When should divorce be allowed?
 |
| English: Marriage and divorce rates expressed as percentages of the Australian population at the time. Based on statistics from the ABS 2008 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| English: This is a figure illustrating the greater rates of marital dissolution by income and race/ethnicity in the U.S. in 2002. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| English: Marriage and divorce rates in the US, 1990-2007. Source: Statistical Abstract, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| English: Divorce Rates in Sweden 2000- 2010 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| Marriage and divorce rates in New Zealand (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
If we are not careful, short-sighted compassion may get the best of us. Remember, the commands of Christ are not burdensome. His law is a good law. His “tough” rules are for our good. Ask yourself this question: Has the liberalizing of divorce laws in the last several decades resulted in a net decrease in human suffering or a net increase? The old “hard” laws had the effect of forcing quarreling couples to stay together and settle their differences. For some this meant a lifetime of misery, to be sure. But for most, marital friction became the refiner’s fire which forged a stronger marriage. Today we look back nostalgically to our parents and grandparent’s homes not because they were perfect but because they were intact. Mom and Dad were there for us, and when they grew old, they were there for each other.
The law is a teacher. What it allows, it endorses. For example, laws which severely punish violent crime promote a high view of human life, whereas those which merely slap the wrist of the offender send an unmistakable message as well: Life is cheap. Similarly laws which make divorce difficult and costly promote a high view of marriage. When the church and society make it easy to get out of a marriage, they do so at the expense of the value of the marriage bond itself. “Easy out” means for many “easy in” marriages. The commitment means less, the institution of marriage means less, and divorce becomes more likely when the rules are relaxed. Men, women, and children suffer tremendously as marriages, divorces, and remarriages take place that shouldn’t. Advocates of the old, hard rules will only win the “more-compassionate-than-thou” game if we can look beyond the pain of individuals to the impact upon society as a whole. The tears of the victims of easy divorce prove the proverb, “The compassion of the wicked is cruel” (Prov. 12:10). The world of the hardliners, the world where children kiss both parents good night and couples grow old together, is a better world.
When should divorce be allowed? Only in the circumstances permitted by Jesus and the New Testament. Divorce may only be permitted for Christians in the cases of immorality (Greek, porneia) and desertion (Matt. 19:1ff; 1 Cor. 7, where Paul probably understands desertion as a denial of conjugal rights and therefore a form of immorality). Any other reason should not be accepted as grounds. That one’s spouse may be noncommunicative, disinterested, and a bore is regrettable but not sufficient grounds for a divorce. That he is a drunk or a drug abuser is tragic. That he is an unbeliever is heartbreaking. Still we must compassionately and firmly say no to divorce. In such circumstances a Christian is called to love unconditionally his/her spouse, allow pain to do its sanctifying work, and to endure for the sake of the vows, the children, and the institution of marriage (1 Cor. 7:10–16; 2 Peter 3:1).
Think in these terms: what if your response to a dissatisfying marriage were universalized? If you stay married, and everyone else in your circumstances stays married, how many couples will eventually be reconciled and consequently be spared years of despair and loneliness? How many thousands of children will not be emotionally torn apart by separating parents? You must stay so that the marriage bond will not be further weakened in our churches and society. The world and the church need examples of integrity in stressful circumstances.
What if he (or she) is a monster, threatening the physical well-being of spouse and children? Have him arrested. And if it continues? Ask for a restraining order. And if it still continues? What if finally the only way to escape his threats is a permanent restraining order or imprisonment? This comes close to willful desertion. Under such circumstances, that is, when he contines in behavior which he knows will result in forced separation, he may be regarded as willfully deserting his spouse. But even here, if the offender is a professing believer, the process of excommunication by the appropriate church court should not be shortchanged. The same, of course, is true in every case of church-sanctioned divorce, whether because of immorality or desertion.
None of the above steps should be seen as legalistic. The process of dissolution should be slow, careful, and even painful, thereby reminding observers of the strength and permanence of the marriage bond. A “public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed,” says the Westminster Confession of Faith. Further it counsels, “Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined … the persons concerned in it [are] not [to be left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case” (xxiv. 6).
The world needs both the love of Christ and the law of Christ. Compassion for the multitude requires that the church practice tough love in particular cases.
