AN UNUSUAL PASTORAL RESPONSE TO LIGHT DIVORCE
by Dr Martin Bobgan
FROM SWORD & TROWEL 2002 No 2
Psychoheresy Awareness Ministries, USA www.psychoheresy-aware.org
A FEW YEARS ago a father of five children called us and described
how so-called Christian counsellors, guided by psychology, had influenced his wife to
seek separation and divorce. This husband and father, whom we shall call John,
wanted reconciliation. A close friend of his wife assured her that she had no biblical
grounds for separation or divorce. Without going into the details, we will describe two
incidents involving two different churches and their pastors.
The first was at the church that both John and his wife attended as non-
members. His wife, whom we shall call Mary, met with a pastor at that church and
was told (as a result of an official meeting of the church board) that while they did not
encourage divorce, they would support her if she decided to take that step. The church’s
justification for its position was based on a false interpretation of Matthew
19.9.
One of the pastors, whom we shall refer to as Pastor One, advised Mary that
she had biblical grounds for divorce because the word porneia in
Matthew 19.9 has a broader definition than ‘sexual sin’. He explained that the
Greek word porneia is used to translate a Hebrew word that would be
translated ‘uncleanness’ in English. He explained further that this word
porneia encompassed a number of violations of the marriage covenant. In fact,
this pastor pointed out that God’s divorce of Israel in Jeremiah 3.8 further
proved that porneia means more than ‘sexual sin’. Now note how the
psychological influence came in. Pastor One said Mary’s husband was like Israel because
he was idolatrous in his self-centredness and that this was tantamount to adultery. Thus,
following the logic of his understanding of porneia in Matthew
19.9, Pastor One concluded that, since self-centredness is tantamount to adultery,
Mary had biblical justification and permission to divorce her husband.
John, the husband, asked to meet with the church board to answer Mary’s
allegations, but was denied his request. He later made several further requests to be heard at
other levels of the church. All requests were denied on the basis that he was not a member
of that church. Mary was not a member of the church either, but the leadership had given
her both an audience and a justification for divorce.
After this unfairness, John started attending a different church (which we
will refer to as Church Two) and became a member. After some years, the pastor of Church
Two (whom we will call Pastor Two), after meeting with both John and Mary, concluded
that there were no biblical grounds for divorce. At John’s request, Pastor Two began a
Matthew 18 procedure.
We will now reproduce the letter Pastor Two wrote to Mary after he had
made a number of attempts to bring about reconciliation.
We contend that Church Two and Pastor Two took the right path, while
Church One, which supported Mary’s intent for divorce, followed the broad, worldly way,
corrupting the clear biblical teaching on divorce with psychological ‘insight’.
Dear Mary,
After so many years of separation and heartache, John still desires to be
reconciled with you in marriage. I am disheartened and anguished that the
counsellors who surround you apparently are unwilling to recommend that you
reconcile with John as the Scriptures so clearly instruct. I implore you once again to
return to John, your husband, the man God has appointed as your head!
Although such a reconciliation will be very difficult humanly speaking, I
know that you and John can be restored to one another and enjoy a loving
relationship together through the tender mercies of our Saviour. Mary, it is what God
desires and requires, it is what your husband craves, and it is what your children so
desperately need!
Mary, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ cannot continue to support
and encourage you in your willing disobedience to God’s Word. You are in the
process of dishonouring our blessed Saviour and rebelling against His sovereign
lordship. You give the impression to the lost world that marital separation is
favoured by Christ.
Mary, you know that marital departure is allowed only in the cases of
adultery and when a believing spouse is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. John
has not abandoned you, for he desires to reconcile, but you have departed from him,
refusing to fulfil your marital duties as a wife. Your departure from John over these
past many years has torn your family apart and is destroying your children.
You have been repeatedly urged to reconcile with John. Your
unwillingness to heed the Scriptures leaves the church of the Lord Jesus Christ with
no alternative. In accordance with our conversations and the letters I have written to
you, I am calling upon the church of Jesus Christ (all who trust in Christ alone) to
withdraw their fellowship from you as the Scriptures so clearly command (Matthew
18.15-20; 1 Corinthians 5; 1 Timothy 1.18-20; 2 Thessalonians 3.6-15).
The church has a twofold purpose in withdrawing fellowship from you.
First, it is our desire that you repent and return to fellowship with Christ and then
John. To this end, we hope that the believers who know you will, in true love for you,
disassociate from you that you might be shamed into repentance (2 Thessalonians
3.14-15). Second, the church must protect its purity. To this end, the church may not
consider you a part of its fellowship with Christ since you stubbornly repudiate the
truths of God’s Word (1 Corinthians 5.5-8, 11-13).
This heartbreaking judgement is being urged in devotion to Christ and
in true brotherly love for you and your family. It remains our sincere desire and
constant prayer that you will return to the Saviour and then John, and that together
you and John will seek godly counsel under which you may be fully restored to one
another in accordance with the Scriptures. Mary, please return to our gracious
Saviour! Believers in Christ will be praying for you!
This was an example of how so-called biblical counselling, distorted by
psychological notions, supported and encouraged Mary to file for divorce. It was a clear
case of psychoheresy on the part of Mary’s counsellors. We draw attention to Pastor Two’s
letter because it is such a rarity in the churches of Christ today. Psychotherapy and biblical
counselling has encouraged countless divorces that are totally without biblical justification.
It is noteworthy that Pastor Two is blind. He cannot see with physical eyes,
but he has spiritual eyes to see and rightly apply God’s Word.
|
