To Star2,

How can someone be self-righteous when I am simply testifying to both Scripture and Christian Tradition on Marriage? None of what I wrote was my opinion. I will say I agree with Scripture and I agree with Christian Tradition. I do have concern for all the new Christian Churches who don't think Adultery is a problem though, because a second Marriage unless your previous spouse had died is Adultery. I'm sure some sore of relativists or liberal will try to reshape Scripture and Tradition to suit their own position.

To DanielPaul,

No, Paul was not married he was chaste. He never married and did not have any children. We know this through Christian Tradition which is based on historical accounts. This is the same way we know Christ wasn't married either. Jesus Christ and Paul were both celibate and many early Bishops and Priests in the 1st and 2nd Century started following Christ and Paul's example of being celibate and giving yourself totally to God. If they chose to be married then they would have to worry about the cares of their wife and children, but by being celibate they could focus totally on God and God's people. There are still many celibate Priests within both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic.

There is some very interesting positions here. I worked for a Bible college myself for about 12 years. The policy was well thought out and held to by many Bible colleges.

I do recognize the vows for life concept. I also recognize that God HATES divorce. It's an interesting use of the word. However, I also recognize 1 Corinthians 7 which talks about divorce and remarriage as well as allowances for divorce based on adultry. Our colleges policy was to simply not remarry because it caused others to stumble. In my mind, a bit flimsy but acceptable.

I do not know what has happened here. Still, the Bible is clear about accountability within the body. This prof abviously isn't interested in being accountable. I can tell you from personal experience that divorce is a nasty business that can be done by only one side. I got custody of my older 4 children for some very good reasons and we'll leave it at that.

There isn't any way to know where the Bible would come down on this situation outside of the fact that this prof isn't willing to be accountable. The key statement here is that he doesn't feel like he should have to discuss his private life with his employer. Clearly he does not recognize the Biblical responsibility of accountability that exists between ALL Christians not to mention those in authority in a ministry.

Food for thought: Was Paul divorced? He said it is better to remain even as He is. He also said he was a "Jew of Jews" which I understand is a phrase denoting being a Jew married to a Jew and having a male child to carry on the blood line. So...was he divorced?

I think both Wheaton and Gramm are doing the right thing as far as the school. If Gramm's conscience tells him that exposing his wife would be wrong in this situation, then it is best that he leaves. Sometimes bitterness toward a divorcing spouse can be a strong temptation, and maybe some faculty can discuss their marital situations without falling into it, but Gramm decided for himself that he needed to resist that temptation by not accusing his wife in front of others. Meanwhile, Wheaton has lost a good professor but has held onto its integrity.

star: I read and re-read it just now and didn't see a self-righteous attitude in it at all, what am I missing?

ifeelfine72

I gave msnchris70 a thumbs down because of his self-righteous attitude.

Ok folks, why the "thumb's down" for msnchris70? Every word in his post reflects scriptural teaching.

It is good that this Professor and the School are handling this between themselves privately as the Bible tells us to do. It is ashame that he and his wife are divorcing. Jesus hates divorce.

It will be interesting to see if the Professor or his ex-wife REMARRIES. No where in Scripture is RE-Marriage allowed. You are married once for a lifetime and while you may divorce in a civil matter, you may never marry again because your vows to God were for life. Let us pray that he and his wife don't remarry, so they are not caught up in an adulterous relationship.

This has always been the Christian Tradition for 1900 years and only recently Pastors in the past 50 years have allowed you to remarry and say it's fine despite the clear teaching of Scripture.

John from Palos Park: There is a lesson here for all Christians from ALL parties in this.
None of the involved parties are airing dirty laundry in public. They are settling this issue between brothers without involving the courts. They are refusing to slander each other. It is no-one's business but GOD's why the divorce occurred.
Again, Bynum and Weeks could learn from these individuals.

Timothybrown01, you misquoted Sarah Clark on May 01. You stated "I think Clark, or who ever it was that said "not somehow rejected by God for having more or less normal lives and for having lives that didn't work out the way they intended" does not get it." The irony of your comment is that is look above at the article, it was the Professor himself who made that comment. It is HE who 'doesn't get it.'
If the professor was a victim here (as in his wife wants the divorce and is not willing to reconcile) then why would he NOT want to keep his job at this prestigious college, one that refuses to compromise their values and become TOLERANT of sin, as the world would want us all to be? I highly support Wheaton and their policy. The college has not been vindictive; from all the many articles I've read, they have been nothing but Christian in their commenting while they're being viciously attacked by so many. May God bless Wheaton college abundantly and I commend them for their Christian response to this. Not making further comments is a credit to their faithfulness.

Please, let's give this man a break. No, divorce is not right but sometimes it goes that way. None of us know why he and his wife were not able to work out their martial problems.

Give the man credit for something. He at least was honorable in not exposing the failures of his ex-wife (Bynum and Weeks could take a lesson from that). Also, he was willing to abide by the covenant contract he signed with Weaton College. That is admirable, is it not?

OK, he and his wife failed. Maybe God can use their failure to help them grow in the Lord. God can bring good from this failure.

We all fail at something that God expects of us at some point in our walk with God. Let's show them some mercy. Jesus said if you want mercy then show mercy (Matt 5:7).

(I flagged my self to make a few changes.)

Flagged as inappropriate.

I don't approve of divorce, the bible only allows divorce for a few reasons. But I am of the opinion that from a church perspective he was not in a pastoral or elder position and should not have been punished for divorcing.

However, these schools have a right to act according to their beliefs, and I appreciate this professor respecting that.

I am impresed with Professor Gramm. I expected this article to say that the Prof. was going to take the school to court for some kind of discriminaiton. But, he didn't. He made a choice and is abiding by the consequences of that choice. He isn't crying or complaining or trying to play the victim as so many other so-called academics do nowadays. In this respect he is a refreshing, stand-up guy.

"It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:31-32).

I think Clark, or who ever it was that said "not somehow rejected by God for having more or less normal lives and for having lives that didn't work out the way they intended" does not get it. Marriage vows are taken way too lightly in this Country. Our Lord made it clear that divorce is a very bad thing. Of course God does not reject someone for getting a divorce, but it should be clear that God expects his children to have a higher regaurd for a marriage covenant than to approve of its abandonmnet because "lives that didn't work out the way they intended them to turn out"

I