Always it is God who, in spite of so many infidelities, insists on making the relationship work. It is still so in the Church age. The Church may prove unfaithful, whether corporately or individually. Yet, God is forever moving to restore not reject.
If marriage is the model for this relationship of God and Church, we must also recognize that His response to the Church is our standard for marriage. Read carefully how Jesus says that there is allowance made for divorce on this one condition of infidelity. But, read carefully, as well, that even this allowance was made because of hardened hearts. It is not the standard, not the ideal. Of course, in the ideal there would be no infidelity and so, no cause for concern. But, even in the presence of that infidelity, the standard remains reconciliation, not rejection. What God has joined, let no man separate. Nor woman. Let the commitment of these two whom He has joined be so thoroughgoing, so forgiving, that even the worst infidelities will not disturb it. Let forgiveness overwhelm the wrong. Let the love of God restore even this. Yes, it is possible. It is more than possible.
I want to return, however, to the commitment between Christian and Church. How we need to regain this! How we Christians need to overcome our fleshly response. When discipline comes in godly fashion, will we abide under that discipline and be changed or will we take our gifts elsewhere? You know, there’s that old saying that you can’t run away from your problems, because wherever you go, you bring them with you. Nowhere is that more true than in the church! If you walk away undisciplined in one house, those same issues are still with you and, unless the church you next arrive in is particularly liberal in its outlooks (in which case, it barely needs to be considered) they will cause trouble again. You know, sooner or later you’re bound to run out of churches to choose from. Better to abide. Better to accept the discipline and grow. Then and only then is there the opportunity to truly leave those problems behind!
Now, here is another thing I have been witness to of late. We find those who are members in a church with whose doctrine they are not in full agreement. OK. Thus far, I could be speaking of myself easily enough. But, as commendable as it may be that these members remain with their church, hold to their commitment (for the doctrines in question are not issues of salvific importance, but smaller matters), there is added a tendency to go visiting at other churches which agree in these other matters. Quite often, I suspect, this is a question of the charismata. A believer who subscribes to the active gifts of the Spirit in this day and age who is nonetheless attendant at a more mainline evangelical church finds himself hungry for a place to express those gifts and so he visits the more Pentecostal or charismatic congregations in the area. Or, reverse the case: a more conservative believer of Reformed leanings and yet with membership in a firmly charismatic congregation. Such a one might find himself hungry for the more solid meat of doctrinal and theological instruction such as a charismatic group is unlikely to offer, and so go visiting churches more typically associated with such teachings.
Here is the question I find coming to my mind when I consider such multi-church tendencies. If marriage is the model, what does this look like? In that model, this smacks of being the equivalent of having a mistress or two on the side. The impropriety of such an arrangement in God’s sight is unarguable. I have to wonder if He finds this flitting between congregations equally inappropriate, and equally the mark of infidelity.
I must confess that I find a deeper question that I need to answer in this, as well (or need answer to). Having witnessed this one who goes wandering about looking for opportunities to speak in tongues and prophesy and such, yet continues to maintain himself as a member of a church body that does not accept the validity of such things, I have to ask myself why he remains there. I wonder, as well, whether such a one has given any great thought to more meaningful matters of doctrine and theology to perceive whether the church he is in truly adheres to Scripture. But, the more fundamental question for me is whether it is right (never mind sensible, for sensibility can be more pragmatic than is wise) to remain a member of a house with which he disagrees so vehemently on these matters? Admittedly, at least so far as I can perceive it, these are not matters of salvific import. Nobody is going to lose their salvation for a failure to accept the active gifts, nor for accepting them. But, is this honoring of a covenantal relationship or is this a sort of infidelity in itself?
Clearly, if one comes to recognize that the church one is in is teaching heretical positions from which it refuses to repent, then one must part ways and reject that community as even being Christian. This has ever been necessary. The false teacher must be rejected most forcefully and most thoroughly. But are these matters of such import?
The question finds resonance with me because I am largely on the opposite tack. Here I am in a congregation that is most thoroughly charismatic in belief, and becoming more so. Great weight is placed on prophetic pronouncements, so-called revelatory teaching, and seeking after the miraculous. Oh, we must have healings. Some in that house quite clearly place entirely too much weight on miracle and healing as over against sound teaching and adherence to Scripture. And here am I. While I find it impossible to deny the reality of active charismatic gifts in our day, I am not inclined to assign them much weight. I am surely unwilling to accept every claimed activity of the gifts as valid. Not every claimant to prophecy prophesies. Many just spout their own imaginations. Not every utterance in tongues is a matter of the Spirit. Much of it is quite probably mere excitement. And, quite frankly, none of the revelatory teaching is revelatory in any proper sense. Inspirational, to be sure, but revelatory? I think not. Illuminated by the Spirit, yes, but not revelation. Oh! How we raise up the importance of ‘revelation knowledge’ and yet, we don’t even understand the terms.
Now, I suppose it’s already coming clear from that paragraph that I am not a particularly strong proponent of the charismatic movement, even though I find myself a member. Odd, isn’t it? Near as I can tell, I am far more a Calvinist than a Charismatic. And yet, there is this matter of the gifts. More importantly, there is the matter of fruits. While the Charismatic movement surely has its share of fruitcakes – a wholly different thing – there is also clear fruitfulness in many of its members. Is that enough? Truly, at this stage, I am in a quandary as to what my proper course might be. It becomes more of a quandary when I factor in that my beloved wife is far more a creature of the Charismatic movement than I, and that my dear daughter, whose faith is at present shaky at best, would likely shrivel completely in a more conservative church setting. Were it only myself that I needed to consider, perhaps the choice would be more clear cut, but as it is?
Which way, Lord? Commitment even in the midst of disagreement, or the disruption of change? Are these matters that I must needs consider more threatening to the spiritual well-being of those in my charge, or shall I persevere in this relationship? God, I shall need Your answer on this, for it is beyond me to know without doubt. If, indeed, it is a time to separate, then give me the strength to do so. If it is not, then give me the grace to stand firm in the faith You have set upon me. And, Lord, by all means, if my understanding is wrong then make it right. Always that!
Holy Spirit, Father God, my loving Lord and Husband Jesus, You have been faithful to bring the change in me and around me in the past, and I know I can trust You to do so again in this situation. I know that much of what I am feeling of late is that I am out of position, or in the wrong position. Or, is it merely that I feel overworked? Lord, You know. Again, I open myself to Your leading, Your direction. Whatever it is that is wrong, Holy One, I welcome Your correction. Keep my ears and heart open to what You would say, and strengthen me to keep this flesh in submission to Your leading.
