The Fencepost

There’s already been much said in reaction to Pat Robertson’s comments regarding marriage and Alzheimer’s disease on his 700 Club television program September 13. Allow me to point out the highlights.

I was first made aware of Robertson’s comments by Denny Burk, a professor at Boyce College in Louisville. He posted the video of the 700 Club segment in question. You can see it for yourself on YouTube.

On Thursday Southern Seminary’s Dean of Theology, Russell Moore, a man whom I respect greatly (and who would have been my Dean had I remained at Southern), posted his own blog reaction. He also appeared on CNN Friday to summarize the views about which he wrote.

As I made my own comment on Burk’s blog and read the comments of others, I witnessed a mix of “I can’t believe he said that” and “Shouldn’t we wait to pass judgment until we know the whole story?” One person I follow on Twitter implied that the fact that the husband to whom Robertson referred had already begun a relationship with another woman should change the way we interpret Robertson’s remarks.

Moore has already clearly expressed the biblical view of fidelity without compromise either to one’s spouse or toward modern societal fancies. I can’t do it any better.

So allow me to express this situation from my point of view as the son of a person with Alzheimer’s disease.

My father cares for my mother, who is in mid-stage of Alzheimer’s, full-time. He retired from a job with the State of California several years ago. The money he saved over the years, plus the benefits from former employment, help to fund his current life mission.

My mother is totally dependent on my father. Recently he had to lobby his healthcare provider to pay for a skilled in-home care expert to visit their home two days a week to helm my mom with basic personal care, which she can no longer perform adequately herself.

My mom used to love to cook and garden with my dad. Growing up there was rarely a night that she didn’t have dinner on the table for all of us. You should see the gorgeous backyard my parents created and maintained together. Mome grew dazzling roses and loved to talk about them. Those are things my dad does by himself now.

They still enjoy watching TV together, and even get out to see the occasional live jazz concert. Sometimes, though, my mom can’t distinguish between what’s happening on TV and what’s real.

Every day, my dad prays to God for the strength to care for his wife one more day. In one email last year, he told me he’s actually thankful that God orchestrated the events of their lives so that he could be there to love and care for this woman, my mother.

This January they will celebrate their 50th anniversary. My siblings and I will be there to share in their joy. The fact that they are still together despite my mom’s disease gives even more cause for celebration.

My dad is an example of faithful love. His life is a testimony to the truth of biblical fidelity in marrage, no matter what.

Pat Robertson’s remarks espouse the worst sort of subjective, experiential “Christianity” that is divorced from submission to bibical authority. He does not represent my faith or, if I may be bold enough to speak for him, that of my dad. Robertson’s comments were irresponsible, weak, and shameful. For the sake of the church at-large he should have the decency at this point to step down from his position and never seek to appear on television again.

I sincerely hope Robertson repents of his actions and seeks forgiveness from the God who has never abandoned him.

Back in May I wrote in response to a blog post by Randy Elrod in which he questioned the validity of using the word “lost” to describe unsaved people in modern culture. In summary, I believe no one has the right or authority to decide which words in the Bible remain useful or appropriate in any context. That’s an area in which God alone has the right of way. Christians should defend the authority and relevance of Scripture wherever it is maligned or demoted in the church. However, Christians must also remain obedient to the Word while defending it. There’s a fine balance we must maintain to correct those who challenge the Bible while avoiding behavior that would bring necessary correction on ourselves.

A few weeks after that post our pastor preached a message from Proverbs 9 titled “Valuing Correction,” pausing in his expository series in Galatians to cover a topic that figures prominently in Paul’s letter to these churches. But it was only days before this that he graciously offered me my very first opportunity to preach. This is something for which I have been praying and hoping for three years. Not long after he and I met to discuss how I would approach the Galatians passage he had assigned me. Once that task was finished, he moved our discussion to a different topic before we parted ways for the day.

He had read my response to Randy Elrod and had a word of caution for me. Now that I’m entering into a season of life in which preaching opportunities may come my way, I should be more careful about how I portray aspects of my character, such as my defense of the gospel and biblical orthodoxy. He was concerned that the tone of my blog post didn’t exude a the proper care and respect befitting a future pastor or preacher. Having had time to consider his views, and especially after hearing his sermon from Proverbs 9, I have to agree that he was correct.

But here’s the other thing: I recall when I wrote that post, there was a moment before I clicked “Publish” in which I hesitated. I wondered if what I was doing was right, if I had expressed my thoughts the best way possible – not only as a theologian but as a responsible believer. And even though I did hesitate in my heart, I published it anyway. In hindsight that was probably the Holy Spirit trying to prevent me from doing something dumb.

So Randy, if you happen to read this, I apologize for straying into snark and sarcasm as I defended my position against your non-literal approach to biblical interpretation. While I in no way retract the substance of my response, I regret the tone with which I communicated it. Please forgive this brother in Christ. I intend to leave my post as-is because it was a truthful expression of my mind and heart at the time, and besides we all know that everything we put on the internet is “out there” forever, even if we alter or delete it.

I closing, I would like to say that one of the reasons I was willing to agree with my pastor’s correction is that he not only preaches this principle faithfully, but lives it honestly. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend … ” (Pr. 27:6, ESV).

This post originally appeared on the Bridge Church blog, as a request from our pastor, Josh Howerton. We’re currently in a sermon series titled “First Spring-Hillians,” in which Josh is preaching based on the most-often submitted questions to an online survey. Lest you think this is just another topical sermon series, Josh has approached each of these sermons so far with a healthy mix of information, insight, and gospel. I’m please to republish this post here for my readers.

Although divorce and remarriage are commonplace in American culture, we can’t allow culture to dictate to the church what is acceptable. In other words, we can’t bend doctrine to fit a cultural norm. If both divorce and remarriage have become accepted, it may be because we have forgotten or ignored biblical teachings on the subject.

We also must state plainly that divorce and remarriage, if done sinfully, would not be sins that lie outside of God’s reach of grace. Christ died for all sins, and He will forgive any person who genuinely repents of a divorce or remarriage that falls outside His perfect will.

God created marriage when he created man and woman – male and female – in His image, giving them dominion over all animal and plant life (Gen. 1:26-27). He created the woman out of the man to compliment him in every way and be a suitable helper for him in all his work in the earth (Gen 2:18-25). In these passages we also see God’s command for the man and woman to have children, which means that marriage is God’s instrument for the creation and sustenance of families. So God made man and woman for marriage, and made marriage for them.

Divorce is seldom mentioned in the Bible, and not until Leviticus 21, in which God states that the Levite priests may not marry divorced women. In Deuteronomy 22, God commands that a man who falsely accuses his wife of not being a virgin on their wedding night should be whipped and was barred from ever divorcing the woman.

Probably the best known verse on divorce is Malachi 2:16. And yet the familiar “I hate divorce” does not appear in the ESV. This translation places the action of hatred on the divorcing husband toward his wife, instead of on God toward divorce itself. This translation indicates how the Old Testament speaks of divorce elsewhere. It is seen as an act of violence against a woman, something like cruel treachery. This makes sense for two reasons: God sees marriage as sacred and holy; and in a patriarchal culture such as Israel’s divorce would be a weapon men could easily wield against women.

We learn from Jesus that marital unfaithfulness is the only reason for divorce not equated with adultery (Matt. 5:31-32). Later (Matt. 19:3-9) Jesus restates this principle, explaining to the Pharisees that Moses allowed for divorce only because the Israelites’ hearts were hardened toward God’s will. The apostle Paul clarified the proper place for divorce in the church in 1 Cor. 7. There he wrote with spiritually mis-matched married couples in mind, stating that believers should remain with their unbelieving spouses. However, if the unbeliever abandoned the marriage, the believer was free from the obligations of that commitment.

What about cases of spousal abuse, physical or otherwise? As Josh pointed out in his Jan. 23 sermon on homosexuality, the “argument from silence” is extremely weak.  Scripture does not speak on what should be done in case of violence in a marriage. Thus, we must default to common Christian wisdom. An abusive spouse must come under the biblical discipline of church elders, even being put out of the church and treated as an unbeliever when unrepentant. Looking out for the welfare of every church member, it should be the duty of its leadership to protect an abused spouse, understanding that divorce may be the only remedy.

Studying this subject we find the proper chain of biblical interpretation. Jesus brought to light what the Old Testament only partially explained, and Paul’s epistle helps us interpret Jesus’ teachings. Marriage is a sacred and holy institution we must preserve because it glorifies God and solidifies the family. Divorce should be permitted by the church when there is a case of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. A single believer who has previously divorced should remain free to remarry to another believer with the church’s full support and consent. In all things, we should celebrate whenever a Christian man and woman choose to commit their lives to each other in marriage.

Sitting in the waiting room of a walk-in medical clinic in upstate Vermont, playing a game of Bookworm on my iPhone, I never expected to receive a call from the subjects of one of my blog posts. But that’s exactly what happened yesterday afternoon.

We’re on vacation and my older son had symptoms of an ear infection. So, with plenty of time on our hands and a good medical plan, we ventured about 25 miles south to the nearest clinic. We had been waiting for about 20 minutes when my phone rang.

“Hello?”

“Is this Dan Kassis?”

“Yes, it is.”

“This is Don Whitney at Southern Seminary.”

(Stunned silence.)

Honestly it took me a minute to remember where I knew that name. And as Prof. Whitney explained how he found my number, it dawned on me. “Oh yes,” I said to myself, “Don Whitney. The author of ‘Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life.’ The book we read in my seminary class last spring. The one about which I wrote a blog post three months ago.” Yep, that Don Whitney.

My initial shock turned to relief as I remembered that Whitney’s book was the one I had found much more favorable than that of Richard Foster. Still, I was concerned that I had written something about Whitney’s book that he had found inaccurate or offensive. So I listened for about 20 minutes as the professor explained the reasons for his call.

As it turns out, I have a new friend and ally in the Southern Baptist Convention in this struggle for biblical spirituality. Dr. Whitney’s degree programs at Southern in this emphasis exist in part to turn the tide against contemplative spirituality and mysticism in Evangelical churches. He has changed many of his views since writing his book in 1991. And, in fact, his publisher has finally agreed to allow Whitney to write a revised edition for its 20th anniversary in 2011. Don explained that he plans to remove references to unbiblical teachers and teachings. We should expect a much more doctrinally sound book next year.

Dr. Whitney, I was told, has experienced a great deal of trouble because of references in his original book to which he no longer subscribes. I would encourage anyone who takes issue with what he teaches to consult his website, BiblicalSpirituality.org. Don was also gracious enough to point me to a BP News article he wrote last year clarifying his views on journaling. Then there’s another excellent article on spirituality he has written for R.C. Sproul’s “Table Talk” website, which I was blessed to read prior to its being published in January 2011. All in all, I can only deduce that there’s more to Don Whitney than I understood.

If you’re a blogger, understand that the people about whom you write can find you. They can read what you write, and they can respond, for better or worse. And also realize that what you think you knew about someone can be wrong. And it’s what you do in those cases that will determine what kind of blogger you are.

Expect another follow-up post on Don Whitney in the near future, once I’ve had the change to read and digest all of his recent work. And you can be sure I will read the new edition of his book next year.