The eCrozier

There’s probably no topic that I could write about in an eCrozier that would create greater reactivity than the topic of divorce. Across the theological or political spectrum, it doesn’t seem to matter: We all readily accept it and then change the subject when it comes up in the context of Jesus’ clear teaching. Politicians are trained to do such things. It’s called “bridging,” where you don’t address the question asked, but rather “bridge” to another subject you’d really prefer to talk about. I recall once being lectured by a vestryperson in the Diocese about my advocacy for the full inclusion of Gay & Lesbian Christians in the life of the Church. He said my position was an “abomination to the Lord.” I knew this vestryperson had been married four times and divorced three. I did not “bridge,” suggesting maybe his own abomination, but I was tempted.

Numerous reputable studies over the last decade have concluded that committed Christians have no significant difference in their divorce rates than do people with no religious convictions (both about 35%). The Barna Group, an evangelical research group, broke that down from within churches finding that Catholics were less likely than Protestants to get divorced (25% vs. 39%). Among Protestants, Pentecostals (44%) had the highest rate while Presbyterians (28%) had the lowest. The Barna Group found that a majority of committed Christians now didn’t even see divorce as being a sin (whether adultery was part of the equation or not).

One of the hardest tasks I have as a bishop is reviewing petitions to remarry in the Church after divorce. The Church, of course, allows it, provided the couple in question has done the necessary work and their priest affirms their readiness. And, while I recognize divorce’s reality and that sometimes it is the lesser of two evils, I still find myself anguishing over each petition. I usually sign it in my role as Bishop of Georgia, but Scott Benhase often has serious misgivings. My own inner-conflict on this subject clearly doesn’t reflect the larger Church’s practical indifference to this issue. It’s simply accepted without much thought or reflection.

What can be done? Well, we first must recognize that we aren’t going to change the larger culture on this issue. We can’t expect that people outside the Church will share our understanding of Holy Matrimony’s nature and purpose. Trying to impose it upon them won’t work. Our best chance of influencing the larger culture is to hold up for it many living examples of what faithful Holy Matrimony looks like.

The Church can also raise the bar on how we prepare people for Holy Matrimony. Title I, Canon 18 of our Church requires serious preparation for the couple by a priest. We do couples no favor by short shrifting such preparation. Priests need to be more intentional and, yes, discriminating in who can participate in this sacrament. We need to be willing to say “no” when there’s good cause to believe that the couple doesn’t appear to have the maturity or willingness to keep a life-long covenant. Of course, we can’t have certitude about their future. But the alternative is to continue down the path of looking no different than the larger culture. And that’s not acceptable (to me, at least).

+Scott