Matthew 5:31-32

Our text for today is Matthew chapter 5 verses 31 and 32.

Matthew 5:31

As has been said a number of times now, it's a difficult text.

! And it's a difficult text because, as we look at the larger teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage in the Bible, the waters can get a little bit muddy.

And it's a difficult text because almost all of us have been affected by divorce in one way or another.

And so it's a very real, present issue for us.

At the end of July 2014, in our verse-by-verse study of Mark's Gospel,

we came to some of Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage in Mark chapter 10 verses 1 through 12.

Mark 10:1–12

At that time, I presented two widely accepted conservative views.

And I framed them as, number one, the more permissive view.

And number two, the more restrictive view, often called the permanence view.

But I did not settle for you or for myself, quite frankly, which view we ought to hold as a church.

And I suggested that we needed to settle the matter as a church.

That it was a weighty enough issue that we should, in fact, work through it.

It is astounding to me that it has been four years, almost to date.

In fact, last Sunday would have been four years to the date since we first stated the need for a formal position on the matter.

Many churches, we've discovered, have no formal position on this at all.

But as we saw the need for it, four years have passed by already.

Initially, my fervency for the issue was derailed by simple schedule conflicts that made it absolutely impossible.

I wrote seemingly impossible.

It was impossible for our elders to gather that fall of 2014.

And then life happened.

Everything else in our world just kept on moving on.

And we didn't get to time out everything else going on in our personal lives and in the life of the church to study the matter.

Since then, we've preached through the rest of Mark, Colossians, Ecclesiastes.

I'm pretty sure the book of Jonah, the parable of the prodigal son, and the book of Acts.

We've begun new ministry efforts like training for the Center for Biblical Counseling and the ABBA initiative,

our foster care and adoption initiative.

We have sent out new ministry partners.

For example, the Zwimpkes to Germany and Oseama Obele to Brazil.

We've said goodbye to many people.

Our dearest of brothers, Sid, went home to be with the Lord, and we grieved that loss together.

We said goodbye to Wes and Liz.

As I mentioned earlier, Wes was an elder of our church and music leader,

and we've worked through the labor, the effort of replacing all of the work that both of them did for our church.

We have done lots of premarital counseling and officiated numerous weddings.

I think 15 in the past four years.

And praise the Lord, we've had a lot of babies.

My family included, which definitely made for a tough year for our family personally.

Silas is now two years old.

So, life moved on, and the situation got shelved.

Not forgotten, but shelved.

And so, I am once again grateful for our general habit as a church of verse-by-verse exposition of God's Word.

As in God's good design, we've been brought to the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage once again.

And I will tell you, to just be entirely honest, I would have loved just to have skipped these two verses for now.

If you're paying attention, you know I've delayed them a little bit.

We've done a few things topically over the past couple of weeks.

I want to, right now at the outset, just burst the bubble of anticipation for you this morning.

I do not intend to settle the matter today.

I appreciate the prayers that you guys have had on my behalf, both prior to and this morning as well.

Even this week, I had every intention of sorting out every detail.

To be honest, I'm not sure I could even preach a reasonably-length sermon to cover all of the massive amount of information that ought to be covered.

I had really hoped, but I have yet, despite an incredible number of hours of prayerful study,

to sort out all of the complexities of the matter.

If you find that you have a confident position on divorce and remarriage,

you have either, A, made assumptions based on how you have heard the matter taught,

you just grew up believing a certain thing about marriage, divorce, and remarriage,

and so you're just assuming, and it may be the right teaching, but you're assuming that it's right.

Or you've not spent nearly enough time in reading broadly, reading opposing arguments,

hearing all of the many interpretations of the many texts that speak to the matter.

Or you are much more brilliant than I am, which is a distinct possibility.

I want to be clear.

I don't dare think myself the most brilliant amongst us.

Or you have spent considerable time on the matter,

carefully weighing out the teaching and varied interpretations,

and have arrived at a position.

And if this is the case for you, I would ask that you would come speak with me.

I find myself in this process, and your input would be most welcome.

So we're not going to sort it all out this morning.

I do hope that you can appreciate my desire not to be brash on this topic.

It has real application for today.

And I think we should be careful about the lines that we draw concerning it.

I believe that the consequences are too dire to take an issue like this lightly.

I also hope that you can sense this morning my earnest longing

to lead our truth, our church in truth and love,

and not to divorce the two.

Pun intended.

What I promise is that from this date forth,

we will not settle this issue in a matter of years,

but rather in a matter of months.

I intend, and you can be praying for me,

to present a position paper to you,

I hope, in the coming few weeks,

for your prayerful consideration and conversation,

and for us to discuss at our next quarterly members meeting,

which is at the beginning of October, I believe.

So, we are going to look at today's text,

and we are going to talk about today's text,

but we are not going to work out every bit of its possible meaning for us today.

All the same, let me remind you before I read Matthew 5,

Matthew 5:31

verses 31 and 32,

beloved, that this is God's word to us.

It was written for His glory and our good.

We would all do well to listen to it in order to believe its promises

and obey its commands.

So, I read in verse 31,

It was also said,

Whoever divorces his wife,

let him give her a certificate of divorce.

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,

except on the ground of sexual immorality,

makes her commit adultery,

and whoever marries a divorced woman,

commits adultery.

Now, we are in Jesus' most famous of sermons,

we commonly call the Sermon on the Mount.

And recall the two prominent themes of the Sermon on the Mount

are number one, human flourishing.

What does it look like to live well as a citizen of God's kingdom?

And we have seen that the human flourishing that Jesus teaches

is not the same as the flourishing of the world.

Jesus says,

Blessed are those who are poor in spirit,

and mourn,

and are meek,

and hungry,

and thirsty for righteousness,

and merciful,

pure peacemakers.

Those who are persecuted for righteousness,

Jesus tells us are flourishing.

And the second theme that we have seen,

and really is beginning to pick up some steam now,

is the theme of whole person righteousness.

Not merely outward appearance of righteousness,

but a holiness that indwells us,

that affects our thoughts,

and our attitudes,

and our intentions,

as well as our actions.

Jesus has taught us that citizens of his kingdom

are keepers of the law.

Not that they gain their citizenship by being keepers of it,

but that they have been granted citizenship,

and their keeping of the law evidences their citizenship.

Right?

And this law keeping,

this righteousness,

is not just this outward thing.

Right?

It is a whole person thing.

This is what Jesus means when he says in Matthew 5,

in verse 20,

For I tell you,

unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,

you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

We spent quite a bit of time looking at the law,

and going back to Exodus 20,

and considering all of the implications of the moral law for us.

So, with this idea in mind,

Jesus begins to press this point

by using a series of phrases,

beginning in Matthew 5,

Matthew 5:21

verses 21 and 22.

You see, at the beginning of verse 21,

he says,

You have heard that it was said to those of old.

And then in verse 22,

But I say to you.

So, there's this pattern that follows through chapter 5.

He does this six times through the end of the chapter.

And what he is doing is correcting the common misinterpretations of the law in his day.

He is correcting the mere pharisaical outward appearance understanding of these laws.

And he is showing his listeners then and us now

how it is that we are to embody the law as citizens of his kingdom.

And he does this in this pattern.

You have heard it was said,

but I say to you.

He does this six times over.

So, in Jesus' teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage,

which this is just a snapshot of.

So, if you have heard me read the text and you've gone,

that seems incredibly clear.

Just hang on.

This is just one of the teachings on it.

And it gains some complexity, I believe.

What he's doing is he's correcting something.

He's bringing a clear understanding to something.

He begins in verse 31.

It was also said,

whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.

And Jesus here is referring to an interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, verses 1-4.

Deuteronomy 24:1–4

The interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, verses 1-4.

Deuteronomy 24:1–4

And I want you to hear me.

I'm going to read it.

And you can get there quickly if you want to.

But listen quickly.

It's a case law issue, Deuteronomy 24,

which says,

when a man takes a wife and marries her,

if she then finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her,

and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house,

and she departs out of his house,

and if she goes and becomes another man's wife,

and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce

and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house,

or if the latter man dies who took her to be his wife,

then her former husband, who sent her away,

may not take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled.

For that is an abomination before the Lord,

and you shall not bring sin upon the land that your Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Okay?

And so, the Pharisees of the day had interpreted this commandment, right?

Which is a very specific commandment.

It's a very specific issue that has taken place,

and you'll see in some coming months how it applies to the total argument.

But what we have to recognize at first is what they thought.

What was it that they had done with these four verses?

The reigning opinion in the matter was given by a rabbi named Hillel.

He was the liberal rabbi of the day.

He had in fact died 20 years before this,

but all the same, it was his view that prevailed.

Rabbi Hillel promoted divorce for any reason at all.

He had said, if your wife burns your dinner, you can divorce her.

He's also quoted saying, for any reason, unload that woman.

So, his interpretation was, merely as long as a certificate is given,

you can divorce for any reason whatsoever,

which is a pretty fast and loose interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, verses 1 through 4.

Deuteronomy 24:1–4

I think that you will agree.

Later in Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3 through 8,

Matthew 19:3–8

we see a similar response by Jesus, but this time he's being tested.

Verse 3 says,

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking,

Who are you going to side with, Jesus, is what they were asking.

They said, is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause, as Hillel had said.

Jesus answered, this is verse 4,

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

and said,

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother,

and hold fast to his wife,

and the two shall become one flesh.

So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What therefore God has joined together,

let not man separate.

They said to him,

Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?

And he said to them,

Because of your hardness of heart,

Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.

But from the beginning,

it was not so.

So something that we can be sure of in this text

is that the reigning opinion of the day

was that you could divorce your wife or your husband

for any reason whatsoever,

just as long as you did it through the legal channels.

It was no big deal.

And Jesus' response,

we can see in Matthew 19,

very clearly is,

This is not what God intended for our marriages.

God designed our marriages to be more permanent than that.

They are in fact weighty promises that we make to one another when we are married.

He is correcting this huge misconception.

And we live in a day much like that.

Misconceptions needing to be corrected.

So Jesus goes on to say,

and we get into some of the more challenging and more troubling words,

I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife

except on the grounds of sexual immorality

makes her commit adultery.

And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And it does not matter which view you hold.

All of these views make a case

that you have to understand

the culture of the day

and the nature of divorce laws.

And they make opposing arguments

using the very same premises,

which seems like a real moving target.

It is hard to plant your flag on this one,

I would contend.

Again,

you might be more brilliant than I am

and be able to pull it off.

But I've heard the same arguments made

to support a different view,

which I think that if you have a premise,

it should lead to a conclusion.

So it can be quite frustrating altogether.

So there are a broad spectrum of views

concerning divorce and remarriage.

And clearly some of them are outside of orthodoxy, right?

Would be like the teaching of Hillel in our day,

a no-fault divorce teaching

that you can divorce for any reason,

you can remarry for any reason,

it does not matter.

Certainly as a church,

we are not on that end of the spectrum

concerning the issue.

And I would suggest that there are

two widely accepted conservative views,

which I mentioned to you previously,

and I'll give you some more details about here

in a moment.

Previously, I called them

the more permissive view

and the more restrictive view.

And I have found it extremely problematic

to give these views names.

No matter what I seem to do,

one of them gets framed in the positive

and one in the negative.

It's a very difficult thing to do.

Permissive and restrictive, for example.

You can bring whatever thoughts you have

to those words.

Permissive in your mind could be a negative.

Restrictive in your mind could be a negative.

As of late, as our church,

in various formats,

have been having lots of conversation about this,

I've been using the titles

broader view and narrower view.

I recognize, once again,

this is problematic.

Some of you, when you hear the word broad,

may think of the way that leads to destruction.

That's not what I mean by it.

Some of you, when you hear narrow,

may think of narrow-mindedness.

And this is not what I mean either by this.

So, I'm going to use those terms,

but I recognize that they're problematic terms

all the same.

So, a few details about each of these views

to prime your minds,

to get you thinking about these issues.

Number one, the broader view.

The broader view would say

that divorce is permitted

under certain circumstances,

although there's some fracturing here

about the particulars of those circumstances.

Most agree that when a spouse commits adultery,

is sexually unfaithful in a physical sense,

that divorce is permissible.

Or, when a spouse,

an unbelieving spouse,

deserts the relationship,

abandons the relationship,

this is 1 Corinthians chapter 7,

1 Corinthians 7 · chapter mention

that it is permissible,

and maybe even, some would say,

commanded that you grant a divorce

to that person.

Some contend that when a spouse

is dangerously abusive,

has given up on the covenant promises

that accompany a marriage,

that that falls in that abandonment clause

and layers and layers and layers.

Most who hold this view

would say that remarriage is permitted

to the non-offending spouse

when the divorce has occurred

for those aforementioned reasons.

Some would say it's permitted

with some parameters to any party,

and it's complex.

And it's complex.

That's where I'm at right now.

Second, the narrower view,

it's a bit simpler.

It's an attractive thing about it.

I would say that divorce is only permitted

when a believer is married

to an unbelieving spouse

who demands a divorce.

Some who hold this view

don't agree with that,

but most do.

Most would say that 1 Corinthians 7 text

applies here.

If you have an unbelieving spouse

who will not live peaceably with you,

abandons you,

demands divorce for the sake of peace,

it should be granted.

That's 1 Corinthians 7, 10 through 12,

I believe.

They also say in this narrower view

that remarriage is not permitted

under any circumstance

unless it's a reconciliation

to that spouse

provided that the spouse

is still alive.

So, as I've said,

it's not a clear-cut, simple issue.

It's been widely debated.

It would seem throughout

the history of the church,

at least since the Reformation,

that broader view is held

by modern pastors

and scholars like

John MacArthur

and Andreas Kostenberger

as a professor at Southeastern,

now at Midwestern,

I just found out.

This is the most widely held

evangelical view,

again,

with some variances

within it.

It's historically held

by Protestants

like John Murray

who wrote a rather fine work on it.

The Westminster Confession

of 1647 reads,

In case of adultery

after marriage,

it is lawful

for the innocent party

to sue out a divorce

and after the divorce

to marry another

as if the offending party

were dead.

So there's some

veracity of this view held

both historically

and presently.

The narrow view

is held by modern pastors

and scholars

who we love

like Votie Bauckham

and John Piper.

Historically,

the Baptists of England,

when they adopted

the Westminster Confession,

which then became known

as the Second London

Baptist Confession,

which we are very fond of,

they omitted

the previously read paragraph

from the Westminster Confession.

They didn't say anything.

They just took it out.

So I don't know exactly

what they thought

on the matter.

My guess would be

that they weren't sure,

but that there were some,

at least amongst them,

that would have debated

for that narrower view

and wanted that statement removed,

and so it was done.

Either way,

from our text today,

we should see that

Jesus is adding

great weight

to marriage.

In fact,

in our conversations

about this,

I've wanted to express,

and I think that

at least most

who have joined me

in this

have done so,

that we pick up

a very, very

heavy weight.

Marriage,

when it was designed

to picture something,

it's important

and it matters

and it accomplishes

things in our lives,

and we set that heavy weight

on the one side

of the scale

in this conversation,

and then we begin

to talk about

the possibilities

for divorce

and remarriage,

and we drop

very little light,

light weights

onto the other side

of that scale,

right?

The weight of this one

crashes,

right?

This thing matters

on this side,

and then we go

dink,

dink,

dink over here.

Like,

we can be clear

about this,

right?

There are some

non-negotiable things,

right?

Some things that we

cannot and should not,

and I don't believe

any of us would want

to waver on

as we consider

this issue,

and so I want to talk

about those

non-negotiables.

I have five of them

for you.

If you were here

four years ago,

these are a repetition

of what we did

last time

we talked about

this matter.

So five non-negotiables.

Number one,

God presided

over the first marriage

and every subsequent

marriage,

right?

God created

the institution

of marriage

before He created

any other

institution.

It's the only

pre-fall institution

that God

created,

and He made it

very

good.

We see this

in Genesis

Genesis 2 · chapter mention

chapter 2,

and we saw

from our text

in Matthew

Matthew 19 · chapter mention

chapter 19,

Jesus quotes

from Genesis

2, 24,

and He goes on

to say,

what therefore

God has joined

together,

let not

man

separate.

Marriage

is a good

thing,

and it was

created for

our good

and for

the glory

of God.

So the

second,

non-negotiable,

is that God

created marriage

to give us

a shadow

of the

blessed

relationship

between Christ

and the

church.

We read about

this in Ephesians

Ephesians 5:22–33

chapter 5,

verses 22

through 33,

that Paul

works out

for us

this wonderful,

profound

mystery

that although

imperfectly,

our marriages

are meant

to display

this relationship.

The loving,

sacrificial

headship of

Jesus Christ

and the

humble submission

of the church

is meant

to be working

out in

our marriages.

Our marriages

are meant

to be holy

and set apart

in this way

for the glory

of God.

They're meant

to show

something

that is

permanent.

Jesus Christ

will never

fail

the church

and husbands.

We fail

our wives

so imperfectly

we display

this but

all the same

it's meant

to display

this.

And for

these reasons,

the third

non-negotiable

is that

divorce

is never

ideal.

Even those

who hold

that narrower

view must

admit that

it happens

at times.

But it

is never

ideal.

Malachi

Malachi 2 · chapter mention

chapter 2

and verse

16.

The ESV

says this,

for the man

who does not

love his wife

but divorces her

says the Lord,

the God of Israel,

covers his garment

with violence

says the Lord

of hosts.

So guard

yourselves

in your spirit

and do not

be faithless.

Now there's

some interpretive

challenges

in Malachi

Malachi 2 · chapter mention

chapter 2

and verse 16

and if you

have an ESV

you'll see a

footnote

concerning this

particular

interpretive

challenge.

The NASB

and many

other,

I think it's

actually most

other translations

render Malachi

2.16

this way.

Well I'll just

read you the

beginning.

At the beginning

of Malachi

2.16

they translate

for I hate

divorce

says the

Lord,

the God

of Israel.

God does

not desire

or intend

for any

of our

marriages

to end

in divorce.

This is why

we say

permanence

vows

whatever

view

we may

hold.

If you've

ever heard

me officiate

a wedding

we work

together

in that

time

in front

of people

who love

us

to make

huge

promises

to one

another

and all

of those

promises

are

until

death

do we

part

promises.

Never

ever

want

we

never

ever

desire

that a

marriage

would end

in divorce.

Fourth

non-negotiable

the marriage

covenant

is temporal

that is

death

breaks the

covenant

and gives

a remaining

spouse

the ability

to remarry.

this is a

non-negotiable

Romans chapter

Romans 7:2

7 verse 2

and 3

Paul writes

for a married

woman is bound

by law to her

husband while

he lives

but if her

husband dies

she is released

from the law

of marriage

accordingly

she will be

called an

adulteress

if she lives

with another

man while

her husband

is alive

but if her

husband dies

she is free

from that

law

and if she

marries another

man

she is not

an adulteress.

we can

recall

again

the Pharisees

coming to

test Jesus

and asking

about

multiple

marriages

and

whose

wife

who will

have a

husband

and he

says

do you

not

understand

this is

a temporal

thing

marriage

is a

momentary

thing

it's not

an

eternal

thing

it's

meant

for

the

life

of

covenant

together

if a

spouse

were to

pass

remarriage

as possible

and then

fifth

the fifth

non-negotiable

is that

divorce

and or

remarriage

after divorce

is not

an unpardonable

sin

it's not

an unpardonable

sin

and I

am

extremely

grieved

by how

many churches

seem to

make

members of

their

church

second

class

Christians

because of

some

past

sin

in

their

life

the

only

unpardonable

sin

is the

sin

of

unbelief

it's

denying

the

conviction

of

the

spirit

in

your

life

all

others

are

covered

plentifully

by the

blood

of

Jesus

Christ

both

views

either

way

hold

that

if

someone

is

wrongly

divorced

and or

wrongly

remarried

remarried

that these

are acts

of sin

but not

perpetually

not

perpetual

sin

that they

should be

confessed

from the

past

and certainly

avoided

in the

future

but they

are not

unforgivable

!

and these

things are

non-negotiable

for me

I believe

they would

be for

you

I believe

the cases

are clearly

made

for these

things

and so

hear

the

weightiness

of what

we believe

is of

good

value

about

marriage

I want

us to

settle this

again

many churches

don't

and my

assumption

is that

the

churches

that don't

have a

formal

view

on this

merely

bow to

the

pastor's

personal

view

on the

matter

he takes

care of

all of

the

counseling

he's the

one that

has to

be

making

decisions

on whether

or not

he'll

officiate

a wedding

etc

and so

they just

simply

appeal

to him

but

I believe

that we

need to

as a

church

form a

view on

this

in the

coming

months

because

we

believe

in a

congregational

church

polity

that is

to say

we believe

the bible

teaches

that in

matters

of

doctrine

and

discipline

it is

the

congregation

that holds

the power

to decide

these things

certainly

given some

leadership

from the

elders

of the

church

but that

you

ultimately

need to

be part

of the

process

of deciding

what the

bible

teaches

what view

we ought

to hold

as a

church

on this

matter

and of

course

many

others

that

means

that

this

is a

responsibility

that you

have to

take

up

you

have

to

get

involved

in

looking

at

the

texts

and

then

further

looking

at

the

cases

made

for

the

text

you

have

to

engage

your

mind

in

prayerfully

considering

where

we

ought

to

land

on

this

I'm

going

to

produce

I

promise

I'm

not

looking

forward

to

it

I

don't

esteem

myself

a

very

good

writer

but

I'm

going

to

produce

a

paper

that

you'll

need

to

carefully

consider

I'm

going to

say

I'm

proposing

Doug's

going to

join me

in that

this is

what we

propose

our

church

adopts

together

and then

we're

going to

have

a

conversation

about

it

and

I

don't

really

want

to

have

a

conversation

with

a

bunch

of

people

with

opinions

carefully

!

dialogue

about

the

matter

but

you have

to

get

engaged

you have

to

get

involved

and

we

have

to

decide

together

I

don't

have

the

power

to

plant

my

flag

and

say

this

will

be

our

flag

we need

to

do

this

together

secondly

we need

to do

this

together

because

these

matters

have

bearing

on

how

we

function

together

as

a

faith

family

what

we

will

permit

or

not

permit

so

what

we

will

call

sin

and

what

we

will

not

call

sin

there's

a

lot

of

implication

to

deciding

this

who

would

be

expected

to

repent

of

something

or

not

repent

of

something

or

if

they're

unwilling

to

repent

who

we

would

allow

in

church

membership

or

put

out

of

church

membership

if

they

don't

see

eye

to

eye

with

us

on

the

matter

right

and

that

process

of

permitting

members

and

seeing

members

out

communication

and the

process

of

discipline

is a

church

responsibility

it's not

just

mine

all of

the

difficult

things

don't

just

land

in

my

lap

we

bear

much

of

what

the

church

does

as

a

church

together

so

we

need

to

decide

it

together

third

we

must

contend

for the

truth

in this

generation

concerning

marriage

we

need

to

carefully

work

through

this

together

because

we

cannot

let

the

culture

at

large

define

truth

for

us

and

we

must

serve

as a

God

fearing

example

to

our

community

so

you

need

to

understand

the

case

you

need

to

be

able

to

articulate

in

some

measure

the

case

for

where

we

land

as

a

church

concerning

marriage

divorce

and

remarriage

fourth

I

believe

it's

going

to

be

good

for

us

to

go

through

this

process

together

because

it's

going

to

be

a

test

of

our

love

for

the

truth

it's

going

to

press

us

as

it

has

me

I

cannot

I

can't

express

to

you

in

unthought

out

words

how

tied

up

in

knots

I've

been

over

this

issue

I

believe

in

the

doctrine

of

the

clarity

of

scripture

and

that's

shaky

I

want

it

to

be

more

clear

on

this

matter

oh

the

scribbles

I

have

done

on

a

white

board

downstairs

I

have

approached

this

thing

from

all

kinds

of

angles

trying

to

blank

slate

and

start

over

and

blank

slate

and

start

over

it

will

I

think

if

taken

up

rightly

help

us

to

better

love

the

scripture

we

have

to

decide

things

and

these

things

have

implications

right

we

have

to

work

out

in

the

life

of

our

church

and

I

think

it

will

press

us

together

to

greater

love

for

the

truth

of

the

Bible

and

fifth

this

is

going

be

a

test

of

our

love

for

one

another

you

did

not

commit

right

speaking

to

members

to

this

church

as

a

set

of

programs

presentations

certainly

not a

not a

property

a

particular

position

on

something

but

as a

commitment

to

a

people

people

who

love

the

truth

of

God

who

are

trying

to

walk

together

in

the

truth

of

God

we

ought

not

hurl

doctrine

at

one

another

carelessly

and

Paul

writes

in

1

1 Corinthians 13 · chapter mention

Corinthians

chapter

13

and

verse

2

and

if

I

have

prophetic

powers

and

understand

all

mysteries

and

all

knowledge

that's

how

I

feel

right

now

about

this

particular

I

feel

like

I

have

to

at

the

moment

and

if

I

have

all

faith

so

as

to

remove

mountains

but

have

not

love

I

am

nothing

and

Paul

is not

here

minimizing

!

the

truth

but

he's

merely

saying

if we

could

understand

everything

that there

ever was

to

ever

understand

and

none

of us

do

right

so

we

have

less

than

this

to be

clear

but

we

have

not

love

if we

can't

walk

together

in

love

and

the

truth

then

we're

nothing

and

I

would

suggest

that

since

we

know

so

much

less

than

all

the

prophetic

powers

and

all

the

mysteries

and

all

the

knowledge

and

all

the

faith

that

we

would

be

less

than

nothing

if

we

can't

do

this

in

love

so

be

expecting

a

further

work

from me

on

this

matter

up

until

late

last

night

I

had

intended

to

do

more

just

unsettled

about

some

of

it

be

in

prayer

for

me

and

for

our

church

begin

having

scripturally

informed

conversations

with your

closest

relationships

in our

church

and

then

have

conversations

with

people

you

may

not

regularly

speak

with

don't

get

into

an

echo

chamber

talk

broadly

where

are you

coming

from

on

this

ask

that

question

of

people

you

will

be

asked

if

you're

a

member

to

vote

on

a

document

in

some

coming

months

be an

informed

voter

do not

take your

responsibility

as a

church

member