Good divorce?

‘There are such things as good divorces.’

So said Anne Hollonds, of the Benevolent Society, on yesterday’s Drive program with Richard Glover.  Of course, it’s not too hard to work out what she meant.  There are divorces where the two parties aren’t out for vengeance.  Where they aren’t out to hurt each other.  Where they aren’t out to beat each other.  But where the divorce goes through with mutual respect and concern for the welfare of the other, even though the marriage to that other has come to the point of finishing.And at that level, I guess, there’s a sense in which she’s right.

The moment the words were out of her mouth, though, I found myself thinking of God’s words in Malachi 2:16 – ‘I hate divorce’ (NIV).  And it makes sense that God would say this, given everything else we read about him in the Scriptures.  God is a God who makes, and then keeps his promises.  He tells us to do the same.  God is a God who loves even those who do not deserve it.  In fact, this is the very definition of God’s love – not that we loved him, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for sins, so that whoever trusts in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  He tells us to do the same.  God is a God who remains faithful even when his bride, Israel, is faithless, and prostitutes herself to the nations, and to the gods of the nations.  And so as a living example, he tells the prophet Hosea to go and take for himself an adulteress wife, and to love her just as he has loved faithless Israel.  And when the Lord Jesus was asked about the way Moses permitted divorce in certain circumstances, he reminded those who were listening that it was not this way from the beginning, but that God’s intention was for a man to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two become one until they are separated by God in death.  Which is what the marriage vows in the Anglican Prayer Book still affirm.

And so, of course, God hates divorce.  It is not the way he works.  It is not the way he wants us to work.  It is not good for us.  But the reality is we live in a world where the effects of sin and selfishness are ever around us.  And this deeply affects even our closest relationships, like marriage.  God’s word testifies to this as much as, if not more than, our experience.

And so divorces will continue to happen.  Especially given the legal ease of such matters in our current setting.  And when they do happen, we should view it as a tragedy.  And as a signpost to the effects of sin in our world, which mean that even a good thing like marriage is utterly beyond us unless God fixes the deep problem of sinful hearts.  And when divorces do take place, the parties involved will need enormous amounts of care and support and love.  And yes, Anne Hollonds is right: when marriages break up, the best outcome is that it will be done without malice or vengeance in the heart.

But there are no such things as good divorces.

A Response to John Dickson's Hearing Her Voice (7 of 7)

Conclusion | Where to from here?

In the conclusion of Hearing Her Voice, John offers a suggestion as to the only way he thinks his broad argument could be invalidated, and then gives three or four possible responses.  

Source: iStockphoto.com

I won't engage with his suggestion about how to invalidate his argument, because I think he wrongly brings together what are actually two separate tasks: showing the faults with his argument and defending the view that he's trying to argue against.  
But what about the three or four possible responses he talks about?  They are:

1.     outright rejection

2.     acceptance of the various speaking activities that the New Testament expects both men and women to be engaged in, along with a fresh decision to give women more of a voice in the church service, inviting them to give ‘talks’

3.     embracing the entire argument, thus opening all sermons to suitable men and women

4.     agreeing that contemporary sermons are not wholly the same as teaching in 1 Tim 2:2, but fearing that they are close enough that to have women give sermons today would be disobedient to 1 Tim 2:2; John seems to accept this possible response, but then taint its validity by associating it with a non-gospel legalism

There will always be different ways to describe people’s responses to a book like this, of course.  It’s interesting, though, that the three main possibilities John suggests are all couched in ways that align the reader into ‘agreement’ with his broad argument.  More than that, they also align the reader into a position of having women preach, whichever words are used to describe this activity.  I simply note that this is fair way on from the goal he identified at the beginning, ‘to invite friends and colleagues to reassess (again) the biblical basis of their own reticence to invite women into the pulpit.’[1] 

But here’s another way of thinking about the different responses people might make to Hearing Her Voice:

1.     some people will agree with it for purely pragmatic reasons.  Some will have been in favour of women preaching for a while, but without having an argument to base it on.  It’s not hard to imagine some of them swinging in behind John and saying, ‘there, that’s my argument’, even though they themselves had never come up with these ideas!  Others will have wanted to have women preach, but not known how to justify it.  Again, it’s not hard to imagine some of them, likewise, swinging in behind John and using Hearing Her Voice as their theological justification.  It is, after all, a much more palatable position to hold.

2.     others will agree with it with good conscience.  That is, they will have tried to work through argument - testing it, weighing it, and ultimately, approving of it.  I don’t think it’s the right conclusion to make, but I’ve no doubt some will make it, and they will do so on the basis of principle

3.     some people will disagree with it for purely reactionary reasons.  In other words, they’ll be sure that it’s wrong, but they won’t be able to explain why they think it’s wrong.  It’s just wrong because it’s wrong, because it’s wrong.  Or it’s wrong because it’s coming from ‘that camp over there’, or something like that.

4.     others will disagree with it on the basis of testing the argument, and finding that it doesn’t work.  Whether or not people think my arguments are sound or persuasive, this is the approach I have tried to take.  I know others who have done, and who continue to do, the same.

It goes without saying (I think!) that we ought to work hard together so that everyone fits into either the second or the fourth category.  The first and the third don't really help anyone.  But if we can land in the second and fourth, then we ought to be able to keep talking about it together, going back to the Scriptures in humility to learn obedience, both together and with God’s help.

In the meantime, though, I think there are some sad but (almost) inevitable consequences of John’s work. 

The most troubling for me is that very quickly among our Sydney Anglican Diocese we may well end up with two streams of churches, two streams of ministers, two streams of staff teams, two streams of congregational expectation ...  One will be in favour of women preaching; the other not.  Again, (almost) inevitably, one group will be endlessly on the front foot and significantly more popular and well received; the other endlessly on the back foot and significantly more unpopular and less well received.  One will sound and look ‘fresh’, ‘relevant’, and sophisticated; the other will sound and look ‘stale’, ‘old-fashioned’, and simple.

Of course, as Christians, we’re not in the game of looking ‘fresh’ and ‘relevant’ and popular or well received.  In and of itself, that's not an argument against John's book.  It’s simply a reminder of something that we all need to take to heart  again and again and again, because our instinct is nearly always to go in the opposite direction.  Our glorious task is to learn the obedience of faith together, so as to bring glory to God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

But the problem of developing two streams means it may get harder and harder for some of us to work together, because one group has shifted in its thinking and practice of ministry.  And yet again, (almost) inevitably it will be those who haven’t moved anywhere who cop the criticism of causing disunity!

Only slightly less troubling for me is the fact that this one ministry – preaching – has potentially become the litmus test for whether a church is encouraging a wide variety of speaking ministries from both men and women.  This is a subtle shift that happens towards the end of Hearing Her Voice.  Having rightly argued for a wide variety of speaking ministries being open in the New Testament to both men and women – and John isn’t saying anything new with this; I don’t know anyone who ever seriously disputed it – his concluding challenge is that suitable women ought to now be able to preach sermons.  But hang on.  Isn’t preaching only one form of speaking ministry?

In our church, for example, speaking ministry takes place in all manner of ways, from both men and women, all throughout the week.  And I take seriously my duty of continuing to train and encourage this ministry to keep happening, not just from men, but from women also.  Our whole staff team takes this seriously.  In fact, if I was to stop and write them all down, there are a great more ministries that are open to both men and women than those that aren’t.  Sure, preaching sermons in our Sunday services is one of those that isn’t open to both men and women.  But that is just one 25-minute ministry every week!  Is John seriously suggesting that the task of engaging and encouraging Christian sisters in word ministry can be properly reduced to this one activity?  That we can ‘tick it off the list’ as long as somewhere on that preaching roster we have a woman’s name?  I hope that’s not what he’s suggesting.  The idea is absurd.  And it runs completely counter to the variety of ministries that the New Testament speaks of.

---

[1] p10.

A Response to John Dickson's Hearing Her Voice (6 of 7)

Critique | Historical questions

My understanding is that as I write, John is soon to publish an ‘extended remix’ of Hearing Her Voice, where he goes into more detail on some areas of his thinking.  No doubt that will require further response.  

Source: iStockphoto.com

For now, there’s at least two other issues that should be discussed.  The first is brief, the second longer:

i)               the role of history in exegesis

I hesitate to get into the history issue, since it’s one that John is an expert in, and I know how much I’ve still got to learn.  (Or maybe I don’t know how much I’ve still got to learn!)  John is obviously aware that some get nervous about using historical background to interpret the Scriptures.[1]  On his own terms, I think he would say he’s simply trying to engage in historically informed exegesis.  It seems to me, though, that it has slipped into historically determined exegesis.

In other words, he has determined the meaning of Paul’s teach by the historical situation that existed at the time.  As I have tried to show in a previous post, though, there are some places that the word teach is used, and clues in the particular context force us to have a more focussed understanding of what Paul meant by the word, such as Col 3:16 or 2 Tim 2:2.  And there are lots of others, such as Rom 12:7, or I would say 1 Tim 2:12, where the word teach is used, and there are no clues in the particular context that force us to have a more focussed understanding of what Paul meant by the word.  But even in these situations, John’s understanding of the historical situation is the determinative factor in his understanding of what Paul meant by the word teach.

ii)              the relationship between John’s description of the role of teachers and the written New Testament

John’s argument is that teaching consistently means preserving and laying down the traditions of and about Jesus as handed on by the apostles.  He says that whilst this ministry was critically important for the early church – given the absence of books and the low levels of literacy, it is now fulfilled for us, and has been for Christians throughout most of the last two thousand years, by the written New Testament.  In other words, it is the written New Testament that now preserves and lays down the fixed apostolic traditions of and about Jesus.

Once we stop and think about it, however, I don’t think this argument works as well as it seems to at first.  Just think through the various New Testament epistles for a moment.  How much content could naturally be considered as the fixed-traditions-about-Jesus that the teachers were once responsible for preserving and laying down by word of mouth?

What would you include, for example, from Romans?  What parts of Romans could easily be regarded as the written-down-version of the fixed-traditions-of-and-about-Jesus that the teachers had previously preserved and laid down orally?  I realise this is all very subjective, but here are the bits that occur to me.  1:2-4.  5:6-8.  Possibly some verses in 5:12-19, although to mimic John’s own words with regard to Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch,[2] this may just be Paul using a theological understanding of Adam as a launching pad for presenting a theological understanding of Jesus’ death and resurrection.  6:1-14.  8:2-4, 10-17, 22-27.  Perhaps elements of 10:6-13.  12:9-21-13:14 are full of echoes from Jesus’ own teaching.  Parts of 14:1-15:13.  Once you leave out the ethical teaching of chs12-15, though, it’s not a lot is it?

What about another book?  Say, Galatians.  What parts of Galatians could easily be regarded as the written-down-version of the fixed-traditions-of-and-about-Jesus that the teachers had previously preserved and laid down orally?  1:4.  Parts of 2:15-21.  3:1-5, 13-14.  4:4-7.  5:14 definitely.  5:19-26.  6:2, 6-10.   It’s a fair bit.  But there’s still lots that doesn’t really fit the requirement.

What about one of the Pastorals?  Say, 2 Timothy.  What parts of 2 Timothy could easily be regarded as the written-down-version of the fixed-traditions-of-and-about-Jesus that the teachers had previously preserved and laid down orally?  The promise of life in 1:1.  1:7-10.  2:3-6, 8, 11-13.  3:1-4, 12-13.  4:1, 8.

Of course, some may question which passages I’ve left in and which passages I’ve left out.  But putting that to one side for a minute, it’s a very strange game that we’ve ended up playing isn’t it?  It’s like the old historical critical methods that try to identify what parts of the epistles go back to Jesus and what parts don’t.  I'm not saying John has begun playing this game.  It's just where his model leads me once I start trying to test his idea that the New Testament now does in written form what the teachers once did by word of mouth - preserve and lay down the fixed apostolic traditions of and about Jesus.

Also, it’s striking that apart from the parts of these three letters that give ethical instruction, the other passages I’ve identified are often a reflection of the very basic facts concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection.  There’s certainly not a lot that would tell you what Jesus did in this situation or that situation, or what he taught about this situation or that situation.

John’s overall model says that the New Testament now functions to do in written form what the teachers used to do in oral form.[3]  That is, it preserves and lays down the fixed apostolic traditions of and about Jesus. I don’t think it does do this, though.  Or to be more precise, I don’t think it does do this only, or even mainly. 

I think this is the reason that there is so little common material between the letters of the New Testament, but rather, an incredible diversity.  Because these are occasional letters – written to specific people, specific churches, specific situations, specific problems.  John’s argument works with the example of finding out what Jesus had said about divorce.[4]  And there are other examples where we could easily make the model fit.  But there are many more where you can't.

To say that the written New Testament now fulfils the function of teaching that Paul talks about, in the sense of preserving and laying down the traditions of and about Jesus as given by the apostles, is a very neat solution.  But it’s too simple by far.  The reality is more complex.

I suspect John’s response might be to say the gospels are the primary place where the oral traditions are now recorded, and the epistles are simply the apostolic application of these traditions for the contemporary situations they wrote into.  And that sounds like a good answer, until you remember John’s sustained emphasis on the fixed nature of the oral traditions that teachers were charged with passing on.  Because if teaching is about passing on the fixed traditions even to the point of memorisation,[5] it can’t also be about pastorally applying those traditions into new situations, which is what the epistles do.  They don’t simply preserve and lay down the fixed apostolic traditions of and about Jesus.  They don’t even do this mainly.

And so all of a sudden, very quickly, we’ve pulled a fair way back from saying that the New Testament now fulfils in written form what the teachers previously did by word of mouth.  Perhaps we could put the gospels into such a category.  But you certainly can’t really include the epistles in such a description unless you change your whole definition of teaching.  And you can’t do that, of course, or else the whole argument begins to fall apart.

The overall model that John proposes seems to work well.  But only at first.

---

[1] p24.

[2] p32.

[3] p42-43.

[4] p43.

[5] p28.