Why start a divorce ministry when other divorce ministries already exist? 

Am I arrogant, ignorant, confused, crazy, or is something else going on? 

As I interact with many other divorced Christians, and I mention the idea of my ministry partner and I beginning our own ministry for divorced people, I’m frequently, understandably, asked why. Other ministries, such as DivorceCare, exist, so why try to “re-invent the wheel?” 

This post is partly an apology, partly a concession, and mostly a series of clarifications on this topic. I’ve been out of the ministry world for a few years, and been through some rough things in the meantime, and so my approach when discussing this issue has on occasion fallen short of grace. Having a sense of calling toward a particular ministry doesn’t always mean that you know the right way to talk about it, even if you have a clear path. And to help clarify why we are doing what we are doing I’ve written this post. I hope it helps explain where we’re coming from and why we want to do what we’re doing.

Clarification #1. Ministering to divorced people, and helping church leaders do so better is perhaps my highest ministry goal.

Ever since my initial separation nearly three years ago, it’s become evident that the church and the divorced struggle with interacting with each other. Conflicting interpretations of biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage, pastors (not all) naive or oversimplified in their understanding of divorce issues, occasional judgmental glances of a handful of the self-righteous, and the disproportionately elevated pedestal marriage inhabits in the heart of the church, combine to make the church a difficult place to be for many divorced people. 

Likewise, the bitterness of the betrayed, their tendency to withdraw and isolate from (or else latch inappropriately close to) church leaders, emotional spiraling, vulnerability to temptation, and bewilderment regarding their own well-being, can make divorced people difficult for pastors to lead, particularly as they are going through the process, which most church leaders have not been through. 

As I went through the process myself, I realized that my own beliefs and assumptions about marriage and divorce, including those that guided my own preaching and teaching as a pastor, were not all correct and biblical. It turned out that my beliefs about the Bible’s teachings on divorce and remarriage, and even the nature of marriage itself, were largely based on assumptions. My own assumptions, which were largely based on others from whom I learned.  To  my surprise, contrary to what you would assume, depression can aid your Bible interpretation in making you more objective. Not always, but it can. I think it did in my case. 

It turns out that when the bottom has fallen out, you’ve plummeted as far down as you can go, and you have nothing to lose, spiritually or otherwise, you tend to not care enough to bring anything with you to the text. With no church to lead, no elders to please, no wife to impress, no doctrinal agreements to maintain, and faith I wasn’t sure I had anymore, I was motivated—obligated perhaps—to find out what this Book really says on the matter, rather than what I had always thought it said. It’s amazing the newfound appreciation you can gain when you abandon tradition, assumption, and theological commitments (as much as is possible anyway; no one is fully neutral), and just read the darn thing. Much more can be said about that. Best to leave that for another day.

My observation is that there exists a large gap between the recovery needs produced by the pain of divorce and the kinds of help the church is able to offer. That sentence is not intended to be as damning as it sounds; please note the normal usage of the word “able” in that last sentence and understand that intentions and motivations behind ministry efforts are not represented in that word. As a former minister, and a church member who has sought and received good pastoral counsel, and who has read numerous books on counseling (none of which make me close to an expert), I know more or less what is available for people in my situation, and the gap exists. Why? 

One reason is that interpretations of the relevant biblical texts vary wildly, which turns “ask your pastor” into a theological Forest Gump chocolate box. God only knows what opinion you’re going to get from your pastor. Depending on your individual church (not denomination, sadly), it could be anything from “divorce and remarriage are always sinful” to “divorce and remarriage are never sinful.” And no, that is not an exaggeration. Views on this issue really are that polarized. 

Another reason is that the ministry efforts that exist, while well-meaning, successful at conveying the mental, financial, and physical tole of the divorce process, and while reportedly helpful to many, fall short in providing an adequate framework for those affected to understand biblically and theologically what happened and why, as well as the way forward. More will be said about why I hold this opinion below. 

After discussing this gap with a good friend of mine we decided to start a ministry of our own for divorced people. This ministry of ours was both for them as well as to serve as a resource for church leaders. This ministry is now still in the planning phases and includes a podcast/youtube channel, online support group, and we are hoping to plan conferences as well. All of this is very much still in the works. 

I tell this story to show that my my heart for divorce recovery ministry is the same that produced DivorceCare and other similar ministries. I am in no way out to attack or tear down DivorceCare or dissuade people from attending. I am also not trying to compete with DivorceCare. I do not believe in ministry competition in the least, and there are aspects of ministry DivorceCare accomplishes that we simply cannot. The reality is there is far more agreement than disagreement between DivorceCare and our own ministry’s beliefs, assumptions and purposes. 

Yet, while there is much agreement, both in motivation and intent, there are at the same time beliefs and perspectives of ours that differ from those commonly held by many. While the majority of these differences are nuances more than real doctrinal differences, most of them we believe are meaningfully substantive. Some of our differences are also more methodological than theological, although the lines between the two blur when the methodology informs how the text is interpreted and the interpretation informs the methology…but I’ll also leave that for another day.

The largest area where our beliefs differ from some, is simply in the recognition that the biblical study of divorce and remarriage is more complicated than many realize. 

For example: 

The reasonable reader should realize that this is one of the more complicated of biblical issues to study and understand. And of course you still have to address how all of this ties into the overarching divine narrative and the gospel. There is nothing simple about these issues, biblical or otherwise, no matter how much we want them to be. 

Are we splitting hairs? I don’t think so. Church policy, teaching, and counseling regarding divorce and remarriage has serious, sometimes irreversible, impact on the lives of parishioners and their children. The church cannot afford to oversimplify this. Not when nearly half of marriages among Christians end in divorce, and when only half of those individuals remain in the church. 

Of course, this is just one of the areas in which our perspective is unique among some who seek to minister to divorced people. Below is a series of further concessions and clarifications, but for now let me say that none of this is designed to put down another ministry. That we have a unique and often unheard perspective does not mean we feel a sense of superiority. This is simply our passion. DivorceCare is a good thing, but it doesn’t do what all is needed, therefore more needs to be done in this area. In other words, we believe the road to post-divorce recovery requires a broader and deeper approach than what is currently available. Not only regarding the finer points of biblical texts and what they may or may not mean compared to our assumptions and traditions, but also regarding the effect worldview and assumptions have on our relationships and our expectations of them, and how the comparison of American marriage and divorce trends to other countries’ ties into that picture as well. I know personally that my own desire for a new relationship post-divorce took a major backseat as I began to study global marriage and divorce trends, looking at contributing factors, and seeing my own assumptions and beliefs as part of the problem.

Deep Truth 

The bottom line here is that divorce recovery, as with recovery from any other painful and traumatic event, requires deep truth. Deep, broad, big, sophisticated, nuanced, REAL truth. In other words, it requires God. There is nothing simple about God. God is deep, broad, big, sophisticated, nuanced and real. He is eternal, everlasting, the definitive name of Power, Might, Love and Justice. Simultaneously He is volcanic fire and refreshing water, Warrior King and Comforter, Righteous Judge and Sacrificial Lamb. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, Sustainer of Existence, the One who gives life and gives life its meaning. “He gives, and He takes away,” and along with Job creation says, “blessed be the name of the LORD.” 

Many will tell a divorced or divorcing person that God cares for them. YES! He does! But bear with me for a minute and let your mind and heart follow along. Set your agendas and the events of the day aside and just follow with me. Being told that God cares about you is wonderful….but it’s not the same as being told that your suffering is not meaningless, because the Glorified King became the Suffering Servant who suffered in your place in execution, and now suffers with you because when He made you His, He connected His own emotional state to yours so that when you suffer He suffers.

Being told that God cares is wonderful….but it is not the same as being told that God’s righteousness and holiness is so far above human comprehension, and that mankind’s sin and rebellion by comparison is more vile than eternal contemplation can reveal, such that when Christ returns as a warring judge to sweep away the remnants of rebellion from His earth, the angels in heaven will literally stand and praise Him for throwing those who refuse repentance into the eternal fire, ridding the world of their presence, and that this same God, before whom “the mountains will melt…and the valleys will split open like wax before the fire,” is the same God whose heart broke into pieces when your mom died last winter, and again when your boss called you out and belittled you in front of the office that one time, and even more when your husband, whom you loved, told you that it’s not his fault you’re not as hot as the girls in porn. Indeed, it is not the same. That God….He cares. Not just any God…that God. 

People don’t need to learn that God cares as much as they need to learn about God. If you tell someone who doesn’t know much about God that He cares, you might as well tell them the governor cares. Much more is needed to help people who have been ripped apart by the uglier parts of this life. “He cares” is basically meaningless unless the person knows something about Him. Because if they learn something about Him, then it means something when they learn that He cares. And then they will seek Him, because He cares. 

Clarification #2, A Concession: Ministry efforts need not be 100% biblically correct and accurate to be genuinely helpful. 

In my eagerness, I am sometimes guilty of sounding like a know-it-all, and in offering a critique I can inadvertently convey an assumption that I have a corner on the truth and have it all figured out. I know I won’t ever have it all figured out, so anything that sounds that way is completely unintentional. I recognize that every human ministry effort will inevitably be flawed to some degree, and that success, defined biblically, is not dependent on perfection or 100% accuracy. I have disagreements, some major, with many approaches to the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, and while I am opinionated, I do recognize that God uses failed people…that’s nearly the whole the point of the creation of the Church. Failed people, failed attempts, misguided methods, can all be used powerfully by God. In the same way that I can support and appreciate the US Constitution yet can have some criticisms and disagreements with it, I can have serious concerns about a ministry whose contribution I still genuinely appreciate. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

Clarification #3. Helpfulness is not an indicator of truthfulness, godliness or biblical accuracy. 

When a criticism of an established and well-known ministry is made, most defenses of the ministry appeal to how helpful the program has been for people. Obviously we all want to help people. Divorce recovery ministry should seek to help people. The problem, however, with appealing to helpfulness is that what constitutes “help” is typically in the eye of the beholder. How should we define “helpful?” How do you determine what is helpful and what is not? If a person feels they have been helped, is that sufficient? If a person feels better, does that mean they’ve been genuinely helped in a way God approves? 

My reasoning here is similar to the reasoning used in a portion of a lecture from clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson regarding self-esteem. His opinion is that self-esteem probably doesn’t exist as a real psychological consideration for a number of reasons, partly because many millions of dollars in funded studies haven’t produced any consensus about what it is, and furthermore that it isn’t self-evident how good a person should feel about themselves. His is a valid question: how good should a person feel about themselves? Should a person always feel as good as they possibly can about themselves? What if they’re a criminal? There’s nothing self-evident about this. The point here is that what constitutes helpfulness is likewise not self-evident. If by “helpful” we mean people feel better, then the importance of a teaching or program being biblical disappears. You don’t have to be biblical to help a person feel better. Not that I’m assuming a particular definition of “helpful” on the part of advocates of any other ministries; I’m merely pointing out the logic that defense on the basis of helpfulness leaves too much room for subjectivity. 

As I stated above, the importance or uniqueness of a program being distinctly Christian vanishes if we don’t define “helpful” correctly. It seems then the meaning most people have in mind when they say something was helpful, in the context of recovery, would mean a secular program that was like DivorceCare in every other way would have many attendees that likewise found it helpful.

In another example from Dr. Peterson, in one of his books’ discussions of differing approaches to psychotherapy, he observes that while not all systems and theories are created equal, clients tend to benefit regardless of what system or approach is used by their therapist. The reason being that when a person’s life is chaotic and full of problems, any framework or system adopted to make sense of the world is helpful simply because it’s better than nothing. It stands to reason that the same could be said regarding divorce ministries. A program designed to help people recover from divorce, similar to DivorceCare, for example, in every way except the inclusion of biblical material, would also be found to be helpful by many people. Why? Because that is still better than nothing.

Help is like success…our definition and God’s definition are completely different. Some churches believe, for example, that increased attendance numbers equate to increased success, but in the biblical Gospel accounts, the more people learned about Jesus the more they fell away and stopped following him. Pastor, author and speaker Francis Chan said, reflecting on this theme, “I realized that if Jesus was the pastor of a church in my town, my church would be way bigger than his. Because there’s a lot of people who would follow Francis Chan who would never follow Jesus.” Our view of success has to do with what advances our interests; God’s view of success has to do with what advances His. 

We should therefore define “helpful” and “successful” both as that which draws people closer to the heart and mind of God, and helps them walk in godliness. Sometimes, though, help doesn’t feel like help. Sometimes help feels like an attack. The gospel itself is an offense against the self-reliant human nature, and being told we are too broken to fix ourselves and that we need a Savior is offensive…yet the necessary message is “help” to us because it is our only hope. Sometimes God helps us by being distant so that we seek Him. Sometimes God helps us by making us endure the consequences of our wrong actions, or endure hardship for no reason we can observe with human understanding (e.g., Job). “Help” can mean a lot of different things, so we should carefully define “help” by the Bible and not by what feels helpful. 

To be clear, and fair, here are some things I am not saying: 

-I’m not saying DivorceCare or other divorce ministries are unhelpful, 

-I’m not saying that everyone who finds them helpful is wrong 

-I’m not saying that God doesn’t use these programs to help people. 

However, it still remains true that as far as evaluating a ministry goes, the fact that people find it helpful does not mean everything they teach is true or biblical, or that the help they receive is truly biblical, godly help. It’s simply not a reliable standard of evaluation, unless “helpful” is defined biblically and carefully.  

Clarification #4. Truth is more important than kindness 

Politeness is next to godliness, or at least it’s better to be polite than stir the pot…or so it seems according to how many church people live. Kids across America and parts of Europe were taught growing up to avoid discussing religion, sex or politics, and somehow that also has applied to church. Even in the church we don’t want to talk about religion, sex or politics. “But wait,” you might object. “What do you mean we don’t talk about religion at church?” By that I’m referring to the commitment to not rock the boat by disagreeing or questioning biblical interpretations, teachings, or practices. Politeness and agreeableness have their place. But truth trumps nice. It’s better to be truthful than to be polite. Recently I was told something I wish I hadn’t had to wait until my mid-30’s to learn: If you have something you need to say, and you don’t say it, that’s a lie. 

A commitment to truth is more important than affirming or liking things that happen to be popular. While God looks at the heart, and while love is more important than knowledge, in the end, truth and meaning still take precedence over expedience and agreeableness. The center of my ministerial focus since I first sensed God nudging me toward ministry was the exposition of Scripture, submission to the text of Scripture wherever it leads. Biblical and theological errors within a ministry’s teachings (or resources) should be brought to light when (1) the truth is significantly different or better and (2) the ministry has a large reach (no sense in critiquing a ministry no one has ever heard of).  

Criticism is not condemnation. Rightful criticism or critique comes from a commitment to truth, and none of this is to tear down any ministry, but because truth honors God, and because, as a general principle, error in belief inevitably leads to error in practice. Correction within Christianity is to increase people’s joy, not to tear people down. The purpose of pointing out errors is not to feel superior or just to complain, but to point out the truth. Truth glorifies God and truth sets us free.  

Clarification #5. Bible content does not equal biblical content. 

There is a false equivalence many people make regarding books, classes or programs. If it contains Bible verses it is automatically labeled “Bible-based” or “based on Scripture.” At the risk of overstating my case, there are at least three reasons this is a necessary distinction: 

1. Bible verses can be used un-biblically 

2. Extra-biblical phrases can be biblical 

3. Popular Christian ideas nearly everyone believes can be wrong. 

Therefore, we can’t assume that a work is biblical simply because it happens to contain Bible verses. 

This section applies to a vast number of Christian programs, studies and workbooks. This is more of a critique on a very popular approach in Christian writing, with a suggested approach, by far not limited to DivorceCare or any other specific ministry.  As I look through a large percentage of Christian materials, and observe how they apply the Bible to their subject matters, the focus of the approach is subject-matching Bible verses to readers’ presenting problems. 

The subject-matching approach says, “This person feels lost and alone. Let’s help them feel not lost and alone.” Then it subject-matches the Bible to the issue, and finds a verse or two, typically in the Psalms, where the Psalmist also felt lost and alone. The reader is asked to consider the verse, reflect on what they read, and then answer a question about it. This is the approach regardless of the subject matter. For example, is the reader a person with a drinking problem? Give him a couple verses about drunkeness. Is this a person with an anger problem? Give him a few verses about anger. The approach aims to provide one-to-one subject equivalent solutions to manifesting problems. 

This approach is too simple, and treats the troubled person like a machine or a computer that has given a readout of what its system errors are, requiring a response of repairing or replacing the problem circuit. One man’s anger circuit is overactive, and the solution identified is a tweak of the anger circuit, so protocol is to find a subject-matched Bible verse that can can be used to tweak that circuit. 

People, it turns out, are not like machines, and do not meaningfully change by external force or pressure, or by adopting a principle or rule. The Bible is not a topical guide on how to address problems in this manner. A person’s anger issue could be the result of a hundred different things, connected in variation with a hundred other things. There’s no one-for-one equivalent “fix” in trying to match Bible verses to real human problems. It just doesn’t work like that. It was never meant to. 

What is the Bible? 

Contrary to the popular acronym, the Bible simply is not “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.” It is not a guidebook for life or a how-to manual. The Bible is a story, a great narrative that spans from eternity to eternity with Yahweh as its protagonist. He Who Lives Forever knows the end from the beginning, and declares the beginning from the end. In the beginning the Almighty spoke into the chaotic formless void and brought the vast cosmos into existence. He then formed an ordered, “good,” world, and created beautiful, royal subjects that reflect His own nature to co-rule as vice-regents to Himself, the King. But it wasn’t for a lack or weakness in Himself, or to meet a need that He created a world in which He was to be worshiped as supreme. But because the Most High desired to magnify His glory, which requires being observable by other beings, ones that can observe and express value, praise and honor as they see Him and reflect on His actions. 

God knows the end from the beginning because He declares the beginning from the end. That means He began the existence of our world with the end in mind. And He knew that it would be more beautiful and more glorious for it to have been lost and then found than if nothing bad had ever happened. Therefore, He allowed his recently appointed, perfect vice-regents to be tempted and fall into a state of brokenness, pain, suffering, and a viciously stubborn and self-destructive demand for autonomy and self-reliance. And to these people He makes a promise that He would, through them, redeem and restore the world. God’s promise to restore the world was made not to people, but to the world through people. Through these same broken, viciously self-reliant and consistently unreliable, fickle, and faithless people. 

The story of the entire Old Testament is about how this promise could possibly endure to fulfillment since it was to be fulfilled through faithless, rebellious people. The twist in the plot, however, is that the promise, as it turned out, never relied on the faithfulness of humanity to come to fruition, but on the faithfulness of God Himself. God is held back by no barrier! And He overrides and overrules the self-destructive commitment of the human will! God breaks into time and space and becomes the Rescuer. He Who Lives Forever literally, physically became one of these feeble beings Himself, fully weak and human and simultaneously fully divine, in order that He could become the people He wished to rescue and reconcile them to God because He was both. God the Son absorbs the wrath of God the Father to spare all of humanity from the eternal consequence of their combined and individual rebellion. 

The Son places Himself on the earth in the form of a group of followers (the Church, called his Body), and puts Himself in them with His Spirit, and goes back to the Father to await His return. And when the Father finally declares, “Enough!”, Jesus Christ will establish His throne on earth as originally intended as the Creator King who loves and rules and reigns with His people, and all things that were broken are restored and reconciled to God, while all who reject their Savior are destroyed forever along with the Deceiver who was allowed to tempt the human race. 

The created world we live in is a theater in which the play of “His glorious grace” can be seen and praised by humanity and be seen by the spiritual/demonic realm, to whom the church was created as a display of God’s wisdom. What comes after this we are not told. But I hope to find out.  

This is the story of the Bible. A person who is troubled in this life should not be approached and given subject-matched verses to try to mitigate their specific problems, as if the Bible is a guidebook or list of principles to improve one’s life. Rather, a person finds their place in the eternal story of God and sees themselves as rebellious, broken, and lost, and yet simultaneously radically, utterly, insanely, irrevocably accepted and loved beyond anything that is possible among mere humans, the best and most glorious of which was merely a shadow. Some specific practical issues are covered in more detail, but the vast majority of the Bible is this story about God that spans from eternity to eternity. The bulk of the Old Testament tells this story. The bulk of the New Testament selectively applies its implications to everyday life. 

To approach the Bible as a topical guide to problems that manifest in life, particularly when the person does not have a relationship with God, is to completely miss the point of the entire Bible. The problems of life that we deal with result from the fallen nature, either in ourselves, in other people, or from the cursed world. Solutions to these problems are not mere topical treatments. The solution is found in the narrative of Scripture…what God has done in this world.

Why Distinguish Bible Content from Biblical Content? 

One reason to bring up the distinction between Bible content and biblical content is that, as stated above, the issues of divorce and remarriage are quite a bit more complex than they are typically understood. Let me take a few minutes to go through an example of this. Bear with me. Here’s an example of a New Testament text relevant to the divorce and remarriage discussion that is frequently misapplied: 

Romans 7:1-3. 

Here Paul mentions that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, so if she joins with another man while married she is an adulterer, but if her husband dies she is free to join with another, which is then not adultery. This passage is frequently used in divorce-related material as a proof that nothing severs a marriage covenant but death. This passage is often taken as a teaching of Paul on the subject of divorce and remarriage. 

Consider the overall structure of this passage. Verse 1 says, “Or do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is master of a person for as long a time as he lives?”  In chapter 6 Paul has argued that believers are joined to Christ in death and in resurrection. By faith a believer is joined to Christ in baptism (submersion into Christ), and because he has died with Christ he can then be joined to Christ in resurrection life. Paul continues this argument, explaining the role of death in the union with Christ, and he does so with an example from marriage. While a person is bound to the Law they are unable to be joined to Christ. Since the Law will not dismiss or “divorce” someone bound to it, and a person bound to the Law cannot sever themselves from it, the only way they can be separated from the Law to be joined to Christ is through death. When the Law was nailed to the cross along with Christ, as Christ was representing humanity, those bound to the Law became free to be joined to Christ by faith.  

The clarification in our reading here is that this passage is not intended to be an instruction regarding divorce and remarriage. The reader should not expect an exhaustive list of all situations and all reasons for divorce and remarriage to appear when the issue of divorce and remarriage is merely being used as an example. For Paul to also include all other reasons and situations regarding remarriage would be irrelevant to the point he was making. Furthermore, that he did not include valid divorce as a situation that would allow remarriage does not imply that only remarriage following death is permitted, for two reasons. 

1. That would contradict Jesus’ teaching that remarriage following adultery is permissible. 
2. Ancient marriage contracts almost always included language that suggested the marriage was in effect as long as both parties were alive, yet the right to remarriage was always protected in the same cultures. 

David Instone-Brewer, in his thorough treatment of the subject, refers to an Egyptian marriage contract from 92 BC as an example:

And it shall not be lawful for Philiscus to bring in any other wife but Apollonia, nor to keep a concubine or boy, nor to have children by another woman while Apollonia lives.

Marriage certificate, 92 E.c.E., ‘Iebtunis, Egypt; P.Tebt. 1.104, lines 19-20 = GM92

Explains Instone-Brewer: 

“One might conclude from this marriage contract that the husband was not allowed to remarry during the lifetime of his wife. However, this would be totally contrary to everything we know about Greco-Roman marriage contracts. In Greco-Roman law either partner had the right to divorce the other partner at any time and remarry. It would be inconceivable that the absence of any reference to divorce could be interpreted as a denial of this right. The right to remarriage was embedded so deeply in Greco-Roman marriage law that there was no need to mention it.”

David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 2002, Eerdmans Publishing Co. Chapter 7

If Paul is writing to people living in a culture in which remarriage following divorce was an assumed and protected right, and was writing to tell Christians that the common cultural practice was not to be followed, it seems he would have stated this clearly. And whether or not the statements in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 accomplish this clear statement or is making comments about the specific cultural practice of divorce by means of physical separation is another—lengthy—discussion. 

Jesus’ Exception vs. Paul’s Exception 

Another example that demonstrates the fact that the issue of divorce and remarriage is more complex than typical discussions recognize, is the apparent disagreement between Jesus’ teachings on remarriage and Paul’s. In Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 Jesus gives only one instance in which remarriage following divorce does not result in adultery, which is itself adultery/sexual immorality. The exact meaning of the Greek word used, porneia (rather than the normal word for adultery, moicheia), is not clear and is highly debated, although in my opinion does refer primarily to adultery in this context. Space prohibits a full discussion of the word choice so I will leave it at that. Jesus’ basic teaching on the subject seems to be that remarriage leads to adultery except in the case of adultery.  

In a seemingly contrary position, Paul also mentions only one permissible reason for remarriage following divorce, which is abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:12-15), without any mention of remarriage following divorce for adultery anywhere else. There is room to debate the exact meaning and purpose of Paul’s statement there, but the problem is apparent. Why does Jesus only give one exception for remarriage following divorce while Paul gives only one other exception for remarriage following divorce? 

Here are a few options: 

1. Paul and Jesus contradict each other
2. By porneia, Jesus meant pre-marital fornication (as suggested by John Piper and others), or an invalid marriage such as in the case of polygamy or incest (as suggested by Charles Ryrie and others) 
3. The rules are not absolute and are subject to change
4. There are more factors and nuances these teachings address, and are possibly lost due to being on the other side of 2000 years of history and cultural changes. 

I do believe these pieces fit together harmoniously, but the point here is not to answer the interpretation question of these texts, but to demonstrate briefly that the issue is not as simple and black and white as doing “what the Bible says.” 

In conclusion, as stated at the beginning of this section, Bible content does not equal biblical content. That Bible verses are used does not mean the content is accurate, or consistent with the larger purpose and function of the Word of God. One-to-one subject-matching of Bible verses to problems is a poor substitute for finding one’s place in the flow of redemptive history and seeing the redemption and restoration of life enabled by the actions of God in history. 

Is it better to use the Bible than not to use the Bible? On some level, I suppose yes, but we should hesitate to support uses of the Bible which are inconsistent with its purpose. Cults have formed that way, so great care must be taken to ensure usage of Bible content is actually Biblical in nature. 

Conclusion:

Processing the grief, pain and trauma of marriage dysfunction and divorce requires a framework for understanding the world; one complete enough to account for what happened and why, and also cogent enough that it can be believed and found helpful. The best framework for understanding the world and these issues is the biblical framework, or Christian worldview, revealed in the overarching narrative of the Bible. The suggestion here, the fundamental belief of Deep Truth for Deep Wounds, is that if a person adopts this narrative framework and sees their place in it, that is, that he or she understands correctly their relationship to God and the world according to God’s design, plan, sin and redemption, then the pain, grief and trauma have a cogent rationale whereby the divorced person can (1) Begin to heal and move forward, (2) Learn how to be content and happy unmarried, (3) Avoid the same relationship mistakes in the future, (4) Become healthy and productive members of the church.