Hard Objects, Hard Hearts & Hard Thinking

Sharing Options

Let us begin with the principle. In a fallen world anything that is hard, or that has a hard edge, can be used as a weapon. We don’t know what Cain used to murder Abel, but it could have been something as simple as a rock.

Complications set in when we realize that many good things are hard — and hence can be weaponized. Anything hard can be diverted from its intended use, and turned into something destructive in the lives of others. This is true of wedding vows, and it is true of the poker by the fireplace. It is true of the rules of evidence, and it is true of many of the sayings of Jesus.

Speaking of the sayings of Jesus, He is the one who made it most plain that marriage vows are hard and fast. His clarity on the point is the reason that the sinful heart is able to weaponize that wonderful phrase “for better, for worse.”

I am not — obviously — blaming Jesus for anything. Jesus created hard wood too, which can be made into the shaft of a spear. Sin is always the contribution of sinners, but the instruments of our sin in this created world are always gifts that have been turned aside from their intended purpose. God gave us iron so that we could have plow shares, but we have figured out how to beat them into other uses.

I begin with this point because of one of the ways we set ourselves up for making hard situations harder than they needed to be. We do this is by allowing ourselves to be wafted along by trends, not knowing that when we are confronted with hard hearts using hard weapons, we need to do some hard thinking. And trendy-thot has never been the friend of hard thinking. There is a certain kind of Christian that wants to be known as a “Jesus follower,” but there is an unspoken proviso that there be no actual following of the hard sayings of Jesus. In this scenario, Jesus followers are to Christians what caregivers are to babysitters. There is a certain kind of Christian that is less a Jesus follower and more or less just a follower.

The trendiness in this instance follows the logic of attacking senseless murders by attacking guns. Instead of going after the culprit, the murderous heart of man, we go after the manufacturer of the weapon the murderer used. The unspoken culprit in a hard marriage is increasingly the teaching of Scripture about headship and submission in marriage, coupled with the teaching of Scripture on the permanence of marriage. I said “unspoken culprit,” but we are now entering the phase where it is the named and identified culprit — along with any Christians who dare to defend what Scripture plainly teaches.

Jesus is the one who taught some very tough things about marriage. He is the reason why the Christian church has always taken a very dim view of divorce and remarriage. As C.S. Lewis points out somewhere, Christians view divorce — even those of us who hold it to be sometimes lawful and/or required — to be more like an amputation than anything else. It is not like the dissolving of a business partnership, or a change of neighbors. Jesus is the one who taught us to be –at a minimum — very cautious about allowing for divorce.

To review, Jesus said that if you divorce and remarry, apart from a very express set of conditions, you are guilty of adultery in the sight of God. Christians, at least those who are actual Jesus followers, don’t ever want to be found guilty of adultery in the eyes of God. This means that when a marriage starts to go bad, Christians are very cautious about considering divorce as an option. This is, in my mind, good and right and healthy. Difficulty in obtaining a divorce is a tall fence around a very high cliff. No fault divorce was one of the worst calamities to befall our nation within my lifetime.

That said, strict divorce laws or customs do give wicked men a great deal of leverage. The strength of the marriage bond is what makes it such a help to ordinary sinners, forgiven by grace, trying to make it through the tough patches. Here is a fixed reality. Here is something that is not going to move — and so we must adjust. It will not change, and so we had better change. But that same hard strength, designed to hold sinners together, can be turned around and used on a victimized spouse.

Living with a malicious spouse is hard. Having the kids grow up without that same spouse is also hard. Making that kind of decision is hard. And hard hearts know just what to do with hard things.

Marriage is supposed to be hard for our sake. Some behave in such a way as to make it hard on us. Instead of being hard for his wife, a man is hard on his wife. More specifically, one spouse behaves in such a way as to make life unendurable for the other. And when it gets near the breaking point, he helpfully appeals to the hard words of Jesus. “We don’t believe in divorce.” And in some cases, in churches where the hard saying of Jesus on marriage is held as the adamantine saying of Jesus, the church picks up abusing the victimized spouse wherever the abusive spouse left off — clobbering her with the words of Jesus. But they were already hard enough. Why make them impossible?

An abusive, selfish husband is in a position to make life miserable for a lot of people. He can do this successfully for some length of time, if he has a will, using every hard thing he can find.

In counseling, here are some things — given to us by God for our good — that I have seen weaponized. The permanence of marriage. The need that kids have for two parents, a mom and a dad. The duty of forgiveness. The rules of evidence. Headship and submission. The duty of financial provision. Pastoral confidentiality. The moral agency of both partners. Godly counsel given to one spouse used by the other as an accusation. The reality of having been sinned against.

And of course, this is just talking about hard counseling cases limited to the principals, when everybody is still in the same room. Once a decade has passed, and the Internet social justice trolls — I speak of that special breed, the ones with telepathic powers — get hold of the hard facts, they can all lay about them, hip and thigh.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
23 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Malachi
Malachi
8 years ago

I wonder: if the Church has the true authority to oversee the marriage covenant (i.e.: the State is in the position only to recognize it in the same way the recognize births and deaths…for legal purposes), then wouldn’t divorce–when necessary–also be the purview of the Church, with the State merely recognizing it (instead of granting it)?

Seems to make sense to me…

ZYX
ZYX
8 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

Can you make sense of the last sentence?

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
8 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

Consider getting a book on “matrimonial regimes.” Only 9 of the 50 states have community property regimes but in all of them there are going to be third parties with claims on the couple of some sort – most obviously the mortgage on the house they bought together.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

As Kelly suggests, you need the power of sword to deal with things like property issues, custody issues, third parties with interest in the marriage, etc. Of course a couple can amicably agree on those things and that sometimes happens. But if one party claims the right to make off with all the bank accounts and take the kids across the continent, somebody with real power over those who don’t necessarily consent to abide by it, has to at least be in the background acting as a check. The church can and should excommunicate people who steal each other’s money… Read more »

Malachi
Malachi
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

I agree with you. I was wondering if the “right” system would require folks to have the Church grant the divorce first…then the State, recognizing such annulment, draws the sword to enforce the legal matters of who gets what. It’s the same line of thinking that says the Church grants the marriage and the State recognizes it and enforces the various laws that pertain to the married couple. In either case, I suggest the State should not be the one performing the rites, but in each simply files the records (duly witnessed) and nods in agreement with what the Church… Read more »

herewegokids
herewegokids
8 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

The only truly biblical approach to divorce imo is that of the Catholic church and one big reason why I converted. No sacramental (definition clear but complex in canon law) marriage can be undone. If there is abuse neglect mental illness etc…civil divorce or separation is allowed, even encouraged for the protection of spouse and or children. The Church strives for a generous spirit when ruling on the sacramental nature of an individual marriage. Basically its when free and informed consent was given. If your spouse lied to you bfore marriage about a variety of things, that is grounds for… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
8 years ago

At least you finally got to what is really on your mind in the last paragraph, that took forever? “We’re all on the same team right? You with me? Okay great! Now swallow this las bit.” Do you think that in the wake of Natalie’s blog, that anyone but your hardcore ‘bite back’ christian sycophants buy that pastoral confidentiality blarney at all? Especially with your history of chuckling threats to expose others who have confided in you? I see little compassion. Much hubris.

HC
HC
8 years ago

We do know how Cain killed Abel…

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. -1 John 3:12

The word “slew” is “sphazo,” – “to slay, slaughter, butcher, by cutting the throat.” It was used in classical Greek of slaughtering victims for sacrifice by cutting the throat, also of animals tearing by the throat, of any slaughter by knife or sword. It is used in the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament), of the slaying of the Levitical sacrifices.

timothy
timothy
8 years ago

n counseling, here are some things — given to us by God for our good — that I have seen weaponized. The permanence of marriage…..

You are describing here, a breach of covenant authority by a covenant head. The victim is under no moral obligation to submit to un-godly authority.

I submit that it is the duty of the body of Christ to support the victim financially etc until the authority submits to God.

Our hands are not tied here ‘because the marriage is inviolate’.

my 2 cents.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago
Reply to  timothy

I think that’s implicit at the point where he points out the difference between the “hard saying of Jesus” and the “adamantine saying of Jesus.” I think the point he’s making is not that our hands are tied by marriage being inviolate, but that wisdom requires we recognize what’s going on when the failed covenant head starts invoking the inviolability of marriage: someone who has completely failed to obey Jesus in his marriage and apparently resists help in becoming more obedient, wants to make everybody else obey Jesus for his benefit. Once you realize that’s going on, and clear away… Read more »

timothy
timothy
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

someone who has completely failed to obey Jesus in his marriage and
apparently resists help in becoming more obedient, wants to make
everybody else obey Jesus for his benefit. Once you realize that’s going
on, and clear away the fog the malefactor is trying to create, you can
address what’s going on soundly.

How can this be addressed? These guys are walking time-bombs.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Probably by giving the wife cover to leave. So I’m not saying you’re wrong that there are times when leaving is appropriate, just that I think you have to establish the fact first that this guy is trying to play you before you can see your way to clear to giving good counsel. It’s not like “he’s right, except here’s an exception.” it’s that “he’s wrong because he’s trying to use the truth self-servingly, which is the same thing as a lie. So even when he’s right he’s wrong, because he’s shilling for the father of lies.”

timothy
timothy
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

A lot of very nice people get beaten down by ‘mr. right’. I am glad you are there to help them and that there is an out.

thx Jane.

"A" dad
"A" dad
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Lady Dunsworth, Tim and L’, A great example of the “everybody else obey Jesus for his benefit” people, are the pseudo christian trolls who write on this blog.

They say things like “Wilson is a bad guy because he is mean and not loving.” When in reality, Wilson is in the “hard teaching makes for soft hearts” camp.
While Jane is quite correct that the “fog” has to be pushed back, this blog is a monument to how hard that fog is to push back.

"A" dad
"A" dad
8 years ago

“Once a decade has passed, and the Internet social justice trolls — I speak of that special breed, the ones with telepathic powers — get hold of the hard facts, they can all lay about them, hip and thigh.” Shouldn’t that last use of the word “facts” be in quotation marks? And, “they can lay (out) all about them, hip and thigh” = clobber everyone in “sight”? AKA, an abusive, telepathic social justice troll, like an abusive spouse of any gender, will use fact, fiction and scripture as a stick to beat whoever they will for their own reasons. Is… Read more »

ME
ME
8 years ago

Wow. Thank you for this post. Well said. It weighs heavy on my heart when scripture is sometimes distorted and weaponized. I love headship, submission, marriage. I love how you can soften your heart, pour respect over a husband and change everything. But on the flip side, there are some men who make that whole dance sound ugly, as if women are not really people, as if to submit means to render oneself a doormat, or a stepford wife or something. And when I encounter those kind of men, I don’t want to talk about love, submission, respect, at all,… Read more »

timothy
timothy
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

There is a spirit about these men that kill joy, laughter, thought, growth–instead of husbanding all to Him he stands in the way to Him. I could not imagine being married to such a man; it would be a living hell.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

I want to talk about church discipline and Nehemiah 13:25. It wasn’t the same issue there, but sometimes that kind of “aggressive admonition” is just what the doctor ordered.

Second amendment is a good last line of defense, but sometimes I want to smack elders around for not smacking around the right people.

Evan
Evan
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Well I’ve never had my hair pulled out by an elder, but I’ve been cuffed in the back of the head by one for being an idiot. Needless to say the ‘cuff’ brought the point home to me. :)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago
Reply to  Evan

That story warms my heart. Seriously.

It’s not that I get thrills from people being smacked around, but I find it deeply encouraging that there are men who who understand that shepherding sometimes requires doing stuff that would not be appropriate otherwise (and that ought to be somewhat distasteful to a gentle heart), because strong measures are needed. I don’t want to see stuff like that done at a drop of the hat, but I applaud the wisdom that sees the need and the courage to follow through in those (hopefully) rare situations.

herewegokids
herewegokids
8 years ago

Wow…I’ve seen a lot of passive aggressive in my time but this….so cowardly.