I thought it was interesting that 2 people who had previously read Steve's article and both knew Steve from personal experience could disagree so sharply on how to interpret Steve's paper. The disagreement mostly centered around a particular tension that exists in the article(s). Here are some quotes from Steve:
it is possible for a spouse to seek a divorce without being guilty of separating what God has joined. Such is possible in cases where the other spouse has effectively dissolved the bond by certain, biblically-defined misbehavior. In the Old Testament, the grounds are vague... some uncleanness (Deut.24:1). Jesus identified fornication as a type of uncleanness that rendered His otherwise strict teaching on divorce inapplicable (Matt.5:32/19:9). Paul gave similar status to an unbelievers desertion of a believing spouse (1 Cor.7:15). In such cases, the legitimate bond has illegitimately been put asunder (by the fornicator), but not necessarily by the party seeking the divorce (the innocent party). The divorcing party, it may be, is acting legitimately, merely making official what has become a reality by the others actions.
Here Steve is laying out the 2 'exceptions' to the basic 'no divorce' policy of the New Covenant
1. Divorce is permitted in cases where fornication occurred
2. Divorce is permitted in cases of desertion by an unbelieving spouse
The last (
bolded) line is significant to the tension I'm referring to. In cases of fornication and desertion, divorce my not be specifically requested by the offending party. But the spouse may 'initiate' a divorce that is merely making official what has become a reality by the others actions.
But Steve later says
If your pagan spouse is willing to keep up the marriage, then you are instructed the same as others: do not initiate a divorce
Which could be taken to mean that even in cases of un-repentant and un-relenting physical abuse, a believer is obligated to stay married to the abuser.
Steve continues...
Marriage is a covenant. Covenants should never be broken but they sometimes are. A covenant broken by one party ceases to be binding upon the other party. Thus God Himself is released from His covenantal obligations to Israel because of her violation of her covenant. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the marriage covenant is a unique exception to this rule, and Jesus teaching on the topic in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 explicitly confirms that there are extreme conditions under which the general permanence of marriage may legitimately be regarded as optional, i.e., when one spouse commits fornication, the other may choose to continue the marriage, or else to end it. In the latter case, the divorcing party is not putting asunder what God has joined. The adulterous partner has already done that. The party seeking the divorce is simply formalizing what the other has made a reality.
The tension present in my twitter debate was this... Is Steve here stating the ONLY exception (cases of fornication) to the rule that believers shall not initiate divorce OR does his last line establish a PRINCIPLE that MAY apply to some other situations (like that of un-repentant and un-relenting abuse)?
Steve goes on...
Many offenses occur between married parties in the course of a lifetime, though most do not rise to the level of covenant-breaking so as to justify divorce.
Again, the tension is found in the word MOST. Is Steve suggesting that there may be a number of scenarios that could potentially break a marriage covenant (not JUST fornication)?
When such a destructive act of unfaithfulness occurs, it is sufficiently devastating to release even God from His covenantal obligations
Here, Steve is again talking about how sexual unfaithfulness really is a destructive enough act to break a marriage covenant. But would this potentially apply to other destructive acts like un-repentant and un-relenting physical abuse?
Near the end of Steve's piece, he seems to directly tackle the tension I discovered in my twitter debate. MIGHT un-repentant and un-relenting physical abuse constitute the breaking of a marriage covenant (in cases where the offending spouse either is an unbeliever or has been established as one using the Matt 18 guidelines)?
Here's what Steve says:
If the abusive partner does not claim to be a Christian and the abused partner does, the matter may fall into the category discussed by Paul in 1 Cor.7:12-15. The believer is to be regarded as not under bondage to this marriage if a) the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the believer, or b) the unbeliever abandons the marriage. There are those who feel that these two conditions are in fact one, and that the only instance of the unbeliever being not content to dwell that can qualify the believer for this freedom is in the case of the unbelievers actual physical departure from the home. This may be correct, but not all would judge of the matter the same way.
Herein lies the tension. Does the abuser have to desert or verbally suggest divorce? Steve doesn't speak dogmatically here. He says it MAY BE CORRECT that the believer is bound unless desertion occurs. But it MAY NOT BE CORRECT.
Steve's next paragraph expresses thoughts on this tension...
For an unbeliever to be content to dwell in a marriage might be thought to imply more than simply a willingness to share the same roof and bed. It may refer to a willingness to dwell in a marriage according to the covenantal agreement made by both partners on the occasion of the marriage being first contracted. It is not likely that physical or sexual abuse was an agreed upon part of any couples wedding vows. The fact that a partner resorts to such behavior is thought by some to constitute a rejection of the marriage relationship, thus exhibiting a frame of mind that is not content to dwell in the sense that Paul had in mind. Deciding this question must be done under the judicious counsel of cautious, spiritual persons determined to honor Gods standards and capable of resisting the tyranny of their own sentiments.
Steve hasn't so much resolved the tension as re-stated it a bit.
I guess the debate I was having was basically this.
Does Steve believe that 'judicious counsel' could ever CORRECTLY come to the conclusion that un-repentant and un-relenting abuse does constitute the breaking of a marriage covenant?
The next paragraph seems to show Steve's answer to that question
Thereafter, an assessment must be made as to whether the abusive behavior rises to the level of the abusers being not content to dwell with the believing spouse (those involved in this decision-making process must make a genuine effort to find the mind of God on this matter). If so, then the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.
It seems to me that this is Steve saying that the judicious counsel, having made a genuine effort to examine the case, MAY conclude that the covenant has been dissolved by the un-repentant and un-relenting abuse. The offending party, having been established as an unbeliever, has broken the marriage covenant and has proven BY THEIR ACTIONS irregardless of their words, that they are not content to dwell in the marriage. In other words, they have essentially initiated a divorce without so much as asking for one. In such cases, the believer is allowed to formalize what has already become a reality because of the actions of their spouse.
But it is possible, apparently, to interpret Steve's next paragraph as Steve's rebuttal to this whole possibility.
Steve says:
It should be pointed out that persons unhappily married are capable of interpreting many unpleasant behaviors on the part of their spouses as abusive.Verbal abuse and emotional abuse are sometimes appealed to as grounds for separation and/or divorce in cases known to this writer. The question arises as to just what degree of unpleasantness in a marriage God may expect a Christian graciously to endure for the sake of keeping sacred vows. The Christian wife is urged to exhibit the same submissiveness to an unbelieving husband as she would were he a believer (1 Pet.3:1-2). Every Christian must be prepared to endure some degree of abuse from the world (John 15:18-21/16:33/1 Thess.3:4). Even some degree of domestic violence (Gen.16:6-9/1 Pet.2:18-21) or tormenting temptation from one in authority in the home (Gen.39:7-9) is sometimes to be endured for the sake of godly duty.
It seems to me that Steve is here qualifying (not rebutting) the above potentiality. He is saying that just because it is POSSIBLE that abuse could constitute the breaking of a marriage covenant and become grounds for the formalization of divorce, we should not be quick to go this route since the principle could be (and has been) severely... abused.
The three uses of the word 'degree' make it clear to my mind that Steve is saying there are degrees of abuse (I'd suggest the un-repentant and un-relenting variety where serious danger to the believing spouse and/or kids is present) in which the scenario does allow for divorce.
In sum, my twitter debate partner had read Steve's article(s) and has met Steve personally and believes that Steve would REJECT the idea (which some Christians have) that un-repentant and un-relenting physical abuse MIGHT constitute the breaking of a marriage covenant. This fellow believes that Steve only mentioned this view and then rejected it. I, on the other hand, had read Steve's article(s) and have met Steve personally and believe that Steve would ACCEPT the possibility that un-repentant and un-relenting physical abuse MIGHT constitute the breaking of a marriage covenant. I believe that Steve mentioned this possibility because it is legitimate in some cases and then cautioned against abusing the principle.
Steve, if you have time, please weigh in on who has more accurately interpreted your position