As the Church of God International Assembly convenes in Orlando on July 29, the agenda before the General Council demonstrates a disjointed biblical hermeneutic. It also demonstrates how the culture provokes the church to action, and inaction. I refer to agenda items 30 and 44. Item 30 concerns divorced and remarried applicants for ministry. Item 44 concerns homosexual marriage.
First, let’s consider item 44. The executive council of the Church of God is recommending that we adopt a very strong statement in support traditional marriage. “The Church of God rejects the cultural, political, and theological pressures to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman…” If passed, this motion will prohibit Church of God clergy from participating in any ceremony or blessing of homosexual marriage. Should a minister do so, his or her ministerial license shall be revoked. Item 44 is born from the biblical conviction that homosexuality is a corruption of human sexuality (Romans 1:26-27; Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). For the record, I strongly support this motion.
Next, let’s consider item 30. The executive council of the Church of God is recommending that applicants for ministry who have been divorced and remarried must be approved by a 2/3 majority of their regional council and the executive council. At issue is the meaning of the phrase “previous marriages” in the Minutes. When the Church of God decided to credential divorced and remarried applicants the intent of the General Assembly was that “previous marriages” meant a single previous marriage of the applicant and/or spouse. Since then, “previous marriages” has been interpreted to include multiple previous marriages. I admit that if we have forgotten the original intent, the language is ambiguous. In fact, so ambiguous there has been a moratorium on processing ministerial applications of divorced and remarried candidates. Item 30 seems to be presented in an effort to allow the elders of the church to consider “previous marriages” on a case by case basis. For the record, I strongly oppose this motion.
Item 30 is born out of the desire to recognize God’s grace in calling and gifting ministers who have been divorced and remarried. However, it completely ignores Jesus’ teaching on the subject: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9; see also Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-10; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18). Jesus presents God’s purpose in marriage as one man and one woman for life. The Church of God has interpreted traditional marriage to mean one man and one woman at a time. I understand the issues here are many and difficult. That is not my point.
My point is that as it relates to divorce and remarriage we have made every effort to exercise grace, even if it requires that we exercise some hermeneutical legerdemain. I’m afraid that our exercise of grace is nothing less than antinomianism. The Church has capitulated to the culture of divorce.
Jesus declared that divorce is due to hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8). Paul said that homosexual behavior was due to impure hearts and depraved minds (Romans 1:24, 28). Even as we have ignored Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage (or explained it away), we have embraced Paul’s teaching against homosexuality with great fervor. Hence, our disjointed biblical hermeneutic. If we are committed the biblical tradition of human sexuality, then we must oppose divorce and homosexuality with equal vigor.
We need to be better students of Scripture. We need to be consistent. We need to gracious for all have sinned. We need to be faithful because without sanctification no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). It’s difficult to see clearly when we have a log in our eye. If we are going to rightly discern the teaching of Scripture on human sexuality, then we are going to have to deal with the log in our eye first (Matthew 7:1-5).
