Joanne from "Narrow Is The Way" totally flips her shit

[TXDuck]

We do know that Christ said four times in the three gospels before this story that it is adultery to be married to the divorced and it is adultery to get re-married to someone else. Christ does not contradict himself.

Not quite. He said "Go and call your husband". Then Christ lets her know he knows about her situation. He does not rebuke her. He does not tell her to leave the current guy. His last word to her was to reveal he was the Messiah she was waiting for. So, it's a stretch to say he wanted her to go back to her first husband.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.â€

Then he mentions her living arrangements not at all. He does say not to get divorced. He does not say to divorce your current spouse though. That's where you really lose me. Your right, of course, to follow what you think is the best path for your life.

ETA: In some circumstances, a Jewish woman could divorce her husband. However, I have no idea if a Samaritan woman could.

[Sola]

Joanne,

1 Timothy 4

[Kaylee]

Joanne, I read your blog in the past and I think you are trying to live by the Bible but have been deceived and maybe taken advantage of. It seems like the church you are part of asks a lot of you but it is hard for me to see true communal living including having you feed your family with food that the brothers seem to think is not good enough for everyone else. It also seems unfair to your children to have taken them away from the life they knew at the word of another woman (assuming Joanna convinced you to get involved with the church of Monett and to leave your husband) and to isolate them from the world and expect them to work for and submit to these other men. I may have misunderstood things from your blog but it seems like you may still feel guilty about your past and that they are using it to make you OK with being deprived and not having much control over your life and family anymore.

As far as divorce, I don't understand why you think it was right to leave your last husband and condemn him to (by your own standards) a life of singleness or adultery. I've seen you quote Romans 7, both here and on your blog, but what about 1 Corinthians 7:15?

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

The phrase "not under bondage" is a legal term meaning no longer legally bound and is reflective of the wording in Romans 7:2 where it says a woman is bound to her husband. It seems to me, and to most pastors and theologians I've seen address the verses, that the Bible then says that we are free to remarry and no longer in bondage to the first spouse or marriage if they were not a believer.

If anything, the only sinful divorce in your life by these standards would be the last one that the church talked you into.

This is also supported in the Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 24:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

She is not allowed to remarry the first husband, but is free to remarry another man. I find this interesting because there are some today who use Romans 7 to teach that men are always free to remarry but women never are, yet that is contradicted here.

I can understand being against divorce, but not taking an interpretation of scripture that ends up convincing believers to divorce and splitting up Christian families. These seems to come mostly from anabaptist teachings, but it is important to remember that much of their condemnation of divorce and remarriage was a political statement in reaction to the multiple marriages of the monarchy at the time. Most other Bible expositors and theologians took a different view and a plain reading of the Bible itself seems to support freedom for one who was left by an unbelieving spouse. If neither of you were Christians at the time, then it applies even moreso.

You have already made your life choices but there are women who ask you and other ladies from your church for advice through your blogs and facebook pages. Please think of the effects this may have on those families and their walk with God.

I am in a (first) marriage where I have had many people tell me I could divorce for biblical reasons, but we have chosen to stay together and are both pretty happy now. That said, if I wanted to ensure that my husband would hate the Lord for the rest of his life and never want to become a Christian, then divorcing him and taking his son away because I was convinced it was the Christian thing to do would be one of the most effective ways I could ever imagine.

[emmiedahl]

Most of the Bible verses in which Jesus deals with divorce are ones in which he advocates against "putting away" a wife. Because men had to give a financial settlement when they divorced their wives, it was common in that time and place to simply kick out your wife, without a divorce, and move in a new woman. Without a divorce, the woman did not receive the settlement and also were not free to remarry, which left them as paupers and outcasts. Jesus seems to be actually implying that men *should* divorce their wives rather than forcing them to live, I don't know, in a church basement maybe?

[joannesmith]

Where does he rebuke her in that passage?

And the fact that she had multiple husbands - is that even her fault? Could women initiate divorce at that place and time?

I'm sorry, you are right. I was thinking of something else. Christ did not rebuke her, he just told her about her life. Thank you for pointing that out.

[joannesmith]

Joanne, I read your blog in the past and I think you are trying to live by the Bible but have been deceived and maybe taken advantage of. It seems like the church you are part of asks a lot of you but it is hard for me to see true communal living including having you feed your family with food that the brothers seem to think is not good enough for everyone else. It also seems unfair to your children to have taken them away from the life they knew at the word of another woman (assuming Joanna convinced you to get involved with the church of Monett and to leave your husband) and to isolate them from the world and expect them to work for and submit to these other men. I may have misunderstood things from your blog but it seems like you may still feel guilty about your past and that they are using it to make you OK with being deprived and not having much control over your life and family anymore.

Hello Raine - I remember you. I'm not sure why you assume I have been deceived and taken advantage of? Based on what? And the other conclusions you have come to - what is your basis?

To clear one of your assumptions up: I was on my own and knew nothing about the church of Monett or Joanna when I left my second husband.

You say my children are isolated from the world? In what way? This is so funny to me because my children are well known in our town and the surrounding smaller towns. That's far from being isolated. And you say the men here expect my children to work for them and submit to them? What gave you that idea? You make it sound so terrible that my boys are working. What would you rather them do, sit around and play video games all day? The fact is, they enjoy working and are learning a lot and getting paid for it.

What you said about divorce - there is a difference between being under bondage and being bound. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he is living, but if he departs from her, she is no longer under bondage to him. Two different words, two different meanings. The only way she is released from her husband and free to remarry is if he dies (as said in Romans 7 and at the end of 1 Cor 7)

If anything, the only sinful divorce in your life by these standards would be the last one that the church talked you into.

I was not going to church at the time.

This is also supported in the Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 14:

She is not allowed to remarry the first husband, but is free to remarry another man. I find this interesting because there are some today who use Romans 7 to teach that men are always free to remarry but women never are, yet that is contradicted here.

First, this is from Deut. 24, not 14. See what Christ said in the gospels and also what God said in Jerimiah 3. You can listen to Moses if you want, but you cannot just listen to him in this one instance; be consistent and obey all that Moses said. I choose to listen to the Lord.

If neither of you were Christians at the time, then it applies even moreso.

Great. Then if I was a theif before becoming a christian I can keep being a theif. If I was a murderer before becoming a christian then I can keep on murdering. If I was gay before becoming a christian then I can keep on being gay. If I was an alcoholic before becoming a christian then I can keep on being an alcoholic.

No, this does not work does it? Christ calls us to REPENT and follow him. We cannot repent of something if we are continually living in it. We are not following Christ if we are not putting his teachings into practice.

If we don't want to follow Christ, then we have no business calling ourselves christians.

[Fluffy-Boo]

Christ made it clear that marriage is for life and to be married to the divorced is adultery. I decided that if I'm going to be a Christian, I'd better obey what Christ taught. Most professing christians today are claiming to be so but are not willing to actually put the teachings of Christ into practice. That is hypocrisy and that is one reason why there are a lot of atheists.

Joanne,

Are you familiar with Ezra chapters 9 and 10 where the Israelites received a mass sanctioned divorce from their pagan wives and children, NOT because of any adultery, but because their "holy" bloodline had been tainted.

Read these chapters carefully because very few Christians have ever seen them...and most likely never will, because they are not addressed in most "Bible-believing" seminaries or churches.

Why? Because they present a clear contradiction to everything taught in the NT about divorce. In fact, a great deal of the Old Testament contradicts the NT, not to mention current Christian culture. Read it. Alone in a dark room. For face value.

Do you think it's okay for a large group of Israelite males to abandon their wives AND CHILDREN simply because they are pagan and worship different Gods? I thought the punishment for this religious contrast in Deuteronomy is death? What do you think happened to these abandoned women and children post this righteous separation?

Funny how God hates divorce (Mal 2:16), except when its convenient for his bloodline.

These men in Ezra were CERTAINLY allowed to remarry. After all, they had to continue their holy bloodline.

What about the Numbers 31 account where Israelite males received a mandate to keep the child virgins and women of their pagan enemies...did they divorce these women later as well? Probably not.

Most churches claim they teach the Bible, but Christianity has ALWAYS adopted the social mores of its surrounding culture. The Bible displays this and marriage and divorce is one marker of this constant evolution.

Read your Bible. The whole darn thing. Then develop an opinion on what God desires--that is, if you can even bother to care by the end of it.

[joannesmith]

To the commenters who asked for clarification of the orignial blog post, I will be posting another one soon that hopfully will clarify. I'll try to remember to put the link here if anyone is interested.

[formergothardite]

If this is the real blogger, do you really believe that most atheists are ammoral? What do you have against vacations?

Do you train your children?

Quoting this so it can be answered. I have just skimmed the thread, but are vacations bad?

[NurseNell]

Joanne, I read your blog in the past and I think you are trying to live by the Bible but have been deceived and maybe taken advantage of. It seems like the church you are part of asks a lot of you but it is hard for me to see true communal living including having you feed your family with food that the brothers seem to think is not good enough for everyone else. It also seems unfair to your children to have taken them away from the life they knew at the word of another woman (assuming Joanna convinced you to get involved with the church of Monett and to leave your husband) and to isolate them from the world and expect them to work for and submit to these other men. I may have misunderstood things from your blog but it seems like you may still feel guilty about your past and that they are using it to make you OK with being deprived and not having much control over your life and family anymore.

This, Joanne. You deserve better. It's time to stop punishing yourself for things you did in the past. Your children deserve a better life.

[Witsec7]

I'm interested in what kind of contact your children have with their father(s). Do they visit for extended periods of time?

What makes you different that other ebil single mothers? (Like me.)

Edit to add: Why do you need a church to follow the teachings of Jesus? I know quite a few folks who identify as Xian, agnostic, Buddhist, even atheist who follow the metaphor of the Christs teaching, without needing a church to do so.

[Guest Anonymous]

Great. Then if I was a theif before becoming a christian I can keep being a theif. If I was a murderer before becoming a christian then I can keep on murdering. If I was gay before becoming a christian then I can keep on being gay. If I was an alcoholic before becoming a christian then I can keep on being an alcoholic.

No, this does not work does it? Christ calls us to REPENT and follow him. We cannot repent of something if we are continually living in it. We are not following Christ if we are not putting his teachings into practice.

If we don't want to follow Christ, then we have no business calling ourselves christians.

First off, it's thief, not theif. Are you homeschooling those kids of yours? Because you're doing them a terrible disservice if you are.

Second, what in the everloving hell? That's not at all what Raine said. Being gay is not at all like being a thief or a murderer, and being an alcoholic is a disease. Alcoholics need treatment, not your condemnation. Gay people need you to shut up.

[formergothardite]

If you are really serious about following the words of Christ, He said this about gay people:

crickets chirping while I try to find Jesus talking about gay people.

Nope, got nothing. Jesus didn't say a word about gay people. And it isn't like there weren't any gay people back then for Him to condemn.

[Sola]

If you are really serious about following the words of Christ, He said this about gay people:

crickets chirping while I try to find Jesus talking about gay people.

Nope, got nothing. Jesus didn't say a word about gay people. And it isn't like there weren't any gay people back then for Him to condemn.

He had the same amount to say about gay people as he had to say about abortion.

[TXDuck]

Then if I was a theif before becoming a christian I can keep being a theif. If I was a murderer before becoming a christian then I can keep on murdering. If I was gay before becoming a christian then I can keep on being gay. If I was an alcoholic before becoming a christian then I can keep on being an alcoholic.

The gay thing I'm leaving alone for the time being. We're not going to agree on that one. Anyway, onto my point, you're still not quite right on this. You be continuing to divorce and marry would be akin to continuing to be a thief after repenting. You can still be a repentant Christian with your second husband if you do not divorce him and remarry, especially in light of the fact that neither of you were Christian at the time of your first or second marriages. Disagree on this point all you want, but you're a bit turned around on this point.

[joannesmith]

Joanne,

Are you familiar with Ezra chapters 9 and 10 where the Israelites received a mass sanctioned divorce from their pagan wives and children, NOT because of any adultery, but because their "holy" bloodline had been tainted.

Yes, I am familiar with that passage and it's a good one to use when people say God would not expect a family to be torn apart. You seem to not understand the difference between the old and the new covenants, but maybe you don't even believe in God so why would the difference matter to you? It seems like many on this forum are atheists, is that true?

It's easy to read the bible and make it say what you [anyone] want it to say, especially if you have something to defend or are trying to persuade someone in one direction or another. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the simple teachings of Christ. Confusion comes when the reader does not want to believe a particular teaching of Christ because it would cost them too much to believe it. They look for loopholes, and loopholes are easy to find if one does not have an honest heart that is trying to please the Lord.

Just because professing christianity "has ALWAYS adopted the social mores of its surrounding culture" does not mean that it is right or pleasing to the Lord. There are some faithful christians throughout the last 2,000+ years that have not compromised and given in to the presures of the society around them. These are the ones we should be looking at, not the ones that look, act and live just like the world. Just because someone says they are a christian does not actually mean they are.

[Austin]

Yes, I am familiar with that passage and it's a good one to use when people say God would not expect a family to be torn apart. You seem to not understand the difference between the old and the new covenants, but maybe you don't even believe in God so why would the difference matter to you? It seems like many on this forum are atheists, is that true?

It's easy to read the bible and make it say what you [anyone] want it to say, especially if you have something to defend or are trying to persuade someone in one direction or another. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the simple teachings of Christ. Confusion comes when the reader does not want to believe a particular teaching of Christ because it would cost them too much to believe it. They look for loopholes, and loopholes are easy to find if one does not have an honest heart that is trying to please the Lord.

Just because professing christianity "has ALWAYS adopted the social mores of its surrounding culture" does not mean that it is right or pleasing to the Lord. There are some faithful christians throughout the last 2,000+ years that have not compromised and given in to the presures of the society around them. These are the ones we should be looking at, not the ones that look, act and live just like the world. Just because someone says they are a christian does not actually mean they are.

If you're really interested, FJ has members from all religions, and some with none. We are *not* a forum for atheists, and you will find many Christians here (I know, I know, they're not your approved brand of "Christian", but they follow Christ).

And, uh, sounds like the only one trying to persuade someone is you, and that someone is yourself. You're right, dear, it is not rocket science. Projection much?

[formergothardite]

I would also like to know how it is modest to dress in a way that attracts a lot of attention like you do.

[debrand]

It is odd to me that so many Christians make a big deal about needing nothing but faith for salvation while they add so many rules to their faith.

I am curious about vacations. It might be silly to ask but I'd never heard that atheists took more vacations than Christians.

edited for clarity

[joannesmith]

I'm interested in what kind of contact your children have with their father(s). Do they visit for extended periods of time?

What makes you different that other ebil single mothers? (Like me.)

Edit to add: Why do you need a church to follow the teachings of Jesus? I know quite a few folks who identify as Xian, agnostic, Buddhist, even atheist who follow the metaphor of the Christs teaching, without needing a church to do so.

Where did I say we needed a church to follow the teachings of Christ?

I am not sure what our differences are other than it seems like you are an atheist and also, I would not have such a disgusting picture as my profile. Just being honest here. And too, we probably live our lives quite a bit different. If you seriously are curious and want more info than that, maybe it can be over private email or phone conversation.

[Sola]

Where did I say we needed a church to follow the teachings of Christ?

I am not sure what our differences are other than it seems like you are an atheist and also, I would not have such a disgusting picture as my profile. Just being honest here. And too, we probably live our lives quite a bit different. If you seriously are curious and want more info than that, maybe it can be over private email or phone conversation.

Do not knock the bacon bra. Really don't.

[Austin]

Where did I say we needed a church to follow the teachings of Christ?

I am not sure what our differences are other than it seems like you are an atheist and also, I would not have such a disgusting picture as my profile. Just being honest here. And too, we probably live our lives quite a bit different. If you seriously are curious and want more info than that, maybe it can be over private email or phone conversation.

Well, we wouldn't want you to be anything but honest, especially as you do it so lovingly.

[Guest Anonymous]

Do not knock the bacon bra. Really don't.

I want to know what's disgusting about it. The bacon? Or the boobs?

[Marian the Librarian]

[formergothardite]

Well raw bacon against skin would be icky feeling.