|
David Instone-Brewer, a Baptist minister who is now a research
fellow at Tyndale House, Cambridge, here seeks to formulate an
attitude to divorce and remarriage that finds a way between the
libertarianism of no-fault divorce and the rigorism that (e.g.)
recog-nizes divorce only on the grounds of adultery.
As his subtitle suggests, he believes that understanding the
impli-cations of the Scriptures' statements about divorce and
remarriage requires us to look more carefully at their social and
literary context, and his work is widely researched in that
background. But every chapter begins with a synopsis of where it is
going, and ends with a longer set of conclusions that emerge from
the chapter. The result is that a book that could have been
impossibly complex and thoroughly confusing is actually marvellously
easy to find one's way through.
It is also full of fascinating information, for instance about
Jewish marriage practice. There are quotations from rabbinic
regulations about how long men could abstain from sexual relations,
regula-tions apparently inspired by complaints from the wives (the
answer is, it depends on your job, but studying Torah was a better
excuse than most). Boys and girls were married off by the time of
puberty to safeguard against immorality; God is disturbed if someone
is not married by the age of twenty. A second marriage was often
treated as a relatively unimportant event and the breakup of a first
marriage was more momentous than subsequent breakups. In Jewish
marriage contracts, both bride and groom promised to feed, clothe
and love each other. 'It is surprising how many Christian leaders
have had poor marriages' (the [Baptist] Careys, the Wesleys, the
Booths ..) -why is it surprising?
And while attitudes in the first-century Jewish world were rather
like those in the Western world two centuries ago, today's social
context, in which marriage is popular, infidelity prevalent, and
divorce easy, is rather similar to that of the Graeco-Roman
back-ground to the New Testament. Against that background, Dr
Instone-Brewer suggests, it is significant that Jesus and Paul
oppose no-fault divorce. On the other hand, the Scriptures allow
divorce on the grounds not only of unfaithfulness but also of
neglect and abuse, and allow remarriage after divorce on such
grounds. But they do not actually require someone to divorce their
spouse in such circum-stances, and rather encourage forgiveness on
the part of the victims of unfaithfulness, neglect and abuse. The
implication is that while the Church has to live with and work with
no-fault divorce in the secular world, its stance for its own life
should be different.
I have only one criticism, which is that pastoral advice in the
book's closing pages seems a bit jejune after the sophistication of
the main part of the book. Perhaps the author or the publisher
thought it neces-sary to say something of a practical kind, but the
main part of the book undermines the down-to-earth advice by showing
us how deeply our context affects the way we live with the issues
the book discusses.
John Goldingay, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena,
California
|
|