I believe that sometimes, people are just better off when they lie and steal. I believe in honesty, but integrity is hard, and some people get themselves into situations in which integrity is just painful. They should be allowed to lie and to steal their way out of these situations without any more pain than is necessary.
I believe this is true especially when a person has signed a document committing to integrity. How could the person have known the future and how difficult it might become to be honest in certain situations? No one should be held to such an arbitrary standard as a signature on a contract. That sort of legalism causes many people so much stress and distress.
In fact, I believe we should redefine contracts to be dependent solely upon the will of the individual parties. Once one party discovers that the contract is no longer to his benefit as he defines it, that person should be able to walk away without repercussion. We should pass a law that allows for no-fault breach of contract. Everyone then will be happy, except perhaps for the few people who actually want to keep their contracts. But those few people are legalists and need to walk into the 21st century when individual freedom trumps things like obligation, honesty, and integrity. Yes, some people might be hurt when a contract is breached, but that number certainly is fewer than if we forced people to fulfill their commitments.
Actually, I do not believe this way, and it is a ridiculous way to think. Sadly though, these are the very types of arguments I have heard made by Christians, including pastors, missionaries, and professors, in support of divorce. Just substitute “marriage” for the word, “contract.”
While I am grateful for the few churches that do intervene when divorce is announced, most churches have raised their hands in surrender to divorce. Even in some churches in which wholesale divorce is preached against, in practice, the leadership backs away from real life divorces. This is true especially in mainline denominations, but it is true in conservative evangelical churches as well.
While I think most Christians would recoil from “no-fault contract breaches,” we have, in a practical sense, embraced “no-fault divorces.” And the question arises, what is the difference? Why are we upset by the idea that someone would walk out on a signed contract, and yet we remain unmoved by the idea of church members who walk on their marriage vows made to God, vows that include “until death do you part?” I am certain I do not know the answer to this question, but the reality has grave consequences for the current homosexual marriage debate.
By winking at divorce, the church already redefined marriage implicitly. For the world to redefine it explicitly to embrace homosexual marriage is a small step.
Once keeping marriage vows made before God and to God became for the church a matter of personal choice, the covenant vows of marriage became subservient to the individuals making the vows. The world has taken note. When a couple who was married under the “until death do you part” standard seeks a divorce, and the church does nothing to uphold or to enforce the standard it set in the vows, the church has, de facto, reduced the sacred covenant of marriage to a level beneath that of a plumbing contract.
That the church can turn back the tide of homosexual marriage is doubtful until we, the church, heed once more Ecclesiastes 5:1-5:
Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil. Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you on earth; therefore let your words be few. For a dream comes through much activity, and a fool’s voice is known by his many words.
When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools.
Pay what you have vowed—Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.
Until death do you part.