May 30, 2018

A Reader writes,

------ Original Message ------
From: "karen"
To: "littleflock"
Sent: 5/29/2018 12:29:39 PM
Subject: The Royal Wedding 

Dear Chris 

I have a question and I wondered if you had any thoughts on this, or whether it was something you might want to ask the circle about.

I have been somewhat troubled that the Archbishop of Canterbury officiated at the wedding of Harry and Meghan. 

My understanding is that Meghan divorced her first husband, citing irreconcilable differences. Of course, we don't know what went on and whether her husband was actually unfaithful (according to media, they grew apart and she divorced him suddenly).

My understanding of the Scriptures in Mark 10: 11-12  is that a man or woman who divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery with that other ( 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.) 

I don't know whether Harry and Meghan are believers, and I don't judge them.

My issue is that the head of the Church of England has not - at least apparently not - stood for the Word of God. 

The only statement I can find by the Archbishop is that: "the Church of England has "dealt" with the divorce and it is "not a problem." Of course, the Church of England itself was founded on Henry VIII's desire to divorce so he could have a son.

I understand the couple were living together before the engagement. 

I just don't understand what is going on. The Queen, who has staunchly followed the Biblical mandate in the past, has not stood up for God's word.

I thought I would ask if there was an article or perhaps a thought you had. 

Many blessings.

Karen

------ Original Message ------
From: "littleflock"
To: "karen"
Sent: 5/30/2018 2:50:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Royal Wedding 

Thanks for writing, Karen.

I don't have an article on this subject. But where I have come to based on consideration of all the scriptures is that divorce is permissible for any offense that would have earned the death penalty under the Law of Moses, which covered far more than divorce. (Abuse is a gray area, but if it rose to the level of the spirit of murder, I believe it too would qualify, even though an actual death penalty might not be exacted—not sure how the Mosaic Law would look at that).

But in any situation where the death penalty would have been carried out—including flagrant open idolatry and witchcraft—the other spouse would be free to divorce and re-marry. Even though the death penalty is not carried out today on most capital offenses identified in the Torah, the effects of death-worthy sin still kills a marriage, unless a grace is drawn upon to save the marriage in spite of the crime committed against it. But if not, the innocent party is free to divorce and remarry.  (For some more solid reading on this, I recommend Ray Sutton's book Second Chance and Derek Prince's teaching on divorce and remarriage.)

Obviously the public doesn't really know anything about the background to this particular royal wedding. (I certainly don't, and I haven't even paid any attention to it.) But what I know is that Jesus said that in the end times men would be "marrying and giving in marriage." I once heard a teaching that said that this was actually a reference to prevalent divorce and re-marriage, and, though I have not studied that out, I am minded to believe it to be the meaning. It goes with the underlying fact that men in the end times are covenant breakers, which is a department of lying, thus forsaking covenants. And it is also because people freely commit those things that are "worthy of death" (Rom. 1:32) thus destroying covenants. People lie and murder against the covenants and oaths they swear according to truth. This is because truth has departed from the land. And therefore marriage is readily disposable in these times.

The spirit of covenant breaking affects all social sectors today, from the lowliest dedicated Christian family (like mine) to the worldly royal family. No stratum is immune. What used to be scandalous is now matter of fact. And as the psalm says, "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" I know really little about Queen Elizabeth, though she has already struck me as a noble lady given to high values. Nevertheless, what is even a queen to do against such a world spirit as covenant breaking that has ravaged her own family (Isn't that what happened with Charles and Diana no less?)

So as for the archbishop, you accurately noted that the Anglican Church is actually founded on the preservation of divorce for any cause. Not a good founding heritage there. That church is after all only a revised version of Catholicism. And the Anglican Church leaders like 17th century Bishop Laud persecuted those who sought to live by a purer spiritual truth, burning people at the stake no less. So I have never held the Anglican Church in particularly high esteem or with any high moral expecation, though it has had its brighter lights.

So I can't really comment on the present determinations of the current archbishop. If he is basically an apologist for covenant breaking, it would not shock me. Then again, perhaps the man has a righteous streak and knows something about the true facts that would have justified this divorce and remarriage. I just can't comment because I don't know.

Hope these few thoughts might stir toward gaining a larger helpful picture. 

Blessings, Karen!

Chris Anderson
New Meadow Neck, Rhode Island