While researching and writing my series on divorce and remarriage, I came across another of those troubling passages from the lips of Paul wherein he sounds so, well, unspiritual. The more recent passage was from 1 Cor 7 where Paul addresses various issues concerning sex in marriage, desertion, and divorce. In v. 15 of that chapter he says,

“But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”

As I explained in the series, Paul did not recognize desertion as a legitimate means to divorce one’s partner. He did, of course, realize that it happened all the time in Greek society and that it happened to Christians married to unbelievers. He addresses the problem in 1 Cor 7.10-15. Had I been writing on the subject, I would have gone to the trouble to demonstrate that desertion wound up being a valid ground for divorce because it inevitably led to emotional and material neglect, two grounds for divorce which Paul did support (but did not encourage).

But Paul doesn’t do that. Paul simply says, almost with a shrug of his inspired shoulders, “God has called you to peace.” In other words, let it go and move on.

This seems distressingly unspiritual me. I would have thought the apostle would have thrown in some stuff about praying and seeking God’s will on the matter and examining yourself to make sure you hadn’t done something to cause the partner to leave. But he doesn’t. He just says, sort of, “Oh, well.”

He does the same thing just a few chapters later in his letter to the Corinthians.

Faced with an invitation to go to a pagan party where meat sacrificed to idols is likely to be served, here is the sum total of his advice:

“If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience” (1 Cor 10.27).

No mention of prayer or feeling led to go or thinking that this might be a great time to evangelize: Paul says if you want to go, then go. Eat what you want. Don’t ask questions. Have a good time.

Once again Paul seems just a tad bit cavalier and incautious about the whole matter. This is not the Christianity I was trained in or led to believe was the spiritual way. Paul’s approach is casual. He doesn’t seem uptight or worried about offending God by eating meat offered to idols or holding the door open while an unbelieving spouse leaves.

I am faced with a choice: either my approach is right and Paul’s is wrong, or Paul is right and I’m missing something. This is not a difficult decision, but I’m not sure what I’m missing.

Maybe it’s that God doesn’t mean for us to be so obsessed with “doing the right thing” that we fail to enjoy His creation. Or maybe He doesn’t want us to view the events and matters of this world as more important or significant than they actually are.

Probably it is this: Paul understands the spirit of the law while I seek to satisfy the letter of the law. God has called us to peace, as Paul says, and that may be more important than insisting that we do every little thing exactly right and for exactly the right reason with the right justification. And everything He has created is good and meant to be enjoyed, and we shouldn’t let our own sense of righteousness spoil what He gave to us.

This doesn’t mean that we should be slack or self-indulgent, but it does seem to imply that we shouldn’t be so self-absorbed and focused on our apparent spirituality. The letter of the law is far easier to live by – we don’t have to make decisions that we’ll be held accountable for – and it requires far less dependence on the Holy Spirit.

But that is not the life He has called us to, is it?


2 Cor 1:13