Darwinism 150 years on

A blessing or curse for Christians?

Ask Christians about Newton’s law of gravity or Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin, or Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and there is nothing but general admiration for brilliant men whose science has created a better world. But mention Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and his theory of evolution by natural selection the reaction ranges from outright hostility to sincere admiration. And many Christians are not sure where they belong on that spectrum. They are not sure whether they think Darwin was a blessing or a curse.

Part of the problem involves some muddled definitions. Some see evolution as being synonymous with a ‘scientific’ way of looking at the origins of the universe which denies God. It is shorthand for atheism’s mistress, so of course Darwinism is a curse. This is incorrect because Darwin had nothing to say about the origin of the universe or the beginning of life on planet earth. Though an agnostic, he always treated his many Christian friends, and his own wife who was a sincere believer, with the utmost respect and never denied the possibility of there being a divine role. Indeed he wrote to a close friend, ‘“I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance…’[1] Another muddle is because Darwin emphasized ‘natural selection’ as the engine of evolution, his theory is seen as responsible for ‘social Darwinism’ and eugenics, a way to improve the fitness of the human race, which was practised notoriously by Hitler starting with the extermination of all imbeciles in Germany in 1939. Though Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton is considered the father of eugenics, Charles Darwin himself never endorsed the ideas. In correspondence with his cousin he agreed that helping the weak could harm natural selection, but added that to do so would be to harm the instinct of sympathy, ‘the noblest part of our nature.’[2] If Darwinism is seen as being the same as Social Darwinism then it is swiftly seen as a curse – but while there is intellectual overlap, it is not correct to equate the two. A final muddle works the other way. As Darwin is famous for spotting that the beaks of finches adapted to their environment, it can be wrongly assumed he was mainly arguing for micro-evolution, small changes within established species. And as this idea remains well within the Christian understanding that science should reveal more about how God works, such a definition leads to people superficially concluding Darwinism is a blessing.

However Charles Darwin was arguing for much more than micro-evolution; he was arguing for macro-evolution on a grand scale whereby all the diversity of living species evolve from a common ancestor through a process of natural selection over a very long period of time. This theory was worked out in detail in his book ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ published in 1859. He later spelt out what was implicit in this theory for the origin of man, namely that the human race evolved from animals, in another best-selling title, ‘The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex’’, published in 1871.

In this 150^th year anniversary of the publication of the ‘Origin of Species’ it is generally true to say that Christians are still unsure how to assess the theory, to decide whether it is a blessing or a curse. This is despite the fact that over the years more evidence has been discovered to support Darwin’s theory, so much so that the vast majority of scientists working in fields directly related to evolution such as molecular biology regard it as much as a fact as Newton’s law of gravity. There are libraries full of their research, suffice to mention in this limited space that crucial to Darwin’s theory was the need for huge amounts of  geological time and now it has been proved that the earth is about four billion years old. And further discoveries of fossils in the earth have tended to confirm the overall thesis that simpler life came first followed by more complex forms, there are also claims of fossils that represent transitional life forms. Research on vestigial features such as whales legs or human tails have also supported evolution in that it shows these were inherited. Most importantly of all there have been great advances in genetics since Darwin’s day – and all the findings have confirmed his theory. In line with Darwin’s predictions researchers discovered a universal genetic code in the 1960’s proving the unity of all living organisms. Closely linked to this was the study of the sequencing of the amino acids in proteins which are produced by the genes. It has been proved that the sequencing is inherited, and crucially that even redundant features are passed on, so pointing to common ancestry[3].

While the scientific community constantly and loudly support Darwin his theory still provokes unease among many Christians as it clearly contradicts the creation account in the Bible with its insistence that God created the species separately, including man. These Christians generally fall into two camps. There are those, often serious scientists themselves, who accept evolution and believe it can be accommodated to the Genesis account which they would emphasize was never written as a factual record of how the world began, and indeed would quote from church authorities such as Origen and Augustine in their support[4]. So throughout the evolutionary process God was at work, controlling and sustaining the outcome, and specifically stepping in during the process when humans evolved, to put his mark on man.

In short, God is still the creator, but He used evolution. Pushed into a corner they would declare that Darwin was a great scientist, and his discoveries have proved to be a blessing in many fields, especially genetics.

There are many other Christians though who disagree with Darwin (and many Muslims too). While some are scientists who dispute the theory academically and have in recent years proposed ‘Intelligent Design’, the main root cause of the opposition, both for these scientists and the layman, is theological. There are three areas of major disagreement, all of them crucial to the Christian world-view.

The first is the witness of creation. The Bible constantly declares that ‘the heavens declare the glory of God’ (Psalm 19:1), and so no man will have any excuse on the day of judgement: ‘For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse’ Romans 1:20. Christian evolutionists would say there is nothing in the theory that denies this, but it is not quite so simple, for evolution denies God’s hand in the actual design of creatures and plants. God’s part was just choosing the process of evolution, which non Christians would say does not need God anyway, so all the immediate glory goes to evolution, not God. Certainly there is room for debate here, but for many Christians evolution blunts the witness of creation. Before Darwin the church was always able to point to the nearest flower as evidence of God: since 1859, rightly or wrongly, many say, ‘lovely flower, but it evolved, nothing to do with God’.

The second is the authority of Scripture. God creating the different species,

‘ according to their kinds’ is not just taught clearly in Genesis 1, but also in the Psalms and Job and this understanding certainly underpins the New Testament. God is the creator and sustainer of all. Christian evolutionists would argue that the writers of the Bible had a world view that has long since been disproved, for example Bible writers thought that heaven was literally above the clouds. So the wisest approach would be to let the Bible teach how we relate to God, and let science explain our world. So the Genesis account is not literal fact, and there is no need to see God as commanding different species into being. It is enough to see Him as the ultimate hand behind it all. Many are not convinced by this approach, asking the question – if the Bible cannot be trusted on such a crucial issue as creation, why should it be trusted on any other matter?

A final and most difficult area for the Christian evolutionist concerns the nature of man and salvation. Orthodox Christian teaching is that a historical man, Adam, was specially made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), thus giving him unique value and had the potential to live forever if he had chosen the tree of life. Instead he and his wife introduced sin and so death into the world, thus making necessary historical redemption brought about by Jesus Christ on the cross. Evolution differs with this account at every point. There is no special creation of a first human couple, but a number of primates emerging into humans; these humans have no special intrinsic value in their own right; and there is no introduction of death into the world because of sin as death had been at work for billions of years. For many Christians this radically undermines the scheme of salvation in Christianity as set out for example in Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15. Christ comes to save man bearing God’s mark from sin and death introduced by Adam….but in evolution there is no God’s mark, no Adam, and death was always around. In reply the Christian evolutionist would postulate that at a certain stage in the evolutionary process, just as man was evolving from the chimpanzees, probably in Africa (not Mesopotamia as in Genesis) God intervened and put his mark on the new creature, along with a soul, and the ability to make moral choices which he then disregarded, so necessitating Christ’s redemption. Even though this might for some be a sensible enough explanation to marry evolution and the doctrine of man made in the image of God, it still leaves the issue of death before sin unresolved.

If these Christians were pushed into a corner to give a verdict on Darwin they would not use the word curse, but most would say he has blunted the blessings of Christianity. He has blunted the witness of creation; blunted the authority of Scripture; and blunted the doctrine of the historical fall and salvation in the cross of Christ.

And in reply to that both the non Christian and Christian evolutionist could rightly ask – but how can scientific truth blunt theological truth? How can you believe in the Genesis account, when all the scientific evidence points away from it? There are two responses to this fair challenge. The first is to deny the science, and so for every piece of evidence for evolution, you will find Christians, often known as creationists[5], refuting it, point by point. The problem with this response is that relatively few exceptionally well qualified scientists have pinned their colours to the anti Darwin mast. This suggests that creationists are finding it hard to have their science taken seriously by their colleagues. This leaves Christians with a bit of a conundrum. Most serious scientists believe in evolution but they have deep unease about jettisoning what for them – not all Christians – is the plain meaning of the Bible.

This is where the second response is perhaps more helpful. It is to acknowledge that the Christian faith is full of conundrums and contradictions. As well as evolution and creation, at only 150 years old a relatively new problem, we have the divinity and humanity of Christ; predestination and free will; eternal punishment and eternal extinction; God’s love for all in the Gospel, yet the vast swathes of humanity who never heard the Gospel: the list is endless. Into these disputes harsh voices can arise demanding we make a decision for one side or another. But a wiser voice says with the Apostle Paul, ‘now we see through the mirror dimly’ (1 Corinthians 13: 12). For we do not know exactly what happened at the start of time, but a Christian knows that he has had such a profound revelation of Jesus Christ in their own hearts that they are prepared to believe the teachings of the faith in regards to the witness of creation, the authority of Scripture, and the image of God in man, his fall, and salvation, and happily acknowledge that they do not understand why at this present moment in time serious scientists affirm macro-evolution. But just as the Christian does not understand other conundrums of the faith, this does not stop them from pressing on with what they do understand.

And one thing all Christians understand from their own spiritual journey is that on the central question of Jesus Christ, in contrast to most other questions, there can be no middle ground. One either moves towards the light, as for example Nicodemus did in John’s Gospel; or backwards into darkness, as Pilate or Judas did. There is no neutral territory: ultimately there is a blessing or a curse. This is the biblical dualism.

And it is here that Darwin as a man stands as a warning. His contemporaries record he was a courteous, kindly and generous man, very much the knowledgeable Victorian gentleman. But though he refuted atheism, he was an agnostic - despite an abundance of light. For he lived at a time when evangelical Christianity was strong in England dominated by outstanding preachers such as Charles Spurgeon and William Booth; he himself had studied some theology at Cambridge University; and his own wife was a devoted Christian. Yet he remained undecided over the great question of Jesus Christ. And here is the warning, for ultimately all men’s lives point in one direction or the other, however neutral they might claim to be. For the scientist working in his lab, no doubt Darwin’s life points to blessing. Ordinary people might not be so sure. For as seen his name and theory have been used to greatly bolster eugenics, founded by his own cousin, and put into practice by the Nazis. And to bolster Marx’s claim that ‘all history is the history of the class struggle’ which underpinned Communism and all its ensuing misery. What both these murderous ideologies have in common is a total disregard for human life, and though Darwin himself would have been aghast both Marx, the father of communism and Hitler drew these conclusions from his theory[6]. For in evolution the only man of value, is the strong one, in his own right he has no more intrinsic value than any other animal. And though he himself refuted atheism, nevertheless it is the enemies of the church such as Richard Dawkins in our own day, who use his material to claim there is ‘probably’ no God, so that millions naturally drawn to the creator they sense behind the snow drops, are halted in their journey. It is difficult to describe such an influence as a blessing and a salutary warning to all of the danger of staying neutral when it comes to Jesus Christ. Neutrality is not an option.

For as Darwin’s life at the grandest level shows: when you reject Jesus Christ as your friend, you end up being used by his enemies.

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

CLARITY PLEASE

A committed Christian we will call Reza was happily married to a girl we will call Maryam – also as the time of their wedding a committed Christian. After a few years, people began to notice that Maryam was attending church less often, and her husband noticed traits of her former non-Christian life-style returning. He prayed for her to come fully back to Christ, but things grew worse and then she dropped a bomb shell. Maryam told Reza that she had been having an affair with one of Reza’s friends – and she was filing for divorce. Reza pleaded with her to thing again, but Maryam was determined to end the marriage and so Reza’s life entered a dark and tortuous tunnel. And in that tunnel many Christians did little to give comforting light. One wrote to him saying they would not talk to him till he was reconciled to his wife, something he knew she refused, and a number of churches refused to ‘take sides’: in other words Reza was as guilty as Maryam. Sadly Reza’s case is not isolated and the fact is that a lot of discouraging ambiguity hangs over divorced people in the church.

With divorce running in some Western countries at around 40% and in Iran there has been a steep increase: the official rate is now around 13% the Iranian church, both inside and outside the country is bound to have divorced people in their midst who also might be facing the sort of situation Reza faced.

So as well as the pastoral need to deal with all the tortuous pain that divorce spits out at the couple, their children and all the wider family, the church also has to have clear policies regarding such questions as whether it is right to accept divorce as having Scriptural validity: whether divorced people can be re-married, not just in a civil setting, but in a church; and whether divorcees can have an official ministry in the church. Regarding what happened to Reza the cruellest approach for any church to take is not to tackle the issue in a clear way, leaving people to make up their own minds about others according to their own reading of the Scriptures.

This article will not attempt to comment on how pastorally churches should deal with the agony of those caught up in divorce, what some people describe as being worse than experiencing death, except to say it is not an area for amateurs. Nor will this article attempt to suggest ways churches can go about strengthening marriage and so fighting the likelihood of divorce, except to say it should be an absolute priority as strong marriage make strong churches. However the article will seek to provide a biblical and historical basis for forming church policies regarding divorce and re-marriage.

Divorce and re-marriage was not new in Jesus’ day, and he specifically addressed the issue. In the Gospels there are four references to the matter (Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-12, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12, and Jesus’ basic position is very clear. When asked by the Pharisees in Matthew 19 whether divorce was acceptable he took them back to the original scheme of things in Genesis where God made man male and female who became one flesh, adding, ‘Therefore what God has joined together let no one pull asunder.’ So on this basis of God’s original intent Jesus condemns divorce and re-marriage; however he does include an exception clause: ‘I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.’

Ministering in sex soaked cities like Corinth, there was nothing new about the issue of divorce and re-marriage for the Apostle Paul either. His line is exactly the same as Jesus’: Christians must not divorce (I Corinthians 7: 11), but he too has an exception clause. If a Christian has an unbelieving spouse who wants to leave the marriage then his ruling was that ‘A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to peace.’ (1 Corinthians 7:15).

Regarding ministry in the church Paul’s rules, for both bishops and deacons, is that they should be ‘the husband of one wife’ (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). Whether this applies to those who have remarried as they therefore have had more than one wife, or whether it just means having one wife in the present, i.e. they are not polygamists, is a matter of some debate.

From these texts the church in history has arrived at three slightly differing positions. The Roman Catholics believe that marriage after consummation is indissoluble because Jesus said, ‘What God has joined together, let not man pull asunder.’ Indeed pointing to Paul’s analogy of human marriage with that of the church’s relationship with Christ (Ephesians 5), Roman Catholics see marriage as a sacrament, a divine presence and reality is involved. Since marriage is an act of God, absolute divorce is impossible while either partner is alive. There is therefore no divorce or remarriage for those who marry as baptised Roman Catholics. This was the view of all the church fathers, and all the popes. However in line with Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 Catholicism has what it calls the ‘Pauline privilege’ whereby a Roman Catholic may approach the church authorities if they are married to a non-Catholic and if the non-Catholic confirms that they are unable to live in peace with the Catholic, then that marriage ends, and the Catholic is free to re-marry, but only to a baptised Catholic. Regarding Jesus’ ‘immorality’ clause the Roman Catholic position is that as this exception is only recorded in Matthew, it is not right to let this teaching overrule the statements in Mark and Luke where there is no such clause, therefore the word ‘divorce’ used is interpreted to mean dismissal. So if one partner commits adultery and this is proven, then the innocent one has a right to immediately dismiss them from the family home: but there is no right to break the actual marriage bond and re-marry. They can separate, but not divorce. Though there is no divorce in Catholicism, marriages can be nullified, that is to say if approached with valid reasons, known as impediments, the ecclesiastical authorities can declare that the original marriage was not valid. The main impediments the church court would consider as grounds for annulling a marriage are: when spouses are relatives; madness when taking vows; having no intention to either remain faithful or have children; the use of deceit to gain consent; marrying in order to kidnap; not having a proper priest at the wedding; and perpetual impotence. In Catholic thinking a marriage is not utterly indissoluble until it has been consummated, so it is also possible for someone to marry and then if they decide they want to become a monk or a nun they can get special permission from the church to do so, and their unconsummated marriage is dissolved. So though divorce does not legally exist in the Roman Catholic Church, given the right of Catholics to either exercise the ‘Pauline privilege’ or the wide range of impediments that give grounds for an annulment there is in fact limited room, albeit limited, for what in practice amounts to divorce and re-marriage. The issue of whether a divorced person can minister in the Roman Catholic Church does not arise as all her priests must be celibate men.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, including both the Nestorian Assyrian and the Armenian Orthodox who have a presence in Iran, agree with the Roman Catholics that marriage is an indissoluble covenant as set out in Genesis. So the married couple are crowned during the wedding ceremony to signify their eternal union. However there is a consensus that while recognising God’s perfect will, nevertheless He and therefore His Church also recognise that they operate in a fallen world where human weakness must be taken into account. And so there is the rule of ‘Economia’ whereby the bishop is allowed to show compassion to weak and sinful people. ‘Economia’ can be used by the bishop not just in cases of immorality, as supported by Christ in Matthew 5 and 19, but also when one of the spouses is permanently absent, or mad, or physically threatening. Once the church has validated a divorce – then re-marriage is possible. Regarding ministry, Eastern bishops are traditionally celibate, and though a married man can become a priest, on the basis of 1 Timothy, 3 a man cannot become a priest if either his wife has committed adultery, or he has divorced or remarried. A priest can only divorce his wife on the grounds of proven adultery – and he is obliged to do so: if he remains with her he cannot remain a priest. If it is proved that he has committed adultery, he is automatically defrocked.

Protestant Churches do not regard marriage as a sacrament and so indissoluble, nevertheless on the basis of Scripture mainline churches teach that divorce is utterly against the will of God, except in the case of adultery, as stated in Matthew. Also from the earliest days of the Reformation there has also been a willingness to accept divorce when one partner leaves the marriage. So in the 1647 Westminster Confession which influenced the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist Churches it is written – ‘yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage’. In response to the prevalence of divorce since the 1960’s in the West some churches have been less strict and usually ready to accept all who have obtained divorces from the state. Regarding re-marriage there is a wide range of views within Protestantism. Some strict Reformist churches interpret Jesus’ teaching as stating that all re-marriage is adultery and will not allow it until the original spouse has died. Influenced both by Catholicism and the early Reformation the Church of England still will not marry divorcees in a church, though they will give a blessing. The view of the Reformist leader Calvin was that the state should execute adulterers, so they should be dead anyway, which means the innocent party is free to re-marry. That is a slightly extreme position. Most other Protestant denominations teach that if the divorce was valid, i.e. due to immorality or one partner leaving, then re-marriage is valid. As the official policy of the Assemblies of God Churches states – ‘It is clear that in Matthew 19.9 Jesus assumes the man will remarry. The verse deals with divorce and remarriage, and the laws of grammar make the exceptive clause apply to both.’ While John Wesley and the early Methodists only allowed divorce on the grounds of adultery (not cruelty), and condemned all re-marriage as adultery today’s Methodists are much more pragmatic and marry many divorcees in their churches even if the original cause for the divorce was not immorality or cruelty.

There is also a wide range of views within Protestantism regarding whether divorced and re-married people can have an official ministry in the church. As mentioned a lot depends on how the interpretation of the phrase, ‘the husband of one wife’, Paul’s condition for deacons and priest in 1 Timothy 3,. The Assemblies of God Churches rejects the argument that the verse applies to polygamy on the grounds that while divorce and re-marriage was very common among Jews and Gentiles in the 1C, polygamy, which was against Roman law, was not. For them the phrase reads – ‘husband of one wife in a lifetime’. Their rule therefore is ‘that candidates for elders and deacons are to be persons in a faithful heterosexual marriage with neither partner having been previously divorced, except where the divorce occurred prior to conversion.’ So in this church divorcees may become members and be active in other ways – but they cannot become deacons or elders. This would also be the view of many Presbyterian and Baptist Churches. However there are other churches who would either see Paul in 1 Timothy 3 primarily directing his prohibition towards polygamists (or those with concubines), or would simply be willing to consider each man’s situation and calling individually. This is the stance of the Church of England: if a divorcee has re-married, but his former spouse is still alive, then special permission is needed before he or she can apply for ordination. As with other social issues, many Methodist churches are more relaxed and have a number of clergy who have divorced and remarried.

Conclusion – Grace and Clarity

From this overview of the Bible and Church’s teaching on divorce and re-marriage it is possible to suggest some guide lines for new churches to follow today, guide-lines determined by grace, i.e. a readiness to forgive and move on when possible, and clarity, so everyone, both those caught up in the marital breakdown, and the wider church, know exactly what the situation is.

It is quite clear from both the Biblical text and church history that adultery has always been recognised as having a deadly effect on the marriage contract. And as Jesus actually used the word immorality (pornei) in Matthew it is right to broaden the exception to include any sexual behaviour that is inviting a third party into the marriage. In the spirit of grace a church should first encourage forgiveness and reconciliation between a couple if adultery occurs, but if this is impossible, then the church should be clear and recognise that sexual infidelity is a legitimate reason for a valid divorce. And, as the Protestant churches have always accepted in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament text, if a divorce is valid, then re-marriage for the innocent party is also valid.

If this is the position of the church, then it is very important that when a divorced person is accepted into membership it is clearly explained to other members that they are the innocent party in the divorce and that the church accepts the divorce – and therefore re-marriage if it happens. To remain silent on this issue is to invite gossip and judgement as many falsely assume that it always takes two to bring a marriage down. And if such a person then believes they have been called to ministry, it would seem illogical to bar them on the grounds that they were an innocent party in a marriage that somebody else destroyed. Obviously the Scripture in 1 Timothy Chapter 3 must be taken seriously, but as established the phrase, ‘the husband of one wife’ does not have to apply to divorcees and the most important thing in this passage is that prospective ministers should be ‘above reproach’. To follow the spirit of this injunction, each case should be considered separately.

If the church is involved with someone who has engaged in sexual infidelity and so killed their marriage, then according to the Gospel of grace there is forgiveness and full acceptance for that person – if they repent. This repentance will mean that they should try and be reconciled to the spouse they have betrayed – whether Christian or not. If though the guilty person has re-married, they should stay faithful to his or her second spouse, as the Bible teaches we must remain faithful to a contract even when entered into wrongly, as with Joshua and the Gibeonites. If they were Christian when they committed adultery and then repent, but their first partner will not be reconciled, and they then want to re-marry there is no indication in Scripture that this is possible. The only grounds Jesus gives for divorce is immorality which then frees the innocent party to re-marry. There is no such freedom expressed for the person who commits adultery, breaks up his or her marriage, and then repents. So as their original divorce was not valid, so there can be no valid second marriage for them. Some might protest that such a ruling rejects the spirit of grace – but though sin when repented of is forgiven, there is the grace, sin still has consequences and one of them is that an adulterer who repents and then wants to re-marry cannot be treated in exactly the same way as another single person: he or she has violated a holy contract, betrayed his or her spouse, and devastated the childhood of any children involved. The only exception to this would be for when the infidelity happened prior to conversion as they might then have had no sense of morality in these matters. Nevertheless still the church should not treat such a person in the same way as other singles. It is especially important that the feelings of the betrayed partner and the children are taken into account, and also whether the second marriage will in anyway impact the financial support for the original family. If it is clear that a second marriage would be deeply upsetting for the betrayed and they are going to suffer financially it would be completely wrong for the church to bless such a union. And when a second marriage goes ahead, then still in the actual service there should be vows of penance for the one who was treacherous towards his or her first partner. If the church has a lax attitude to re-marrying those who have broken up homes, then they are contributing to the suffering innocent people have already had to endure. Regarding future ministry in the church, this would again depend on each individual situation. However it would be much more unlikely that someone involved in adultery would be eligible for a senior position in the church. In all of this it is again crucial that the church clearly communicates to its members what the situation is. This of course can be painful, but the Kingdom of God is not making people feel good, but about ‘righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit’

Tragically the issue of divorce and re-marriage will be with us till the end of time. For many churches it is perhaps easier to hide behind the text, ‘thou shalt not judge’, stay silent, and treat all divorcees as if nothing has happened. But this is not a loving option, especially for the innocent party. It is much better if a church has a clear policy about divorce and re-marriage, communicates these policies to the church, and publicly affirms their acceptance of divorcees who join the church, either because they were the innocent party, or because they have repented and the elders of the church

accept that repentance as genuine.

At a glance

Key Bible Texts

Jesus: Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-12, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12

Paul: 1 Corinthians 7:11 & 15; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12

Crucial controversies

How valid is the ‘exception clause’ in Matthew?

Does the condition for deacons and bishops, ‘Husband of one wife’ apply to divorcees or polygamists?

Church Positions

Roman Catholic: marriage indissoluble; no divorce, no re-marriage; annulments possible

Orthodox: marriage indissoluble; but divorce and remarriage possible at discretion of church authorities; innocent divorcees can become priests.

Protestants: marriage contract can be dissolved for immorality and desertion; now more lax; valid divorce allows for re-marriage; divorcees often not allowed to minister

Key Advice for New Churches

Establish grounds for a valid divorce and re-marriage

Establish need for repentance for adulterers to be accepted in church family

Establish right of church to prohibit some second marriages

Communicate clearly to all members

© T.G.S. Hawksley

LIVING FREE FROM PORNOGRAPHY

IT'S POSSIBLE

Last year the net revenue of the pornography industry was 57 billion US dollars. That is more than the GNP of 170 countries. The reason the industry is so profitable is simple: human beings, male and female, have an intense interest in sexual imagery. Just for the internet the figures are staggering. Every day 30 million people log on to a pornographic site, of which there are 4.2 million, 12% of all sites; 35% of all net downloads are pornographic (that’s 1.5 billion a month!). 25% of all search engine requests are related to sex; and there are 2.5 billion sex e mails. 72% of the visitors to pornographic sites are men; 28% are women. In terms of people involved a rough estimate would be that 10% of the population of any country has no problem with pornography, while 10% are addicted. This means that 80% are somewhere in between.

And some of this 80%, and some of the 10% addicted to pornography, are ‘born again’ Christians. In one survey 47% of the Christians admitted that internet pornography was a serious problem in their homes, and in another 53% of a group of Christian men admitted to struggling in this area. In surveys of pastors intentional visiting of sites has been exposed.

Yet Jesus said – ‘If anyone looks at a woman lustfully, he has committed adultery’ and in case you weren’t listening he follows this up with – ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.’ In other words people end up in hell because they have not stopped their eyes lusting over sexual imagery. The Apostle Paul is equally blunt in many of his letters. Here’s what he says to the Corinthians:  ‘The body is not meant for sexual immorality’ and ‘Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually, sins against his own body.’ (I Cor: 13 & 18).

There is no getting around what God’s will is for the Christian. He wants us to be sexually pure – which one pastor has defined well as being ‘receiving no sexual gratification from anyone other than your partner in marriage’.

But there is also no getting around that such sexual purity is not the constant experience of millions of Christians.

However much we long for sexual purity, there are no instant answers, but there are two things you have to know, and three things you have to do, to give you day to day victory.

If you have no problem in this area, good-bye; if you struggle, read on.

What you have to know -

1. Who you are in Christ*

You must understand and believe with all your heart that God has put you in Jesus Christ and that through the Holy Spirit you now have a new nature, who is stronger than your ‘old man’ that responds to sexual temptation. However much our ‘flesh’ screams that we must gratify out sexual desires, this is a lie. The new nature in the Christian is stronger, and by the Spirit we can kill the desires of the flesh. (Rom. 8:13). To read more about your identity in Christ, get hold of a copy of ‘Victory Over Darkness’ by Neil Anderson now in Persian.

*Only Christians, those who have sincerely invited Jesus Christ into their hearts, have a new nature. The Bible teaches that it is impossible to live a pure life without the Holy Spirit. If you are reading this and you are not a Christian, please click here first, to go to a page which will explain how you can become one.

2. What Your Emotional Needs Are

Millions of people use pornography to try and meet their inner yearnings to be loved and accepted in a secure (not necessarily sexual) relationship. This is especially true for people who have come from dysfunctional families where little love was shown. Of course those silent sensuous images can never meet these yearnings; indeed they just fuel the shame, alienation and loneliness. If this is your situation you need to understand what need you are trying to fill when you are lured. Why not get a piece of paper and complete this sentence –

The need I am trying to fill when I fall into sexual temptation is…………

Once you have written out what your inner needs are, think carefully about what you can do to meet them. Illicit sex is often a search for intimacy so it might be that you first need to ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’, to focus on intimacy with God.

What You Have To Do

1. Find New Ways To Relax

Everyone needs to wind-down, and it is often at the end of the day, when guards are down, that people turn to pornography, as sexual images produce an almost instant mood change. It is perfect escapism. For a few brief moments the drug of sexual excitement takes people away from the mundane pressures of life. Once though the pleasure is over, the unrelenting whip of shame causes intense agitation and misery. If this has been your situation, you must first ruthlessly refuse to give even a foothold to the behaviour patterns (channel surfing, internet surfing) that lead you to pornography. Then you must develop new ways to relax. Take up a sport; watch brilliant but clean films; do some carpentry; put on your favourite CD settle in the sofa, and read a novel; go for a walk; go for a drive; paint; play the piano; write poetry; get a telescope and study the stars...

If this has been your situation, get a piece of paper and fill in this sentence –

Instead of finding relaxation through pornography, I will relax by………

2. Confess– to God, and to others

Make yourself accountable first to God and then to another Christian (of the same sex!) as soon as possible. It might be that you feel you have just sinned too much in this area and there is no hope for you. This is a lie. When the leper (a picture of someone soaked in sin) came to Jesus, he said, ‘If you want to, you can make me clean.’ and Jesus replied – ‘I want to’!!! The Lord wants us to be clean – we have to get on our knees like the leper and confess, honestly and specifically. It might help to make a list and after each confession cross the sin out with a red pen, for the blood of Jesus cleanses us from every sin.

And confess regularly also to others, or even better, arrange to meet with another Christian so you can check up as to how you are both doing in the battle with lust. There are two great blessings in this arrangement. First of all it will act as a red light because we are going to have to tell someone else what we have done. It will make us think twice before clicking the mouse, or switching to a bad TV channel. However kind our friend is, it is not easy to say, last night I deliberately watched xyz. The second great blessing is the act of confession underlines the forgiveness of God. It is God who forgives, and He always does forgive, yet sometimes we find it hard to believe that He has forgiven us. However when we confess to another, and there is prayer, the Holy Spirit uses this to confirm in our hearts that we have been forgiven. This is why the Bible says – ‘Confess your sins one to another.’ (James 5:16). If you’re reading this and you do not have any friends you can approach, it might well be you have a friend on e mail you can write to. (And if you have nobody you can contact, we encourage you to contact these pastors. Your correspondence will be completely confidential and only read by the pastor you choose to contact)

Final Words From A Wise Book

Again and again in Proverbs the reader is warned about sexual immorality –

‘Many are the victims she (sexual immorality) has brought down, her slain are a mighty throng. Her house (the internet, the TV, the video, the magazine...) is a highway to the grave, leading to the chambers of death.

Dear reader, don’t be one of the many victims. Repent, confess to God and let the blood of Christ cleanse you. This is a daily battle till we die, but Christians can win. Understand the freedom you have in Christ, identify your inner emotional needs, find new ways to relax, and above all, be quick to confess to God and find another Christian to be accountable to.

© T.G.S. Hawksley