Memorial United Methodist Church

Memorial United Methodist Church
White Plains, New York 10605

Marriage Covenants And Divorce

A Sermon by Joe Agne, Pastor
Based on Mark 10:1-16
October 4, 2009 (Not edited or proofread)

Listen Now!

Congregations like ours are sometimes quite silent about a reality of many of our lives – divorce. Many of us have been divorced; have divorced parents, children, family members and friends; or are partners with divorced persons. I include myself in this number. I have some thoughts about divorce I want to share with you, working from the Mark passage in which the religious leaders try to trick Jesus into saying something about divorce that will get him into religious trouble.

First thought – Giving this sermon is risky. I want to give care to be honest about my own experience but not generalize from my own experience only. Many people are pretty sure of the United Methodist Church’s position on divorce, whether they have read it or not. Almost everyone has really strong opinions on the subject. I believe the primary reason to break a marriage covenant is the presence of abuse, but there are not definitions of abuse about which we all agree. I know, from my experience, the effort to be pastorally supportive of both persons in the midst of divorce can lead to a brokenness in my relationship with either or both of the persons. A word spoken in a sermon can be hurtful, even if the opposite is intended. Decades ago, one of the members of our church dropped out of our congregation, for many years, as she felt ostracized by the congregation because she was divorced. She returned over 20 years ago traversing pain with great courage, declaring, “This is my church and no one is going to keep me from it.” She is now one of our champions of inclusion, of all kinds. I hope this sermon addresses the pain many people feel about divorce and does not increase pain for anyone. In either case, let’s talk with each other with compassion.

Second thought – What new thinking does Jesus bring to the ideas about divorce in his time? In the time of Jesus the primary religious position stated that a man could write a “certificate of dismissal,” thereby divorcing a woman by publically declaring the marriage to be over. Women did not have this right. The woman and her children were then left without any economic and familial support. They were alone, isolated, poor and pariahs in the community. In this passage Jesus introduces the concept that ideas of divorce should be seen from the perspective of the creation story that says men and women are both made in the image of God, that God made them male and female, and that God doesn’t give prerogatives to one and not the other. In this thinking Jesus is more in line with the Roman thinking of his time than his own immediate religious heritage. He also says that no one should put asunder what God has joined together. Some, too many, Christian pastors use this as a reason to instruct a person, usually a woman, to stay in an abusive marriage. It is a scandal to place in God’s hands the formation of an abusive relationship. Actually, I think this is a sin against God to suggest that an abusive relationship is part of what God has put together. There are a lot of reasons we partner. We make these decisions, not God. We seek God’s blessings, but God does not bless abuse, of any kind – physical, emotional, economic, etc. Our loving, intimate relationships, if they are of God, affirm that God made each person in God’s image and that no one may deny this God-madeness of a partner and then falsely affirm that God is blessing their relationship.

Mark does have Jesus saying that it is adultery to remarry after divorce. Many of us in this congregation are then adulterers if these words are to be literally applied to us. But I notice something else here. Until this time only women could be adulterers. If they were involved in an intimate relationship other than marriage they were guilty. Men were never guilty of adultery. The Ten Commandments, in their original form, applied to women and not men. Men could have many partners at any time. Women could not. Jesus is challenging the patriarchy of his time and is doing so rather radically. He is applying the religious rules equally to men and women alike. Let’s be honest, we still are unable to say we have moved that much in the direction of Jesus’ thinking. Adultery is thought of differently for men and women. To that extent, it is true we are unfaithful to the direction Jesus was and is leading us.

I believe that God has given to all of us the right to a loving, long term, intimate relationship. I believe this applies to men with women, men with men, and women with women. It seems to me that a failed relationship should not prevent us from later living in loving relationships. This would deny that God can do anything new with us. Many of us have failed relationships in our lives. We have been the ones who have been failed and we have failed others, most often there is a combination of these realities. Not one of us was sent into this world to judge another. We just need to be honest about our own lives – times in which we have failed to give and receive love in a way that nurtures the life of the other and our relationship.

Jesus lived his life for the sake of others. He was most often found in the midst of marginalized persons. Among those marginalized by the patriarchy of his time were the women and children. Today’s scripture is seldom seen as an affirmation of Jesus relationship and hospitality with those most disregarded. Mark has Jesus travelling from place to place connecting himself and his movement with the most excluded. Today we see Jesus saying, in a sense, “You see the women and children in this community? I am with them. Bring them to me.” Over the centuries, this deepest meaning of this passage has been obfuscated by a legalism that has been use to continue patriarchy, not challenge it.

Third thought – The United Methodist Church and divorce. The Social Principles of the United Methodist Church (Paragraph # 161 of our Book of Discipline) “affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment and shared fidelity…” We are one of the congregations working to get our denomination to extend this affirmation to all relationships, not just heterosexual relationships. That day is coming, but not soon enough. United Methodists “reject norms that assume different standards for women than for men…” Our denomination believes, when a couple “is estranged beyond reconciliation, even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, divorce is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness.. We grieve over the devastating emotional, spiritual and economic consequences of divorces for all involved…” In addition, we “affirm the integrity of single persons and we reject all social practices that discriminate or social attitudes that are prejudicial against persons because they are single.”

In our congregation we have lots of different kinds of relationship covenants. I understand myself to be pastor with all of you. I know the brokenness of divorce in my life and in the lives of many of you. God keeps calling us into loving relationships and to make covenants to undergird these. We are not innocents here. We have broken these covenants and we have had them broken for us. So we keep on nurturing the love of our intimate relationships. We know we need God’s grace to help us do so and to forgive us when we fail. Not all of us understand all of the different kinds of relationships of people of this congregation. Yet, we don’t judge each other. None of us is called to decide whether another’s intimate covenant is faithful. As Jesus says, “Whoever is without sin, throw the first stone. “ We are people who have put down the stones.

Fourth thought – Abuse is the deal breaker for covenant. It is my presumption that relationship covenants are forever. To reiterate, when there is abuse, when one is not treated as a child of God, not understood as made in the image of God, a covenant must end – not might or could end – must end. Covenants that are not of God; that are not supportive of what God has created, are not covenants at all. They are frauds designed to control and abuse. It is painful to acknowledge a broken covenant. It is so easy to feel like a failure once this is acknowledged. It is tempting to prop up broken covenants and endure even more pain. As a congregation we support covenants which treat life as sacred. We support the end of covenants which desacralize life. We need help on all of this from God and each other – to keep our covenants and to know when they are over. When one of us rejoices, we rejoice. When one suffers, we all suffer.