Methodist Compromises On Divorce

Matthew 19:9 says “… whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (NKJV). Isn’t Jesus saying here that if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than “fornication” (KJV) and marries another, the second marriage is an adulterous one? And wouldn’t repentance (always essential to forgiveness – Luke 13:3) require such person to terminate said marriage, stopping the adultery?

Let’s illustrate this point with an Old Testament era second marriage. Mark 6:17-18 reads “For Herod himself had … laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.” Secular history tells us Herod had divorced his wife and Herodias had divorced her husband, and now they are married to each other. John (speaking for God) is demanding they terminate their adulterous (and possibly incestual) marriage; am I right? Isn’t that implied by John’s assertion that it was unlawful for Herod to “have” Herodias?

Anthony Dunnavant in the Orange County (California) Register, made this astute observation – “Some conservative groups believe that divorced people who marry another spouse are living in sin. However, the number of divorces in the United States has led most denominations away from that teaching.” Most likely Mr. Dunnavant is a flaming liberal, but he was right on in his assessment, wasn’t he? Most churches have changed on this issue, not because they restudied the Bible and made needed correction, but because divorce became so rampant they just threw up their hands and gave up on opposing it.

Let’s notice some quotes from the Methodist Creed Book (copied from Wes Brown’s or David Tant’s material) showing their progression of compromise on this Divorce And Remarriage issue …

1896 Methodist Creed Book: “No divorce, except for adultery, shall be regarded by the Church as lawful; and no Minister shall solemnize marriage in any case where there is a divorced wife or husband living; but this rule shall not be applied to the innocent party to a divorce for the cause of adultery ….” (The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church)

That looks just like what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9; correct?

1914 Methodist Creed Book: “… Ministers shall be prohibited from solemnizing … matrimony between divorced persons, except … innocent parties who have been divorced for the one scriptural cause.”

Aren’t the Methodists are still holding to the truth on divorce at this point? But then look what happens …

1940 Methodist Creed Book: “No Minister shall solemnize the marriage of a divorced person whose wife or husband is living and unmarried; but this rule shall not apply … to the innocent person when it is clearly established by competent testimony that the true cause for divorce was adultery or other vicious conditions which through mental or physical cruelty or physical peril invalidated the marriage vow …”

At this point these Methodist have changed their stance to include just one other acceptable cause for divorce. But what usually happens whenever a church compromises just a little? Yes the floodgates start to open …

1960 Methodist Creed Book: “In view of the seriousness with which the Scriptures … regard divorce, a minister may solemnize the marriage of a divorced person only when he has satisfied himself by careful counseling that (a) the divorced person is sufficiently aware of the factors leading to the failure of the previous marriage, (b) the divorced person is sincerely preparing to make the proposed marriage truly Christian, and (c) sufficient time has elapsed for adequate … counseling.”

Notice by 1960 no mention is made of the cause for the previous divorce anymore. Remarriage is going to be allowed regardless of what the cause was (even fingernail biting <grin>), as long as the couple presenting themselves to be married are willing to go through adequate counseling.

1984 Methodist Creed Book: “Where marriage partners, even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, are estranged beyond reconciliation, we recognize divorce as regrettable but recognize the right of divorced persons to remarry. … We encourage an active, accepting, and enabling commitment of the church and our society to minister to the members of divorced families.”

Compare this last quote with the very first quote. In 1896 divorce other than for fornication was considered unlawful; but now just “regrettable.” In 1896 Methodist ministers were forbidden from marrying couples into an adulterous marriage (per Matthew 19:9). Now the Methodist Church is willing to perform a wedding ceremony for any divorced person. And notice from the last sentence in the quote: old codgers who might remember that the Methodist Church once stood against all this moral compromise, were going to be encouraged to keep their mouth shut so as not to cause trouble.

2015 “United Methodist Church … leadership voted to submit … a … legislative proposal … that removes “prohibitive” language from The United Methodist Book of Discipline concerning homosexuality. … the proposal would allow United Methodist pastors to perform same-sex marriages in United Methodist churches. … this proposal does not consider homosexuality incompatible with Christian teachings even though Methodists have historically recognized the practice … as sinful.”

I am thinking the Methodist switch to allowing homosexual marriage stemmed from their longtime compromise on adulterous marriage. Inevitably compromise on adulterous marriages leads to compromise on gay marriage. “Pastor” Ken Wilson writes: “I have proposed a path for these pastors that allows them to embrace people who are gay, lesbian, and transgender and to accept them fully — welcome and wanted — into the company of Jesus. I wrote A Letter To My Congregation when I realized my views had changed and I needed to communicate the intense theological, biblical, pastoral, and spiritual process that I had been through to get to this new place. It began with a burr beneath the saddle of my conscience: why was I willing to let so many divorced and remarried couples know that they are welcome and wanted while refusing that same welcome to gay and lesbian couples? How could I say to the remarried couples, whose second marriage was clearly condemned by the plain meaning of scripture, ‘You are welcome and wanted,’ while saying to the two (lesbian, ptd) mothers raising their adopted child together, ‘I love you, but I hate your sin’?”

Do you see the gradual, but drastic change from 1896 to 2015? Remember the old preacher’s illustration? – If you stick a frog into a hot frying pan, he will immediately jump out; he feels the burn. But if you stick a frog into a cool frying pan, place the pan on the stove, and heat it up very gradually, many times the frog will not notice the gradual change in temperature, and will sit in that pan until he cooks to death. The point of the illustration? If you bring in sin very gradually, most won’t notice the change over time. What do you think would have happened if in 1896 the Methodist Church leadership had come out with their official position for the church as accepting divorce for any cause, subsequent adulterous marriages would be sanctioned, and even gay marriages would be performed? An immediate mass exodus; right?

Now I ask brethren, haven’t we made our own compromises through the last several decades, just on other issues? Email and ask me for a list of such. And ask me for details of a public debate I have coming up with a Christian Church preacher on whether or not adulterous marriages (per Matt 19:9) must be terminated

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 or at http://www.BibleCrossfire.com