LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 198

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

198

In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) and in The Estate of
Marriage (1522) Luther refers to other grounds for divorce: impotence,
the refusal of sexual intercourse, and incompatibility. Except in cases of
impotence, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 remains the rule: people divorced under
these circumstances may not enter into a new marriage. ; . .

Characteristically, Luther’s instructions in these matters distinguish
between what must take place for the sake of public order—and there-
fore what applies to non-Christians—and what is to be expected of
Christians. Luther does not require all to conform to the latter standard,
but he appeals to Christians to do so. The secular authorities must per-
mit divorce in order to prevent greater evil. However, more is expected
of those who wish to be Christians: love and patience which can bear
the burdens in marriage that others find unbearable. Jesus’ statement
about the indissolubility of marriage is not laid upon all as a law, neither
are average people exempted; rather, it continues to stand as an appeal
to Christians. For Christians, the rule of Christ stands above the legal
order administered by the secular authorities. !2 ;

Even if the state grants the believing spouse’s petition to di-
vorce his or her mate, the church cannot sanction that divorce. Re-
gardless of his or her professed faith in Christ, this is not the ac-
tion of a Christian.'? The church ought not remarry such a person.

Through Paul’s instnictions on marriage and celibacy in 1 Corinthi-
ans 7, God emphasizes endurance and perseverance: “Let each man
remain in that condition in which he was called” (v. 20). For the Chris-
tian whose spouse refuses sexual relations, this means Remain mar-
ried. Until and unless the refusing one repents and relents (or seeks
divorce), there is no God-pleasing alternative. As a Christian, one will
not surrender to sexual desires, but will instead entrust onesélf to the
grace of God for strength to exercise self-control and remain faithful to
one’s marital vows.'*

In every marriage, both the husband and the wife are fallen, sin-
ful, selfish human beings. Each is guilty of contributing to prob-
lems experienced in the marriage. Each will have sins that he or
she must acknowledge, confess, and strive in Christ to amend and

* overcome.

. The assignment of responsibility for the sin of pursuing a legal
divorce is a separate matter. Our no-fault legal system will grant a
divorce pursued by only one person—even if it is steadfastly re-
sisted by the other spouse. The consent of the other is not required.
Completely apart from the shared guilt for the problems in the trou-
bled marriage, the person who files for the divorce, and only that
person, bears the full weight of guilt for the sin of the divorce.

The situation is analogous to a couple who conceives a child in
fornication. Fornication is a sin for which both the man and the
woman bear equal guilt. If they then proceeded to murder that in-
nocent child through abortion, this would do nothing to remove the
guilt of their fornication. Rather, it simply adds another grievous
sin. Were the mother to abort her child without the father’s con-
sent, then she alone would bear the guilt for that murder, even as
both bear the guilt for the fornication by which the child was con-
' ceived. Just as fornication does not justify abortion, so marital dif-
ficulties do not justify divorce. Divorce can be seen as the at-
tempted murder of a marriage. In fact, only'God can end a
marriage—through the death of one of the spouses.

There is only one way that the church can honor the Scriptures
and with integrity grant a believing spouse a divorce on the basis of
“malicious desertion.” Paul’s “concession” was for the believer
married to an unbelieving spouse who insisted upon separation or
divorce. The believer in such cases was “not bound,” Paul said.
Two criteria are essential: (1) the other person is the one who
leaves, and (2) the leaving person is-acknowledged by the church as
an unbeliever.

An ecclesiastical supervisor confronted with such a case must '

ask: Where is the evidence that either of these criteria have been
satisfied? The refused spouse does well to bring his or her frus-
trated sexual desires to the attention of his or her pastor for en-
couragement and intervention. Yet the church’s first concern must
be for the souls of both the refusing spouse and the one refused,
and not their unilateral demand or desire to refrain from or engage
in sexual relations. The process that is to be followed to bring an
unrepentant sinner to repentance, reconciliation, and a restored re-
lationship with God and his or ber spouse is fully described in the
CTCR Report on Church Discipline in the Christian Congregation.

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

In its Opinion on “malicious desertion,” the Commission acknow]-
edged that emotional or psychological difficulties may contribute to
one’s refusal of marital sexual relations. A clear implication de-
serves more adamant emphasis: this troubled person needs his or
her spouse’s fidelity and devotion more than ever. The church can-

not and must not sanction the abandonment of the refusing spouse -

by the one refused. The process mentioned above must be followed
to its completion, leading either to reconciliation or to excommu-
nication. Until then, the church cannot even begin to consider as-
signing legitimacy to a petition for divorce from the unsatisfied
Christian.

For clergy and other church workers, more stringent considera-
tions come into view at this point as well. Should the church de-
termine that a believing spouse has scriptural justification to di-
vorce, this fact does not by itself automatically entitle that person to
retain his or her office. The CTCR’s response has itself directed at-
tention to the second excursus on “Clergy Divorce” in its report on
Divorce and Remarriage (quoted on p. 2 above). Dr. Scharlemann
offered further counsel to LCMS District Presidents on this spe-
cific point:

Since the church works with principles that are necessarily infused
with Gospel values and since it is hazardous to work with absolutes in
dealing with any problems that affect people in their sinfulness, it is
conceivable that, under very exceptional circumstances, a former pastor
could, so to speak, “work out his salvation” to the point of being in a po-
sition to be reconsidered as a person qualified to be entrusted once more
with the powers of the pastoral office. Such instances will obviously be
as rare as the cases of congregational treasurers being restored to that
office after absconding with the members’ contributions, even though
they have shown contrition and repentance and are restored to Christian
fellowship.'>
That is to say: professional church workers are held to a higher

standard. They set an example for others in order to support and
reinforce marriage and parenting in the Christian congregation. In
the Scriptures cited above God clearly forbids any spouse profess-
ing faith in Christ to file for divorce. Faithful clergy and other pro-
fessional church workers will seek no exception. °

If only from a standpoint of legal liability, it is unwise to sup-
port the continued service in a congregational or pastoral office of
one enslaved to his or her sexual desires. When such a person seeks
satisfaction outside of his or her marriage through fornication or
through marrying another, that person becomes an adulterer and
makes the new sexual partner an adulterer as well. This is the clear
teaching of Scripture. A Christian’s appeal to insistent sexual crav-
ing as justification to divorce (and perhaps even to separate chil-
dren from one parent) could easily become a public scandal and
lead other weak believers to stumble. When the person in such cir-
cumstances refuses to follow God’s clear instructions, the Christian
congregation will not permit that person to remain in any humanly
created congregational office, much less the pastoral office.

The church must contend for each marriage in her midst. They
are under Satan’s constant attack. True pastoral concern and godly
patience overrides any desire to see this matter quickly concluded.
The spouse whose mate refuses sexual relations wrestles with
temptations of the flesh that are “common to man.” The candor of
one confessing this fact should be commended.

The spouse refusing sexual relations almost certainly wrestles
with other and deeper spiritual challenges. These call for compas-
sion, but admonition must not be absent. Refusing God’s command
to sexually unite with one’s mate permits and invites the old na-
ture of both spouses to hold sway. Persisting in unrepentant sin
jeopardizes our very souls. In these circumstances, the pastor (and,
if necessary, the elders of the congregation) must not shrink back
from supplying “corrective love” to both spouses. The goal of the
church can and must be the restoration of this marriage. Christ
Himself is our example and our strength in His patient and sacrifi-
cial giving of Himself for His Bride, the church.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and
gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed
her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to

Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any °

such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. So husbands
ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves