How do we respond to broken relationships?

“what God has joined together, let no one separate”  (Mark 10:9)

Mark 10:1-16 (Year B: Trinity+18)

Jesus doesn’t mince his words...

Every so often we run into a difficult passage in the gospel. This is one of them.

Divorce, remarriage and family fluidity is a marked feature of 21^st century post-industrial societies. I guess that few, if any, among us do not know someone who has gone through marital separation. It could be a brother, a sister, one’s own parents, a work colleague, our next door neighbour. In some cases we may  be among those who have experienced separation. Here in Ireland there has been a marked increase in the extent of marital breakdown even though it has not reached anywhere near the same proportions found in other western societies – yet at any rate.

What are we to make of this passage of Mark? Mark reports a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees who were trying to catch him out on a question of divorce. Jesus answers them in clear, uncompromising and un-nuanced words (verses 11-12):

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

No ifs, no buts, no qualifications.

Jesus was responding to a question posed by some Pharisees who came to him to question and test him.  The context was set by the ‘Hillelites’ and the ‘Shammaites’. The followers of Rabbi Hillel were 1^st century religious liberals who permitted divorce ‘for any cause’. The followers of Shammai permitted it only for adultery.  The latter were the 1^st century religious conservatives who took a narrower and possibly more literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The labels might be different but the broad nature of religious controversy has not changed in 2,000 years! 

Jesus’s response (to be found here in Mark as well as in the gospel of Matthew) comes as a surprise to his hearers. He just rules out divorce altogether and goes back to the very beginning, in Genesis, to explain that lasting union was and still remains the plan of God whereby a man and a woman become one flesh or one body – with all that it entails spiritually, psychologically and physically. While the Jews of Jesus’ time held marriage in high regard divorce was widespread and it wrecked havoc on women, in particular, given the absence of legal rights and initiative for them. This sets the social and cultural context in which Jesus takes a ‘hard line’ on divorce.

Any exceptions?...

The parallel reference in Matthew is a little more nuanced (Matthew 19:9)

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.

There are a variety of interpretations of the expression ‘except for unchastity’ in Matthew. It may be concluded that scholars differ on the exact meaning of the term. Some – especially Roman Catholic scholars - argue that it reflects a specifically Jewish context in which a man had the right to divorce a woman before a marriage is consummated if it emerges only after a marriage that the woman had not been a virgin (this might explain why Joseph the spouse of Mary had initially planned on divorcing her when he learned that she was pregnant but then changed his mind after matters were clarified in a dream). If this is the case it might explain the inclusion of ‘unchastity’ (the Greek word is ‘porneia’) in Matthew but not in Mark. According to this explanation Jesus would have used the word adultery if he meant it. Rather, he was referring, so it is claimed, to a specific exception where a marriage was not consummated and the marriage vows or contract was not, therefore, valid. Some Eastern Catholic churches (e.g. Greek) might allow divorce in cases of adultery – presumably on the grounds of the Matthean ‘unchastity’ clause to be found in Matthew 19:9 (see for example here). Among Protestant denominations, nowadays, divorce and remarriage are generally accepted (although in some cases more tolerated than accepted).

(Residents of the Republic of Ireland who have lived there for the last few decades will be very familiar with the highly charged and intensely contested constitutional referenda in 1986 and again in 1995.  In the latter case the proposal to allow divorce in civil law was passed by the smallest of majorities.  The whole subject of marital separation and divorce remain particularly difficult areas in Irish culture with a strong social prohibition and norm even if considerations of pragmatism and compassion have been in the ascendancy in recent times).

The mere fact that there was some type of exception, in Matthew, suggests that the early Christian community had to deal with the matter in a compassionate and rational way given the realities facing the emerging Christian community as families were split over the new religion and as a variety of mores and practices characterised the pagan world in which Judeo-Christians lived. Matthew’s account of what Jesus said differs from Mark in two ways:

* The exception clause to be found in Matthew but not in Mark

* The reference to a woman initiating a divorce, in Mark, which was unknown among Jews at that time.

Clearly, the audiences and the context in Matthew and Mark differ somewhat. Matthew was probably writing for a Jewish community while Mark had more a gentile audience in mind familiar with Roman laws and practices.

A compassionate Jesus...

Returning to Mark, we see an uncompromising stance by Jesus on divorce.  Divorce was, and still is today, a huge trauma for many. In the hugely different culture of Jesus’ time women were very much relegated to a vulnerable and insecure rank in society. It is still that way today in many parts of the world. In opposing divorce we see a compassionate Jesus who recognised the havoc that divorce can inflict on people – not least women and children. The choice of verses 13 to 16 about the blessing of children in today’s passage to follow the teaching on divorce may be no accident.  Jesus seems to go further than many of his peers by indicating a clear equality in marriage in that he balances the role of women and men in Mark 10:11-12.  This contrasts with the one-side question posed by the Pharisees where only the man could issue a divorce summons.  Women were in an inferior position in every way according to this view. That inequality is directly challenged in the response of Jesus.

How do we align the clear gospel teaching found in Mark with our own experience of living today? A number of responses are possible:

1. Ignore the gospels along with the Christian message entirely as irrelevant and pre-modern (typically the response of many in today’s world);
2.  Locate some particular sayings of Jesus in a different cultural milieu and no longer relevant;
3. Use the tools of scholarly research and discourse to manoeuvre around ‘difficult passages’ (this might involve saying ‘this is now the evangelist reported it but Jesus didn’t quite mean it that way’ or ‘the Greek word for this or that term could mean different things’ or ‘the context is set by extraneous factors that blunt an isolate passage quotation’ and so on).
4. Take the passage pretty much at face value (notwithstanding scholarly caveats above) and say ‘that was then and now is now ….’
5. Accept the passage as is stands but place it alongside other passages emphasising a wide range of values and considerations but always returning to the central value of compassion and mercy present in Jesus.
6.  Take the passage as conforming to a literal, legalistic and absolute prohibition on divorce always, everywhere and no matter what because ‘the bible says so’ and/or ‘tradition says or and the Church has always taught so’. (This is like saying that according to section 9 subsection 4(a) of the Law divorce is never allowed – never.)

There may be other solutions to the above! In my case I tend towards 5 above.  I distrust absolutist and legalist approaches using isolated Gospel  passages as ammunition to uphold particular view points or exclusions in a modern-day context. At the same time, I do not go along with the ultra-liberal approach of making the gospel fit whatever you want it to mean. In practice we can read the scriptures with –

-          The foundation of trust and faith in God-who-is-love
-          The common sense of people living a messy world
-          The compassion of people who care deeply for others
-          The experience of living which teaches us

Add to this benefits of good scholarly research and insights down the ages from others who read, digested and lived the Word.

A need for balance...

The point is that a relationship of intimacy, commitment and openness to life is the foundation of much human well-being and happiness. It is also a foundation rock for communities and societies. It is, typically, the milieu in which children can grow, develop and experience the warmth of love so that they too can live lives of meaning and love and give in turn. Whatever, disrupts this is bad for people and societies. Lack of love, communication, trust and faithfulness wrecks havoc on people and much unhappiness exists in the world because of this.

At the same time it is a sad reality that for many reasons such relationships fail. In some cases it may involve coercion, violence and abuse. In other cases, the causes may be less dramatic but no less significant in undermining the stability of a union. When this happens it is a tragedy – above all for the couple involved. But, it may signal circumstances outside the control of the couple as well as factors relevant to each one’s history, baggage, attitude and behaviour. We must not judge. We never know the full story.

And what if, after many years of trying and recourse to help within and without a relationship remains destructive? What then? And if people find themselves in a new life-affirming committed relationship what then? And what if, as one writer put it: ‘What humans wrongly joined together, let God rightly separate?’ However, the same writer reminds: ‘Committing adultery is not an abstract, moral sin. It is a real, hurtful action against one’s God-joined partner’ (Vitalis Hoffman). So discernment is needed. People need the wisdom of the holy spirit who is never lacking to address each situation in the light of all of the gospel’s values. This requires patience, tact, insight and openness. A sensitively written reflection Mark 10 is provided by Karoline Lewis. It is worth reading. Matt Skinner seems to strike an appropriate balance in his commentary on this passage:

-          If marriage is what Jesus says it is, then we understand better why failed marriages bring such pain to couples, extended families, and communities. Jesus brings into view the hurt and brokenness that come, even when a divorce appears to be the best among all available options. Jesus' special concern for children should remind us that they are often victimized when parents divorce.

-          This passage's assumptions require us to attend to the differences between our cultural context and Jesus', if we are to understand and respect part of the rationale behind Jesus' prohibitions. As the church has painfully learned over recent generations, to impose these words uncritically as inviolable commands can result in the church denying protection and grace to those who need it.

-          Yet we dare not view Jesus' words as quaint and outdated. The passage also urges us to regard marriage in clear contrast to our culture's tendencies to treat commitment and love as conditional.

The four pillars...

The lesson of Mark 1-16 as well as Matthew 19:1-12 is that the scriptures need to be read on our knees with an open heart and a discerning and learning mind.  Scripture is ‘over all’ and yet is must be received each time in the light of tradition, reason and experience. After all, tradition (oral and written), reason and experience were the soil in which the Word was sown and continues to be sown and to grow in our fields today. In an Anglican context Brother Curtis Almquist of the Society of Saint John the Evangelist explains it this way here:

The Anglican tradition is to revere the Scriptures, but to understand that they must be both interpreted and viewed alongside the other ways of God’s revelation - to understand authority as a graceful synergy between Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

The Presbyterian scripture scholar and commentator William Barclay (1907-1978) struck a good chord as follows here:

What is wanted is that there should be prayerful care and thought before the married state is entered upon; that if a marriage is in danger of failure every possible medical, psychological and spiritual resource should be mobilized to save it; but, that if there is something beyond the mending, the situation should be dealt with not with rigid legalism, but with understanding love.

To conclude on a positive note: it would appear that most families and most lifelong commitments are happy for the most part – trials and tribulations notwithstanding along the way. This also seems to be true of those who, for one reason or another, find themselves in a second union.  After all the starting point for Jesus’ positive affirmation of marriage is found in Genesis 2:28 where we are reminded that it is not good for one to be alone (unless by choice, calling or force of circumstances).

However, the wounds of life come with blessings and the blessings of life come with wounds. The wounds of broken relationships and broken trust remain even if healed of their sharpest impact over time and as we confide in God whose mercy has no limits unlike that of others whom we have hurt or who have hurt us.

We must realise that in the majority of situations and families love prevails over all difficulties and there is a huge amount to be thankful for in the mystery of lifelong love ‘for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.’ This is what the author of Mark affirms so strongly in reporting the answer Jesus gave to the Pharisees of his time.