One of the joys of reading the lectionary is that you get passages you do not like. Ones that hurt. Now, one can ignore them. One can get angry and consider them microaggressions, and demand that they are not taught.

There are many ways to be a fool.

The question the Pharisees have, however, is one we now face. Some of the Rabbis in that time said that one can only divorce if there is infidelity: others that one could divorce for any reason. The parallels here are significant: there are Churches that teach that there is no divorce, those who teach limited reasons for divorce, and those who have appeased this world.

For in this world, you can divorce for any reason.

Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

(Matthew 19:1-12 ESV)

There are some comments about divorce here. The first is that system we have in English Speaking countries is evil. Because it supposes that all people are equal, that biology has no place, that there is no fertile window, and that one’s heart is of no importance.

Divorce is about property and custody and childhood support. You need to switch your emotions off. You need to consider your children above all else. If you do that, you may, just may, be able to do some remedial parenting and undo the damage. Living in holy singleness has less damage than divorce: but no man or woman of God who walks down the Aisle should have divorce as an option in their mind.

If you base your worldview on an equalitarian starting point, it stands to reason that custody battles should be adjudicated at a rate of exactly 1/2 in favor of men and 1/2 in favor of women.

Those of us who categorically reject the concept of “divorce,” at least in the sacramental sense aren’t really concerned about that. Hence the “rub,” I think, between the traditionalist/Christian manosphere and MRAs.

While we watched this, both Mychael and I were nauseated. I could see her face turning as white as mine and we both came to the same conclusion–stay out of family court at all costs. Or as some would say–the best way to stay married is to not get divorced.

Now, we need to be careful as to our causes of divorce, that we do not rationalize blowing up our marriage. I’m reformed, and within that there are but two conditions: the first is here (adultery) and the second is that a person leaves their wife and the church — is apostate or a unbeliever. In this case divorce is licit: we are to let the other divorce and live in peace. The Westminster confession warns against letting the lawyers in and finding multiple new causes.

Among evangelical women, this has been expanded: unfaithfulness includes porn, and porn is defined very broadly. A new ground, abuse, is added: not understanding that this was a legal invention during the time of divorce by fault to deal with those who beat and brutalize. And abuse is now defined in such a way that this would be considered abuse, as it refers to Christ, and the idea that men are accountable, that there is a hierarchy within the home. In our society, anything can be abuse, and any accusation cannot be defended, even if it is ludicrous.

However, even if you accept that looking at pornography is sexual abuse, surely Pastor Abedini isn’t being provided with pornography in the Iranian prison. Yet Naghmeh made this accusation to his supporters after he had already been in prison for over three years, and claimed that the abuse had gotten worse after he was imprisoned. Likewise, his only contact with Naghmeh has been through phone and skype, so he can’t possibly be physically abusing her from prison either. This leaves the one possible remaining charge, that he has been emotionally and psychologically abusive since he has been in prison. While it is certainly possible that he has said unkind things to his wife while enduring prison and torture, surely Pastor Abedini can’t pose a threat to his wife from an Iranian jail cell. Any way you look at it, it is clear that this isn’t about protecting herself or her children, but about humiliating her husband. Naghmeh‘s claim is that her reason for broadcasting these things is “to be real”, and to help her husband

I do not think the Iranians are playing Britney Spears and 120 dB to torture their prisoners. That is an American thing. I’m pretty sure they censor this pastor’s mail.

What we have to ask here is are we, within the church, allowing divorce for any reason. Have we moved to a rainbow form of marriage, all about the romance, sexual desire, the party, the glitter, and not about the hard work of caring for each other. If so, we have fallen greatly. I know of gay couples who have been faithful and cared for their partners through great difficulties and at great cost: and there is a risk that on the last day we will be accused of them of taking our marriage vows with to little weight.

Calvin want there to be no divorce, for he feared lawyers and their casuistry. But this is one of those scriptures that changed his mind. From the beginning, we are to cleave to our spouse and be faithful to her: to love her, and to defend her.

What we, as guys, need back is very simple. We need to know that you are faithful, that you respect us, and that our back is covered. What is subversive are our courts and our society.

For it praises those who ignore their vows and strike precisely where they are supposed to be providing protection.

_________________

A quick note about the local (NZ) situation. The family courts consider their right and duty to intervene in any partnership: if you live with your girlfriend for more than a defined period you are considered to be in a civil partnership. There is no way to contract out of this. The assumptions of the court are equalitarian, and the Duluth model where all masculinity is abuse.

The court has broken family trusts if they consider them unjust and against the principles of the court. Which are made by lawyers, by precedent.

There is much less alimony — the ideas are a clean break for property, and shared parenting. But… in all the child development studies we have (There are three going in NZ) divoce is a signal of disadvantage. To the children.

Avoid the courts if at all possible. If at all possible, stay married.