|
GOD-GIVEN
“RIGHTS” NULLIFIED By
Jeff Belknap This
is written in response to brother Tim Haile’s article in the May issue of Gospel
Anchor: “Legally Divorced, But Free to
Remarry.” I encourage you to read his article prior to reading this
one. In his article (as well as in his other two related articles, posted to the
Gospel
Anchor web site), he seems to support the right of an unscripturally (already repudiated and civilly)
put away spouse to later “divorce” (repudiate) their ex-mate for
fornication. While I admire brother Haile’s determination to examine this
important issue, I cannot agree with some of his conclusions (Prov. 18:17). Specified Exceptions
vs. Unspecified Assumptions
Jesus revealed GOD’S RULE regarding the
remarriage of a put away person in the latter part of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 by
stating, “…and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery.” In brother Tim’s article, he points out some scripturally valid
cases in which those who have been put away, are free to remarry (Rom. 7:2-3; I
Cor. 7:10-11). With those, I am in full agreement. The Lord has indeed revealed specified
exceptions to the RULE for those who are put away, as well as for those who put
away (Mt. 5:32; 19:9). Without question, the New Testament
allows the remarriage of an unscripturally put away (repudiated) person when the
one they are still bound to dies (Rom.
7:2-3; I Cor. 7:39). How do we know this? The Bible specifically
tells us that God looses the bond at the time of physical death. Moreover, an
unscripturally divorced (repudiated; “unmarried”) person may be remarried to
their (divinely bound) ex-mate (I Cor. 7:10-11). How do we know
this? The Bible specifically tells us so! Such an action is simply the righting
of a wrong (unscriptural divorce). However, what brother Tim is also
advocating in his article is an unauthorized
and unspecified
exception to that RULE. In
the conclusion of his article, brother Tim wrote:
“The conclusion is simple - legal action
does not determine marital rights.
One may be legally divorced and still possess the God-given right to remarry.
Civil laws and social customs do not supersede divine law. A put away person has no right to remarry, but
before forbidding one to marry, let us examine their circumstances and determine
whether or not justice has been denied, and a divine liberty
has been ignored…Civil laws must be respected and followed only
to the degree that they allow us to obey God. With regard to marriage
and divorce procedure, we should follow civil rules and social customs so
long as they accommodate us in doing what the Bible allows (Rom.
13:1-7; Acts 5:29). However, when civil
law fails to facilitate in such matters, we must
default to whatever procedures
and mechanisms may best serve us” (emp.
jhb). (Notice that “procedures” has an “s” on it, indicating brother
Haile’s assertion that there is more than one.) I
ask, where
is the authority for such an assertion (Col. 3:17, 23; I Pet. 4:11)? Yes,
we must “obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29), however, that is only
in the realm of what is required of
us. Never
has God required that we avail
ourselves of “what the Bible allows.”
Especially when doing so would cause us to violate scripture, in disregarding
the authority of a government that God himself, ordained! Scripture states,
“…Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth
the ordinance of God: and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation…” (Rom. 13:1-7). “Liberty” vs. Lawlessness
Brother
Tim states that this issue deals with “what the Bible allows” (i.e. a
“liberty”) of the innocent person, in an unscriptural divorce. He then seems
to contradict himself by saying that we must respect “civil laws” and follow
them “only
to the degree that they allow
us to obey God!” What we need to acknowledge is that there is a
colossal difference in our responsibility to what God
commands (“divine law”) and what He allows (“marital rights”). God’s will is for us to obey
“the higher powers” even though they may nullify our God-given
“liberties” (I Pet. 2:16-17; cf. Rom. 13:1-2). Brother
Haile contends that we should recognize the civil authorities until such time as they decree something that would take away divine
liberty. At that point, he implies
that we may employ another divorce
procedure (outside of the civil realm, which is the recognized authority in our
country). If such is the case, that makes (at least) two different, “divinely
authorized” divorce procedures for the same culture – one for the scriptural
divorce and one for the unscriptural. In truth, Jesus indirectly “specified”
the
divorce “procedure,” for every given culture, by endowing
its rulers with the power to decide what constitutes that procedure. It
seems that brother Haile is saying that since there is no specifically
revealed divorce “procedure,” we have individual authority to establish
another procedure of our choosing (cf. Rom. 10:1-3), when the civil authority
“fails
to facilitate” a given liberty. However, to disregard civil authority in favor of
self-determination in “whatever
procedures and mechanisms may
best
serve us,” would be lawlessness
(I Jn. 3:4). That Jesus did not specify
a procedure for divorce is
the very reason we must submit to the decision of those whom He has
ordained to rule over us (I Pet. 2:13). When we usurp
the authority God has delegated to the higher powers by enacting a
procedure that looks “good” in our “own eyes” (cf. Deut. 12:8), we
reject our Lord’s authority (Rom. 13:1-2).
“Rights” vs.
Righteousness
Along
the same line of thinking, wives have the
right to a faithful, loving husband (Eph. 5:25; I Cor. 7:5).
Unfortunately, Peter tells us that such is not always the case (I Pet. 3:1-7).
Both husbands and wives have the
right to their spouse’s bodies, to avoid fornication (I Cor. 7:2, 5).
However, Paul implies that it is possible for a mate to “defraud” his spouse of this “right.” God did not authorize a
spouse to defraud the mate whom he
joined them to, any more than He authorized the civil authorities (whom He
ordained) to grant an unscriptural divorce. Nevertheless, He concedes that such
actions do take place without His approval and that some innocent people suffer
(unjustly) as a result. Jesus
(who was defrauded His rights more than anyone) taught that we have the liberty
to eat meat (Mk. 7:19). In spite of the fact that this divine right was
repeatedly expressed in scripture (Acts 10:11-15; Rom. 14:14, 20; I Cor. 8:8; I
Tim. 4:1-6), the Word of God says, “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your's become a
stumblingblock to them that are weak” (I Cor. 8:9, 10:28). In other words, if
we are in the proximity of a brother with a weak conscience, our divine
“right” in this realm can be nullified
(Rom. 15:1-2; I Cor. 8:13; 10:28-29, 32-33). There are many other examples of divine
rights which have been taken from God’s people due to man’s injustices. It is clear that ungodly actions (and even
weaknesses) of some men can and do take away our God-given “rights” and
“liberties” from time to time. Instead of demanding and emphasizing our
“rights,” inspiration teaches us that we need to acknowledge our
RESPONSIBILITIES, in spite of man’s injurious actions against us. We are
admonished to be more concerned with righteousness than rights (Rom. 1:16-17).
To transgress God’s law (i.e. disregard the rulers) by demanding our own
“rights,” is unrighteousness (Rom. 10:1-3; I Jn. 5:17). Marriage vs. Bond
The
mistaken position connects the marriage (the physical relationship) to the bond (the spiritual obligation), by teaching that as long as one
is bound (by God), they are married. Likewise, they contend that only
when a couple is loosed (by God), are they really
divorced (at least, in some cases). Therefore,
a distinction is made between marriages and divorces that are “real” (in the
eyes of God) and those which are “merely” civil (in the eyes of man). Within
his article, it seems that brother Haile confuses the marriage with the
bond. These are two totally different things, though they are easily
confused by using the term “marriage
bond,” as brother Haile often does in his article. The Bible teaches that
men and women are “bound by the law”
to their spouse (Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:39), not by a “marriage bond” (which
term leaves the incorrect connotation that there must be a marriage whenever
there is a bond). One may be “bound by the law” while
scripturally married (Rom. 7:2), or
“bound by the law” while
unscripturally divorced / unmarried (I
Cor. 7:11; Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18). In the case where a fornicator is scripturally
put away, it is clear that the reason he may not scripturally remarry is not due to the
“marriage bond,” but because he is bound by the law of God. Marriage
and divorce are only man’s part in joining or
separating the physical relationship.
Man is commanded not to put asunder what God joined together (Mt. 19:6),
necessarily implying that he has the power to do so, even though God commanded
him not to. God’s part of binding and loosing is not automatically
intertwined with what man does, just as man’s physical part of marriage
and divorce is not necessarily in agreement with God’s law, which one
is bound by. From the teaching in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, it is clear that God
does His part in loosing a person from the bond
of His law only when man has
fully complied with His law (which
includes compliance with the civil laws to which one is subject). Scripture
teaches that man only puts away “his
wife,” not the bond (something solely under God’s jurisdiction), which is why
it is so confusing to use the term “marriage bond.” The bond remains,
however there is no marriage when a
spouse has been put away and both parties have become “unmarried” (I Cor. 7:10-11). Once an unauthorized divorce is finalized
by the authorities which God ordained, there are no revealed means that
allow the put away person (divorced, but still bound) to marry another while
their ex-spouse is alive (Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:39).
Matthew 10:28 teaches that man and civil authorities have the power to terminate
our physical life, but not our eternal soul. Likewise, it is clear that, even
while lacking divine approval, man and the higher powers have the
ability to terminate a marriage, though not the bond. Obedience to God Through Regard for Civil Authorities
Attempting
to justify a “putting away” for one who has already been (“repudiated”
and) civilly put away, brother Tim first asserts that the “marriage bond” remains.
Combining the marriage with the bond, brother Haile goes on to hypothesize that
the innocent party who was (first wrongly repudiated, then) put away in the
ungodly civil court, may then (after the civil divorce is finalized) appeal to
divine law to “put away” (repudiate) their now-fornicating ex-spouse.
According to his reasoning, to deny the innocent put
away party this “divorce”
appeal (subsequent to the civil divorce) makes one guilty of honoring human
law above God’s law (also see brother Haile’s article: “When
Human Laws Collide with Divine Laws”).
The
very term “unscriptural divorce”
denotes what it is: man’s sinful act
of putting “asunder what God has joined together.” In the case of an
unscriptural divorce, the court simply enables one to fulfill his sinful desire.
To illustrate this point, the willing woman makes it possible for man to
fornicate (sin) and the abortion clinic makes it possible for a woman to kill
her baby (sin). Likewise, in this country, the civil courts make it possible for
man to unscripturally divorce his spouse (sin). Civil authorities become party
to and facilitator of the man’s sin upon granting an unscriptural divorce,
just as the seducer becomes party to the sin of the one who is seduced. Both are
equally guilty of the sin. Thus, acknowledging that an unscriptural divorce
(sin) has taken place is not honoring man’s law
(which permits the divorce) above
divine law (which disapproves of it). This simple recognition of divorce
renders a subsequent “divorce” appeal an
addition to God’s Word. God
designed the civil authorities to rule over their subjects, just as He ordained
the husband to have authority over the wife. In I Peter 2:13, Peter teaches that
we are to submit to every ordinance of man. He then draws a parallel in verse
18, to the responsibility that servants have to their masters (“not only to
the good and gentle, but also to the froward”). When God commanded submission
to those in authority, did He believe that every decision the civil authorities,
masters and husbands make would be in perfect accordance with His Word?
Inspiration, itself calls the civil authorities “unjust.” (In I Corinthians
6:1, Paul states, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go
to law before the unjust, and not
before the saints?”) God gave rulers the power to govern their subjects
(including Christians) with full knowledge that, at times, they would fail to
serve the kind of justice He
prescribed. Did
God ever specify that man may disregard the rule of those over us, when
respecting such authority would have the effect of revoking our liberties
that Christ has given? To the contrary! I Peter 2:16-17 instructs us otherwise,
“As free, and not
using your liberty for a cloke
of maliciousness, but as the servants
of God…Honour the king” (emp. jhb). To claim the scriptural right to
disregard God’s law that requires us to be subject to the authorities He
ordained, one must first show that by the act of respecting that civil law, they
would be in violation of God’s law. No such claim can be made in regards
to the revocation of liberties, which we are commanded
to forgo, on occasion, for the
sake of Christ. Whether brother Tim realizes it or not, his position clokes
“righteousness”
with “rights,” “law” with “liberties” and rejects our command to honor
the authorities. What brother Haile suggests is that we can disregard the authority that God delegated (to the higher powers) in order that we might secure “justice” and our divine liberties. Does such reasoning hold true in the case of the master – servant relationship (I Pet. 2), the husband – wife relationship (I Pet. 3), or the parent – child relationship (Eph. 6; I Cor. 7:38)? Christ
and the apostles submitted themselves to the authority of civil rulers to the
point of severe injustices
(which were contrary to God’s Word). But brother Haile advocates respect for
authorities only as “long
as they accommodate us in doing what
the Bible allows. However,
when civil law fails to facilitate in
such matters, we must default to whatever
procedures and mechanisms may best serve
us” (emp. jhb). Does this line of thinking represent Christ’s
attitude toward the civil authorities of His day?
Submission
to authorities (in the face of civil mistreatment) exemplifies Jesus’ life of denial
(I Pet. 2:21). Furthermore, in the same context, beginning at chapter 3, Peter
says, “Likewise,”
the wife is subject to her husband’s authority, though he “obey not the
word,” even when he denies her
divinely-given right to a self-sacrificing husband (Eph. 5:25: I Cor. 7:5). Can the same reasoning brother Haile offers to the mistreated civil
subject apply to the mistreated wife, when the husband “fails to facilitate in
such matters?” “Must” she then “default to whatever procedures and
mechanisms may best serve” her? If not, why not? Brother
Tim seems to believe that to deny an
innocent put away person “whatever
procedures and mechanisms may best serve” them (subsequent to having
already been repudiated and civilly put away) is to revoke the exception clause
of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, he fails to acknowledge that God never gave
an exception clause to the one who has
been put away (justly or not). When we carefully study God’s law in
Matthew 5:32, we find that the departing spouse is the one who causes their
ex-mate to commit adultery upon remarriage. This remains true, regardless of
whether the departing spouse commits fornication after the divorce is
final, or whether he remains unmarried. His sin has become her stumbling block
(Mt. 18:7). In spite of this ungodly man’s unfair treatment of his wife,
God’s law teaches us that she commits adultery when she remarries. Jesus knew
that civil law would facilitate man in unjustly
putting his wife away, though she was innocent of any wrongdoing. However, we
are taught how to respond to injustices
in this life; we must patiently suffer
wrong until the new day dawns (cf. I Cor. 6:7; I Thess. 4:6; I Pet. 2:20-21;
3:14-17; 4:15-19). Consider
the hypothetical situation in which an ungodly husband rushes to Nevada to
secure a “quickie divorce” by a “tricky lawyer” against the wishes of
his “innocent” spouse. In spite of her faithful effort to protest the
divorce, a year later, her self-centered ex-husband marries another. Scenarios
such as this are cited to prove the unjust, ungodly nature of the civil law
regarding marriage and divorce. Such
extreme case scenarios only serve to appeal to our own sense of fairness and
emotional sympathies (Jer. 10:23), not to God’s Word. Even
so, when
reviewing the divorce laws of Nevada
(http://www.divorcesource.com/NV/info/legalprocess.shtml),
which are often cited as the most liberal and ungodly of all states in the U.S.,
we find that such an imaginary scenario constructs a straw man. In fact, one
must first be a resident of Nevada for six weeks before they become eligible
to file for divorce in that state. Moreover, the spouse must be notified of the
divorce before it can proceed. If unable to find the spouse to notify them, the
filing spouse must show proof that he has made a reasonable effort to find and
notify his or her spouse, then a summons is published in the newspaper. Even if
the spouse (who was filed against) is agreeable to the divorce, it takes a
minimum of one to one and one half months to complete the process (after six
weeks residency). If the spouse contests the divorce, it can take up to a year.
(Please compare the information from this web site with what brother Haile
stated as “fact” about Nevada’s
divorce laws in his article entitled: “When
God’s Laws and Man’s Laws Collide,” posted in the May issue of Gospel Anchor.) Nevertheless,
regardless of the governing regulations we are subject to, there will always be
one who puts away and one who is put away. One who repudiates and one who is
repudiated. Therefore, the same scriptures apply, regardless of the custom
or law of divorce one is under. Unspecified Procedure vs. Anarchy
While
it is true that Jesus did not specify a
procedure for those from every society and culture to follow for a divorce,
it is certain that the procedure He is referring to: 1)
Is a procedure that is used for unscriptural, as well as scriptural
divorces (Mt. 5:32, 19:9). 2)
Is a
procedure that is openly recognizable to all in a given society, so that there is a
definitive way to distinguish “adulterers” from those who are scripturally
married (I Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21). 3)
Is a
procedure that prohibits the one who is put away from remarrying another (Mt.
5:32, 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3). 4)
Is a procedure that can
be (although may not be in all cultures and times) governed by civil
authorities, as God gave them authority to make laws by which we live. Marriage
and divorce are issues that affect each society as a whole, and therefore such
procedures often need to be regulated by those appointed to serve the society in
which one lives. Jehovah gave this authority to earthen vessels, knowing their
fallibility (I Cor. 6:1; Rom. 13). Regardless of imperfect decisions made by
imperfect men who have been appointed to rule over us, we are to commanded to
obey every ordinance of man (Rom. 13:1-7), not for their or our
sake, but “for the Lord’s sake” (Col. 3:23; I Pet. 2:13). This divine order
remains true as long as in obeying man’s rule, we do not violate any other aspect of God’s dictates (Acts 5:29). The only
time we are authorized to disregard the rule of “the higher powers,” is when
man’s law demands disobedience to any
divine directive. Then, God has
revealed to us what must be done! Putting
away for the cause of fornication is not
a MUST! No person whose mate has committed adultery is commanded or required
to put away their spouse for the cause of fornication, nor are they
commanded to marry another. Divorces vs. “Real”
Divorces
Although
it is true that God does not “sanction”
an unscriptural divorce, the presumption that it is not real
is problematic (see brother Tim’s article on Gospel
Anchor, “What Constitutes Putting Away”). In spite of what brother
Haile believes, “put asunder” is a generic word (which is Biblically used
for both scriptural and unscriptural putting away; Mt. 19:6). In I Corinthians
7:10-11, the unauthorized divorce (cp. w. Mt. 19:6) resulted in each individual
being “unmarried.” Moreover, in verse 15, when an unscriptural divorce is
carried out against the innocent party, we learn that something significant
(in God’s eyes) has transpired. The faithful
person, whose spouse “departs” (puts asunder) unlawfully, is now given a
divine reprieve from his/her (physical) marital obligations. Why? The physical marriage has been severed, and she is now “unmarried.”
However, no scripture is found anywhere for remarriage
to another after an unscriptural divorce has taken place. In the same context,
verse 39 plainly states that the woman is bound by the law as long as her original spouse lives. Moreover, in Romans
7:2-3, the woman is said to be bound
by God’s law (spiritually obligated) to her first husband while unscripturally
married (physically) to
another. The
only way that the remarriage of an innocent put away person could possibly be
justified while the original mate lives, is to claim that the innocent put away
person is not
really put away at all. Regardless of the reason for a divorce, in this
country, when the civil requirements have been complied with (Rom. 13:1-7), then
someone has been put away. Brother
Tim’s position assumes that the innocent put away person actually has the
power to “put away” a person to whom they are no longer married. However, at
the point in which a given society recognizes a divorce, God either looses (in a
scriptural divorce) or does not loose (in an unscriptural divorce).
Whatever man does after this dissolution is
inconsequential, if we remain silent where the Bible is silent. When the physical
marriage has already been terminated, it has suffered death (separation) and can
only be revived by reconciliation. For man to add another condition upon which
God will “loose” a spouse from the bond of His law is presumptuous (I Tim.
6:3-5). The
crux of the matter is this: If
an unscriptural (civil) divorce is not a “real” divorce (because God
disapproves of it), then logic dictates that it wouldn’t make any difference which
party did the subsequent (after the civil divorce) “putting away” for
fornication, since the “marriage bond” is still intact. It would all boil
down to whoever could hold out the longest (the waiting game). If not, why not?
Although I am sure brother Tim would oppose the waiting game, only arbitrary, man-made
rules can circumvent the conclusion that necessarily follows. Scriptural Order vs.
Disorder
As
brother Donnie Rader aptly pointed out in his book, Divorce
& Remarriage;
What Does The Text Say?;
(pgs. 81-82), the Biblical order is: marriage,
fornication, divorce (for
that cause), and remarriage. Yet, the
position under examination would include: marriage, divorce,
fornication,
(different procedure for) divorce
/ repudiation (for fornication), and remarriage. Just as the order in Mark 16:16 is to be maintained,
so is God’s order regarding this subject! As stated very eloquently by brother
Wayne Partain in the February 2001 issue of The Preceptor, “One thing is
for sure: if Matt. 5:32; 19:9 is not clear, then neither are Mark 16:16 and Acts
2:38. No scripture is clear to the person who is determined not to accept it.”
Consider
Luke 16:18: “Whosoever
putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever
marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
Here, when the unjustly put away person remarries even
after the fornication of her previous spouse, she becomes guilty
of adultery nonetheless. Regardless of who marries
first, adultery is still the result for both when they marry
another. There is simply not one shred of Bible authority for any put away
person (whose legitimate ex-mate
remains alive) to remarry another! Limited Exception Clause vs. Unlimited Exception Clause
My
exchanges with brethren on this issue
have mainly focused on the situation created when one puts away their spouse
unscripturally (no fornication
involved prior to the civil divorce). This is of special significance,
especially since the
statistics in the article, Seven Myths of
Divorce (http://www.divorcesource.com/CA/ARTICLES/peter1.html)
Peter Orli, Ph.D., show that fornication has not always
been committed before
the (civil) divorce. Myth #1 states, “Most
men cheat on their wives.” Dr.
Orli then answers this mistaken belief by saying, “Actually, the best designed study to date indicates that nearly 80%
of men report that they have never cheated on their wives.” Moreover, it
is evident that Jesus knew divorces (where fornication was not a factor) would be obtained unscripturally, since it is included
in His teaching (cf. Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; et. al). Nevertheless,
in each instance of my exchanges, those advocating the position under
examination have twisted the scenario into one in which fornication was actually
committed by the one filing for divorce, prior
to the civil putting away. This contrived situation becomes the emotional
springboard for the next step, in which the unwilling, innocent put away
person can exercise the exception clause even years later, if her husband waits until after the (civil)
divorce to fornicate. From brother Haile’s articles related to this
issue, it becomes clear, that since he reasons the “marriage bond” was still
intact after the unscriptural civil divorce, he would also advocate
this “God-given liberty” for the unwilling, innocent put away person to
divorce for fornication committed even after
the civil divorce. Such an idea gives deeper meaning to the title of his
article, “Legally Divorced, but Free to Remarry.” In
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Jesus was imposing consequences
on a husband who puts away his wife for a cause other than the authorized exception (for fornication). In unscripturally
doing what scripture
calls “put away his wife,”
is the husband indirectly severing the
physical marriage, or the
spiritual bond? Obviously, since his act of divorce was not for the
cause of fornication, he did not meet the condition upon which God ensures
release of the spiritual bond. Nevertheless, scripture says he “put” his wife “away.” Therefore, when the
husband then sinfully “put away”
his wife, she became the “put away” one whom Jesus, himself spoke of as
being “put away,” in the latter half of these verses. The exception clause
in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not extended to those who have been put away,
regardless of the cause. It is only for those who put away for the cause of
fornication (necessarily implying there is still a
marriage, not only a “bond” to
be put away). Conclusion
The divorce proceedings at the time of Christ were no better than some of our country’s most liberal laws today, probably even worse (cf. Mt. 19:3; Mk. 6:17-18)! When Jesus revealed the strictness of GOD’S RULE for us today, compared to the easy divorces of His day (Mt. 19:7-8), the disciples concluded, “…it is not good to marry” (v. 10). Yet, Jesus acknowledged, “All men cannot receive this saying” (v. 11), and stated that heaven was for those who are willing to receive God’s Word, even to the point of celibacy “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (v. 12). Though the ungodly actions of many societies may grant the unscriptural divorce of an unwilling mate, it is God’s regulation that precludes the put away person, innocent or not, from remarrying while their original ex-spouse is still alive (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:39). Peter wrote, “For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God” (I Pet. 2:19-20; emp. jhb). We cannot remain true to such Biblical teaching while advocating “default to whatever procedures” and “mechanisms” will “best serve us.” We must instead serve the will of the Almighty (Mk. 8:34). |
|