Divorce: Grudem’s Shift
This post is in the Biblical Analysis series. Please read my standing disclaimer and statement of intent prior to this, if you haven’t read it before.
Summary
The topic of allowable causes for divorce is one that has raged since Jesus walked the earth (Matthew 19). In a particularly famous example, this led the Church of England to separate from the Roman Catholic church, since the King wanted his marriage annulled and the Pope refused.
As far as I’m aware, the view in most churches at least includes two possible justifications for divorce:
Adultery: Matthew 19:9
Desertion: 1 Corinthians 7:15
Wayne Grudem, The Network’s favored theologian, long defended that those are the only two possible justifications. However, in 2019, he published new thoughts on divorce in 2019, which affirm divorce as an option for victims of abuse, in addition to other very difficult circumstances. You can read his paper on his website: Grounds for Divorce: Why I Now Believe There Are More Than Two - Wayne Grudem.
The Network’s views on divorce are difficult to ascertain.
Background
In this post, I’m not actually sure that I’m disagreeing with the Network. On the r/leavingthenetwork subreddit, user u/AmWayfaringStranger said that David Bieraugel, pastor at Hosea Church had said, in context of a discussion of whether divorce is permissible in cases of abuse, “I know this sounds cold but if you marry a guy who’s abusive, you should have known before you married him.” You can read the thread on reddit. The follow-up comments state that David’s view on divorce is that it is not acceptable in cases of abuse, but also that another pastor in the Network seems to not have held the same view. I never heard teaching on divorce, which is strange, now that I think about it. Luke did tell me once that he thought married couples should not even use the word divorce.
As a reminder, I am u/HopeOnGrace on the subreddit and interacted on that thread. I stand by what I said there. But I want to expand on it somewhat, because I truly believe that the view expressed by David B. is downright dangerous, and that women and/or children will be hurt or even killed because of it, if that is truly the Network’s view as a whole.
In this post, I want to make people aware that Wayne Grudem now believes that divorce is allowable in cases of abuse.
Physical or Sexual Abuse is a Crime
First, it’s important to note that Physical and Sexual abuse are crimes. If you are a victim of intimate partner violence (or domestic violence), or of child abuse, you have a right to go to authorities or other organizations that help victims of these crimes. No church should ever make you feel like you cannot (I have no evidence that the Network has ever done this).
I mention sexual abuse for two reasons. First, among dating couples or other relationships, this may be happening. But second, and much more importantly, spousal rape is considered a crime in many states. That is, the fact that you are married does not give consent to sex automatically. Each partner continues to have a right to refuse, and all the bible verses in the world about “not withholding” from your partner will not serve as a legal defense. These laws vary by state, but please know they exist. If you are being forced to have sex by your spouse, this is not ok.
I don’t know if any states have laws for emotional, psychological, or verbal abuse.
Safety is the first priority
Before we get into whether divorce is permissible, please know: safety comes first. If you or children are in danger from abuse of any form, getting safety is the most important first step. Separation may be necessary, and I’ve not found any theologian or scholar that says that victims of abuse cannot do this. Wayne Grudem doesn’t, while John Piper came close to saying that maybe some abuse may need to be tolerated for some time, but then kind of took it back to some extent. He’s taken much criticism for those comments.
So again - please get to safety, and do not put yourself in a situation that feels unsafe. Many, many organizations exist for this, so I won’t try to speak for best practices on how to do this.
A church should create safety
The process of church discipline exists to correct unrepentant sin. Abuse is a sin (I don’t need a citation for this, do I? “Love your neighbor” would seem to cover “love your spouse”). Churches can and should follow the process of Matthew 18:15-17 to confront the abuse (again, involving authorities quickly if crimes have been committed, while protecting the victim(s)). They absolutely should not require a victim of domestic violence to go confront her abuser alone first. Presumably she objected while she was being abused (almost by definition). The same is true for victims of sexual assault or other forms of abuse, by the way.
Side note: In this article I frequently refer to the victim of abuse with a feminine pronoun. This is simply because that’s far more common. But all the same principles apply if a man is being abused.
But what about divorce?
Ok, so far I hope we’re pretty much on the same page. Safety is paramount, crimes should be reported, and the church should support victims of abuse. But then we turn to the questions of divorce. Like I said, most theologians and scholars seem to agree that adultery and desertion justify divorce, biblically.
Expanding it beyond those two is trickier, but for many years some have argued that an abuser has “deserted” their spouse (an argument I find compelling). Wayne Grudem has rejected this view, and still does.
It’s also worth familiarizing yourself with how women were treated in Jesus’ time, but I haven’t the time/space to add that to this article - but it’s good context if you want to go further on this topic.
Wayne Grudem’s New Thinking
In 2018, Grudem published Christian Ethics, which argued for the two grounds above, and against abuse as grounds for divorce. He says that he received feedback and stories which made him go back and study the issue further. The summary is that 1 Cor 7:15 includes the phrase “In such cases”, and that Grudem’s study shows that this means that there are more cases than just desertion. He says this verse means something closer to “In cases of desertion and other similarly destructive cases” (my words).
As a result, Grudem now affirms divorce is legitimate in response to all forms of abuse, and maybe even additional cases such as:
Drug addiction which the spouse is not working to fix and which is creating significant problems
Problem gambling (beyond a certain degree)
Pornography addiction
You can read Grudem’s outlined thoughts here: Grounds for Divorce: Why I Now Believe There Are More Than Two - Wayne Grudem.
A couple select observations:
First, he says at one point that the first priority of the church should be reconciliation. I disagree. The first priority should be safety. And then reconciliation only happens with proven safety. If safety cannot be proven, then divorce is allowable and to be supported.
In other words, the church needs to always care for the victims first, ensuring safety, meeting needs for the victim and any others involved (children).
The response to Grudem
First: I want to say that I find Grudem’s conclusion compelling and agree with it. I personally find that “an abuser has deserted their spouse” is compelling as well, but this post isn’t really about what I think.
Second: it’s worth noting that if you google “Wayne Grudem divorce” you’ll find plenty of people are angry at him for including abuse now. They’re interesting reads, but I’ll let you do that on your own.
My biggest point here is that Grudem establishes more reasons for divorce than what David B. said, and other pastors in The Network may have said.
Final thoughts
Ok, just some thoughts from me. Feel free to stop reading here!
If I’m honest, Grudem’s paper has really has made me question the approach of “systematic theology” in answering all questions. It’s unquestionably valuable. But Grudem is effectively admitting that for decades, as a hugely influential theologian, he wrongly sent abuse victims back to their abusers. Given his reach, it’s next to impossible to believe that his mistaken views didn’t result in deaths. And they certainly resulted in more abuse.
Meanwhile, people looking at the heart and character of Jesus, and God freeing the Hebrew slaves from Egypt (and other oppressors), said, “there’s no way that God demands that victims stay with their abusers.” They argued that abuse can be even worse than desertion, so how could God allow it for desertion but forbid it for abuse. They just argued from Jesus’ heart. And Grudem, after decades, finally agreed from the Bible. Let me say this clearly: Grudem’s views on this enabled women to be abused. In fact, my guess is that there is a woman who was told to stay in an abusive marriage because of his words, who ended up dead at the hands of her husband. If that hasn’t happened, it’s only by the grace of God.
I guess my point here is: if the text forces you to believe something unbelievable about God, and that makes God sound contrary to what the Bible says about him, then pause. For a long time. Make sure you are right. The Bible says that God is love. Jesus, in Luke 4, says:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Scripture matters - we shouldn’t just throw it out. But I’m learning that sometimes we have to ask ourselves: does my conclusion match what I know to be true about Jesus? About love? If I read 1 Corinthians 13 allowed, and then state my belief, how foolish do I sound? What do I have to do to my concept of love to justify it? And if it sounds off, we should do exactly what Grudem did and go back to the text again and re-examine it, or at least hold it with humility and uncertainty. Like Grudem, we may find that we had it wrong all along.