Divorce, remarriage and homosexuality - Steve

Once again, this post is part of a larger conversation going on among RCA members, in the aftermath of our General Synod's decisions on homosexuality.

To the conservative objection, "Hold on here; what about the Bible?" a counter-objection was offered. One I think is disingenuous and tongue in cheek, a reductio ad absurdam to refute the "sexual policing" in which "conservatives" like to engage. It goes like this: if remarriage after an illegitimate divorce is a sin, then doesn't that mean that the original couple, each now married to someone else, can morally engage in intercourse, since in God's eyes they are still married?

Here was my response:
It is not right to commit a present sin to redress a past sin. You don't divorce illegitimately to put a previous illegitimate divorce back together. 1 Corinthians 7:17 is most applicable here: stay as you were when converted [or in this case, when you came to an awareness of your sin]. If there has been no marriage since the illegit divorce, then Joe's point holds that they may not remarry - they are still considered married in God's eyes, and ought to seek reconciliation, if possible, and if the separation was truly unwarranted. If they remarry - out of ignorance or high rebellion, it doesn't matter - they have a new set of obligations. God calls them to repent of the same past sin, but restitution and restoration will look different because of the new covenant vows made. It is not essentially different from any other unrepentant sin. Unrepentant, you could say they are living in a continuous state of adultery. Repentant, Jesus does not condemn us, even in our mess, but tells us to go and stop sinning anymore.

The important thing is to be asking these questions seriously and earnestly,striving to apply God's Word for holiness and purity to specific and messy life situations.

The important thing, when we understand what Scripture means, is to as, how we can live this out together as a community, not to generate objections in the reductio ad absurdam line: "That can't be right because if we did that, x would be true, and that's absurd!"



Honestly, my engagement in this sort of debate is coming down to Proverbs 26:4-5. Do we answer foolishness and try to persuade, or is it folly to try?