Protesters in San Francisco have pulled down a bust of Ulysses Grant, the former U.S. president and Union general who defeated the Confederates, because Grant married into a slave-owning family. They also pulled down other statues, including that of Francis Scott Key (pictured above), who wrote the U.S. national anthem, “The Star Spangled Banner,” since Key owned slaves.
I readily agree that slavery was and is reprehensible, and the Confederates were traitors to the Union. I also agree that statues of many such historical people need to be removed to museums, not glorified front and center in our parks and courthouses. But where does this sort of thing end? What person, past or present, is without character flaws?
I wonder if these same protesters would be willing to tear down a statue of Charles Darwin, since he was a racist who said Africans were less evolved than white people? I wonder if these same protesters would be willing to deface a statue of John F. Kennedy, since he was reportedly an adulterer?
Interestingly, some of those people of the past, if they were here today, would likely be shocked by the immoral practices of some of these modern protesters, some who may cohabitate outside of marriage or may have killed babies through abortion– but at least they didn’t own slaves, so they judge themselves righteous. How blind these self-righteous anarchists are, seeing the sins of the past but ignoring the sins of the present.
These modern moralists do not see how similar their vandalism is to ISIS fighters who tore down ancient statues in the Middle East because they were “pagan.” These revolutionaries do not see how their onrush to destroy any and every injustice in the name of the people is similar to another revolution– the French revolution, a time when the revolutionaries were soon devouring each other for not being radical enough. Today’s radicals could read about it in their history books, but it seems they have torn out most of the pages.
Copyright 2012 by Bob Rogers
I received the following question by email from someone from another church who has granted permission for me to post the question and my reply:
“I have consulted my pastor and other pastors concerning our Baptist teachings about divorce and remain confused. I am divorced. I made an oath at my wedding of “til death do us part” and finished with “so help me God.” Even though adultery entered my spouse’s life, do I remain bound by my oath? Did you do a blog on this topic? Or, better yet … will you do one and let me know.”
I understand that you are already divorced, apparently because of your spouse’s adultery, and your question is, “do I remain bound by my oath?”
It appears there are two parts to your question. First, the question of whether your divorce was permissable, and second, the question of whether you are free to remarry. So let’s take the two issues separately:
1. The question of permissable divorce. According to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:32, adultery is a permissable reason for divorce. Thus if your spouse committed adultery, you did have biblical grounds for divorce. The other biblical ground for divorce is found in 1 Corinthians 7:15, when one spouse is an unbeliever and leaves.
(I would caution readers, however, that just because your spouse commits adultery or leaves you for a time does not mean that you should rush into a divorce. If at all possible, you should seek a counselor and seek restoration in your marriage. I have known couples who suffered adultery and other problems in their relationship who were able to experience repentance, forgiveness and restoration.
The second caution I would give to readers is that if you are suffering physical abuse or severe verbal abuse, you may need to remove yourself from your home to an undisclosed location for your own safety.)
2. The question of remarriage after divorce. You mentioned “our Baptist teachings about divorce.” While I am glad to be a Baptist, we must make certain that our teachings come from the Bible, not Baptist tradition or any other tradition that contradicts scripture.
Jesus recognized the fact that the woman at the well had five husbands, although she was cohabitating with the man she was with at the time she met Jesus, and that man was not her husband (John 4:17-18). By this statement, Jesus recognized each of these five marriages as true marriages.
A common “Baptist teaching” about Matthew 5:32 is that it bans remarriage after divorce, because it says that anyone who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
However, the New Testament Greek verb used in the original text used the passive voice, which means the subject receives the action, rather than causing the action. In other words, divorce is a stigma that the husband puts on his wife by divorcing her. It is something the first husband does to the woman and the man she remarries. The stigma is being divorced and being married to a divorced person. Notice in the verse that the stigma occurs whether or not there is ever a remarriage, because it says “anyone who divorces his wife… causes her to become an adulteress.” Notice he causes the adultery before any remarriage. It could be translated, that he adulterizes her. This is referring to the stigma of divorce. It is interesting that the 2011 revision of the New International Version translates Matthew 5:32, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery…”
I recognize that this is a controversial passage, and there are differences of opinion about it, but I do not think the scripture teaches that remarriage after divorce is automatically a sin.