Miracles: Philosophically Problematic or Biblically Necessary?

In America, even Christians have been affected by a naturalistic worldview, where the supernatural realm is treated as less “real” than the natural realm. (Nathan & Wilson, 2009) The first response when something miraculous happens can be to look for a natural explanation and only concede that is “must be a miracle” when no other explanation is found. Some philosophers believe that miracles are philosophically problematic, stating that “They are either impossible, or if possible, they can not be rationally believed.” (p. 308, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) This paper will examine possible objections and discuss why a belief in miracles does not present a philosophical problem and can be held by a responsible, reasonable person. First, the concept of “miracle” must be defined, then possible objections will be considered, and finally a case will be made for a belief in miracles.

First, it is necessary to define what is meant by “miracle.” Although any event that defies significant odds or defies natural laws and scientific explanation is often called a miracle, the formal definition used for this discussion will be “an even occurring in the context of legitimate religious expectation that is so contrary to the course of nature that the casual activity of God is the best explanation for its occurrence.” (p. 309, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Examples of this include things such as someone who receives prayer and recovers sight or is healed from a fatal condition, the parting of the Red Sea in the Old Testament, or most importantly, Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. (Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Events are not considered a miracle if a natural explanation is more probable. Also “if it does not draw attention to God, it is not a miracle.” (p.309, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) As a final note, this definition does rely on an existence of God; while not discussed here, several solid arguments for God's existence can be found in Chapter 6 of Cowan and Speigel's The Love of Wisdom. (2009)

The first objection is that of Baruch Spinoza, who stated “miracles are impossible because they constitute violations of the laws of nature.” (p. 310, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) His argument comes from his naturalistic viewpoint that the laws of nature are immutable and constitute the highest truth. (Cowan & Speigel, 2009) This view could pose a significant challenge to the belief in the existence of miracles, if in fact, the laws of nature were in fact ultimate, invariable truth. However, most naturalists consider the scientific laws of nature to be “observed regularities,” but not sufficient to rule out the existence of an omnipotent being. (p. 310, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Also, this objection fails to provide an alternate explanation for the seemingly miraculous events that do occur. It elevates natural laws the highest truth, while failing to provide an explanation for seemingly miraculous events when they do happen. His objection that “miracles would require the immutable laws to be mutable,” would seem self-defeating as it would to also be saying “if events that defy the laws of nature exist, natural laws are not immutable.” (p. 310, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) The existence of these seemingly miraculous events will be discussed later.

         David Hume offers a second objection that “one could never have enough evidence to justify believing that one occurred.” (p. 311, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) His belief is that “since a wise person always believes what is more probable, he will always refuse to believe that a miracle has occurred.” ( p. 311, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Hume is correct in his assessment that most people do not experience miracles on a regular basis; therefore, on a given day, it is more probable to expect that no miracle will occur. It would also seem reasonable to infer that Hume has never experienced a miracle; based on his experience, the probability of a miracle occurring is close to 0%. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it could also seem reasonable to expect that Hume has not made considerable effort to consider the evidence with an open mind. Christian author, C.S. Lewis stated “We know the experience against [miracles] to be uniform only if we know that all reports of them are false. And we know all the reports are false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.” (p.311, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Put simply, miracles either occur or they don't; if a miracle has ever occurred, then miracles exist. There is good evidence to believe that miracles have occurred: “First, that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of a coming Messiah and that his miracles were confirmation that in him the Messiah had arrived, was regarded by first- and second century apologists as the strongest argument for Christianity. Second, if one cares to look, there are many well-evidenced present-day accounts of events that appear to merit being called miracles. It is irresponsible to ignore both the witness of the early Church and contemporary accounts of miracles.” (p. 267, Larmer, 2011) It seems that Hume has been trapped in what Rich Nathan describes as the “Two rules of all paradigms: 1.We do not see what we ‘know’ should not be there. 2. If we do see, we constantly try to fit what we see into existing assumptions (we see what we want to see or at least what we think we should see).” (p.73, 2009) So, it seems that Hume’s argument may not be as strong as he would hope.

Additionally, the objection is offered that “we should not believe it to be a miracle because science may someday be able to give a natural explanation for it.” (p. 312, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Again, it is necessary to consider the facts. The definition of “miracle” used here is “within the context of religious expectation,” so the context is important. Was the person praying or receiving prayer for the miracle to happen? Was the person desperately in need on help and crying out to God? If so, then we avoid making the “God-of-the- gaps” fallacy (simply using supernatural intervention as an explanation for whatever we can’t explain) and conclude that the best explanation is that “God did it.” (p.312, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) If miracles were limited to only to restoration of a physical body, then one could possibly argue that there could be a psychological element that has not been discovered yet; however, other type of miracles occur, such as the resurrection of Christ. Also, entire books have been written on the subject of Christian healing, such as John Wimber’s book Power Healing and eye witness and personal accounts of God’s miraculous provision and healings provided in Rolland and Heidi Baker’s Always Enough. (Wimber & Springer, 2009; Baker & Baker, 2003) Such accounts and explanations do not seem to exist outside of the context of religious expectation. John Wimber explains that “Christian signs and wonders are beyond rationality, but they serve a rational purpose: to authenticate the gospel…It is a relationship that can be described and understood.” (p.156, Wimber, 2009) Does it make sense to reject an explanation that is readily available in favor of the possibility of a future (yet currently non-existent) explanation?

To add to Wimber’s explanation, according to a Christian worldview, Jesus set an example of expecting the miraculous. Howard Marshall explains that “Jesus does something unusual, generally by performing healings of various human disorders…the stories of Jesus have him healing and restoring people simply by uttering or saying a command that has an instantaneous effect.” (p.62, 2004) According to Australian archeologist Clifford Wilson, “Those [archeologists] who know he facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book;” meaning that archeological findings have strongly supported the accounts of the New Testament. (p. 107, Strobel, 1998) With this in mind, Jesus also sets the example for other types of miracles such as the multiplication of 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish to feed 5,000 people. (Matthew 14, NIV) Therefore, it does not appear that the belief in miracles is irresponsibly held as an explanation simply because no other viable explanation exists; the Bible, which is strongly supported by evidence, provides a foundation for a belief in miracles.

Finally, Hume presents a seemingly contradictory argument that if miracles do exist and are used to support all religions, then they “cancel each other out.” (p. 313, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Cowan & Speigel refute this argument by pointing out that evidence of miracles related to religions besides Christianity is “weak or non-existent.” (p.313, 2009) Also, evidence for the central miracle claim of Christianity, Jesus’s resurrection, is very strong; in fact many early Christians came to believe for this very reason. (p. 314, Cowan & Speigel, 2009; Larmer, 2011) In his book, The Next Christendom, Philip Jenkins describes the growth of Christianity in the non-western world. He states “From the earliest days of European missions, the promise of healing was at the heart of Christian successes…Today, rising African churches stand or fall by the success of their healing.” (p.145, Jenkins, 2007) For the church to have success in healing, means that healings occur; for the church to grow as a result of Christian healing means that it offers something more than people are experiencing in their native religion. Effectively, the healing ministries provide validation for people to reject their former beliefs in favor of Christianity. Therefore, it appears that the miracles to do not “cancel each other out” as Hume suggests.

Now that the objections to a belief in miracles have been discussed, it is important to consider the evidence for why a belief in miracles is not only not problematic, but why a belief in miracles is essential to a Christian worldview. While many Christians do pray for and experience miracles, in America “evangelical Christians have been taught to interpret the world naturalistically.” (p.68, Nathan & Wilson, 2009) The American worldview has also been affected by rationalism, which “ seeks a rational explanation for all experience, making reason the chief guide of all matters in life” and by secularism, which makes the assumption that “we live in a material universe closed off from divine intervention, in which truth is arrived at only through empirical means and rational thought.” (p.134-135, Wimber& Springer, 2009) This means that often as a result of culture, Christians are taught to give more credence to things that can be logically explained or scientifically proven. This can be problematic: “In practical terms, the belief in spiritual powers has the most direct impact in terms of healing through spiritual means”(p.145, Jenkins, 2009) or as Vineyard pastor and theologian Derek Morphew explained in a Vineyard Leadership Institute lecture, “to the extent we have Kingdom expectation, we can enter the Kingdom.” (By “Kingdom,” Morphew was referring to God intervening, including events such as healings or people being set free from internal oppression.) This means that belief or “religious expectation” has a casual relationship with the results experienced in terms of supernatural intervention (events that occur in contrast to natural laws or natural expectation).

In contrast to evangelical American Christianity, “the majority of the people of the world, in fact, not only believe in the supernatural, but experience it. “ (p. 57, McNutt, 2009) In contrast to the typical mainline American church, “The power of the Holy Spirit to heal and deliver is being seen not only in Africa. In China, the number of Christians is growing exponentially, largely in churches that attract people by signs and wonders demonstrated on a regular basis. As in the early church, ordinary people interpret the Bible literally and have no intellectual problem casting out evil spirits and asking Jesus to heal the sick. (p.15, McNutt, 2009) If such healings are happening on a “regular basis,” at what point are they no longer considered merely and “exception” to the rules? Wouldn’t it be philosophically problematic to believe that different rules apply to people in China and Africa than people here in the U.S.? Or, would it be more logical to consider the explanation that the occurrence of events that defy natural laws (miracles) are directly related to the expectation that such events will occur (religious expectation)? If the two are related, then what is the explanation for the relationship? Christian theology provides a thoughtful explanation for the purpose of miracles; Normal Geisler provides the explanation that “From a human vantage point a miracle, then, is an unusual event (“wonder”) that conveys and confirms an unusual message (“sign”) by means of unusual power…from a divine vantage point a miracle is an act of God….that attracts the attention of the people of God (“wonder”) to the Word of God (by a “sign”). (pp. 308-309, Cowan & Speigel, 2009) Miracles exist to point people to God.

          In conclusion, it is my opinion that miracles are not philosophically problematic, but a necessary part of a Christian worldview. If we desire to see miracles, then we must seek faith to see the Lord intervene in “out of the ordinary” ways. For me, this means spending time with the Lord, spending time learning about and objectively considering teachings of people who experience miracles today, and being obedient to the Lord by praying for those who are sick or in crisis. We must renew our minds through scripture and time spent with the Lord and other believers with a Biblical worldview; “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17 NASB) To deny that miracles exist would be to deny the both Jesus’s works and His resurrection; if we deny the resurrection of Christ, we deny our salvation. To deny that miracles exist today, means not only to deny the works of Jesus that occur today, but also means adding restrictions that were never included in scripture. Furthermore, if the intervention of the Holy Spirit on natural order (miracle) is dependent upon religious expectation (faith), then actively choosing to believe or promote a theology that teaches that miracles do not exist today quenches the work of the Holy Spirit, which is sin. (1 Thessalonians 5:19) Therefore, as Christians, it is necessary to consider both evidence and scripture as we seek guidance from the Holy Spirit to ensure we hold a Biblical view of miracles. There is sufficient evidence to claim that a belief in miracles is rational and responsible and not at all problematic.

Resources:

Baker, Rolland & Heidi. (2003) Always Enough. Grand Rapids: Chosen Books. (Kindle Edition)

Cowan, Steven B. & Spiegel, James S. (2009). The Love of Wisdom. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group.

Jenkins, Philip. (2007) The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press

Larmer, R. (2011). Miracles, Divine Agency, and the Laws of Nature. Toronto Journal Of Theology, 27(2), 267-290. doi:10.3138/tjt.27.2.267

MacNutt, Francis. (2009) Deliverance from Evil Spirits: A Practical Manual. Grand Rapids: Chosen Publishers

Marshall, I. Howard. (2004). New Testament Theology. Downer's Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Morphew, Derek Ph.D. and Robbins, Steve Ph.D. (Oct 2 &3, 2010) Healing 1: Physical Afflictions. Vineyard Leadership Institute Lecture

Nathan, Rich and Wilson, Ken. (2009) Empowered Evangelicals: Bringing Together the Best of the Evangelical and Charismatic Worlds. Boise: Ampelon Publishing

Strobel, Lee. (1998) The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Wimber, John and Spinger, Kevin. (2009) Power Evangelism. Ventura, CA: Regal Pubishers

Wimber, John and Springer, Kevin. (1987) Power Healing. New York: Harper Collins

Divorce for Abuse?

Throughout history, women around the world have been beaten in their own homes. Some cultures condone this, while other women remain in these situations because they feel they have no other options or must preserve their marriage. In addition, women may experience an emotionally destructive marriage, where she verbally torn down and lives in constant fear of her husband’s next “blow up.” Some Christian leaders are often uncertain how to approach abusive relationships, while others may take a strong stance without proper understanding. The subject of divorce for abuse is complex and Christian leaders often disagree on this subject; however, it must be addressed for the sake of both spouses, their children, and the reputation of the church at large. Without intervention, many suffer in silence and the sin can never be brought to the light for restoration and healing. If the Church does not address this topic then abused spouses will remain in secret bondage, abusive spouses will not be called to repentance, children will suffer and learn unhealthy relationship skills, and the reputation of the church will be damaged as those outside the Church see us live in denial about the sin in our midst. To find solid answers on when and divorce is acceptable, it is necessary to review the biblical history of divorce and consider the implications on the situations many face today.

To understand how to handle these complex questions responsibly, it is important to understand the history of marriage and divorce in the Bible that begins in the Old Testament. Since women were especially vulnerable, the Lord built in provision to provide for widows. In Old Testament Jewish culture, men were permitted to have multiple wives and women had limited options to work outside the home. Women were not afforded the same rights that men were and were considered to be similar to property. Culturally, women were dependent upon the men in their lives to provide. A single woman would have faced extreme hardship, which would have been compounded if she were left alone with young children; if the man left, starvation would be a reality for the remaining family. For this reason, the Lord made provisions for widows. If a man died, the man’s brother was required to offer to marry the widow who was left behind.

Throughout the Bible, God’s people are called to care for widows; the Lord has also prioritized provision for women who have lost their husbands. The Lord makes provision for women whose husbands have passed away, but what happens if he leaves? Abandonment was another real problem that women of the Old Testament endured and the Lord also created provisions to protect these women. It was common for a husband to leave his home for extended periods of time for hunting or trading. What happened if he chose not to return? Left alone, the woman was subject to hardship and starvation. Her husband was not known to be dead, so she was not treated as a widow. In some cases, the woman could return to her father’s home or enlist her older boys to work to provide for the family, but this was not always a possibility. If the woman sought to remarry, most men would not be willing to marry her since this meant providing for a woman and her children, whom the original husband could reclaim at any time. Just as the Lord created provision for widows, He also gave provisions for women whose husbands kicked them out or abandoned them. If the husband no longer desired to be married to his wife, he was to give her a certificate of divorce which ended the marriage. The divorce certificate stated that she was free to marry any man she wished, which meant that she could remarry and not have to worry that her original husband could never come back to claim her. Since she was free to remarry, she could seek a new husband instead of facing the hardship of being a single woman in a patriarchal society.

While there are not a lot of specific examples of divorce Bible, further insight can be gained by reviewing the Lord’s instructions for how to treat a wife, who used to be a slave, who was no longer cared for. Although modern Christians do not face this specific scenario, the broader concept still applies. Exodus 21:10-11 states: “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.” This scripture relates to a free man who marries his slave. This verse protects the former slave from mistreatment after she is taken as a wife.If the husband did not continue to keep his vows to this wife, she was considered redeemed and gained the rights of a free woman. Although we no longer accept polygamy or own slaves, the same principles would apply today; this example can be referenced as case law. This means that if the Lord would allow this provision for a slave, He would also have the same concern for free women (who were afforded more rights than slaves, not fewer). The Lord has the same compassion on all his people and would allow for any wife whose husband continually did not keep his vows to be released from her obligation to remain in such circumstances.

The understanding gained from the Old Testament is that divorce exists to prevent injustice. In his book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities, Brewer includes additional insight into the context of marriage and divorce in the Old Testament and I recommend reading it; He digs into what was included in the original marriage vows and how one spouse could break the covenant of marriage by not upholding his or her vows. Divorce was permitted in order to protect wives from starvation and hardship when their husbands withdrew from providing for them. The certificate of divorce allowed a woman to remarry without fear of the original husband trying to take her back. Divorce was permitted for wives who used to be slaves, when their husbands no longer valued them enough to care for them. Since free women had more rights than slave women, one can conclude that free women could receive a divorce instead of being forced to remain in detrimental circumstances. While divorce was given only as a concession to address problems resulting from our sinful nature, it appears that the Lord allowed for divorce to free people from harmful marriages.

Next, it is important to look at the insight that the New Testament provides on marriage and divorce. Jesus upheld the teachings of the Old Testament, but called His followers to a higher standard. In Matthew 9:19, Jesus said “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Does this mean he rejected the provisions established in the Old Testament? No. It is commonly acknowledged that the Pharisees who were questioning him were asking about the debated 'any cause' divorce that had become popular among some of the Jews. The 'any cause' divorce was promoted by one of the prominent rabbis and allowed men to divorce their wives without providing a reason. The Pharisees were attempting to trap Jesus by making Him take sides on this highly controversial issue. Jesus was speaking against baseless divorce, but would not have abandoned the Father's compassion for those who were suffering harm by remaining in the marriage. Jesus was speaking to an audience that was well versed in the Law and who would have understood that abuse was unacceptable to the Lord.

Paul provides additional instruction on how to approach divorce among Christians; He provides practical instructions for a few of the situations that the new believers faced. He provides instructions for situations where a believer has left, as well as when the non-believer leaves. He says, “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:10- 11, NIV) In this statement, he acknowledges that it is possible that a wife could leave and not return. Although he says a wife “must not separate from her husband,” he provides instructions for her in the event that she does separate. He does not say that she is sinful if she does not return, only that she may not remarry (remarriage after divorce is a separate issue and deserves its own explanation, but is also in-depth and therefore not covered here. However, divorce solely for the sake of remarriage was never permitted). He was providing general instructions on what to do in less-than-perfect circumstances. Then Paul adds, “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:12-16) Here, Paul acknowledges that sometimes divorce is unavoidable. Marriage takes two people. While divorce is bad, some situations are worse. Paul points to reconciliation and peace. If possible, he says reconcile; if reconciliation is not possible, the second best thing is to live separately in peace. Some people encourage the abused spouse to continue to even submit to domestic violence in order to “win” the abuser to Christ; In his book, “When the Vow Breaks: A Survival and recovery Guide for Christians Facing Divorce,” Joseph Warren Kniskern, urges that “this is bad advice in this situation and a misapplication of Scripture! No Scripture approves of a spouse being violent or family members enduring it” (Kniskern, 1993, p. 106). Paul was also clear about his expectation for believers to love and submit to one another; conflicts between two believers would have been resolved by submitting to one another, or the church authorities, if needed. Divorce is only necessary as a result of disobedience to the Lord, by one or both spouses.

It is vital to clearly communicate that, as Brewer explains, while divorce is always a result of sin, the divorce itself is not the sin; the breaking of the vows that causes the divorce is sin (Brewer, 2003). It is important to understand the biblical marriage and divorce the way the original reader did, so that the spouse who has been sinned against can be freed from undue guilt and condemnation. One example of this was a woman I met, who had recently moved to the US from China and was staying in shelter for homeless women. Her husband was a drug dealer and physically abused her. She was staying at the shelter, while he lived in their home with another woman. This woman had a divorce hearing, yet experienced much guilt and many doubts since she was the one who had filed the divorce papers. She felt it was unsafe to return home and that she was not wanted there, but felt that she was the one responsible for the divorce. She cared very much about what the Bible said, yet it was causing her great distress. Divorce seemed to be the only logical solution, but she walked through it with the unnecessary burden of guilt. She did not cause the divorce; by requesting divorce, she was only seeking to be free of the unjust situation. It is important to make this distinction.

Although many of spouses remain in those harmful circumstances, simply because do not have the tools to get free, Church leaders should not be hasty to encourage divorce every time spouse feels they have been mistreated by the other. Every marriage is unique and many can be saved. In their book, “Boundaries in Marriage,” Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend provide resources to help protect one spouse from continuing to be harmed by the negative behaviors of the other. They do not advocate for divorce, in most instances, but do say it is sometimes necessary to “take a strong stance; separate, not participate in the behavioral patterns against which they are setting boundaries; demand righteousness before participating in the relationship again.” (Cloud & Townsend, 1999, p. 251) Their expectation is that if the other person is not willing to make the required changes, they will leave. In that case, the divorce will still happen, but the spouse who was suffering the abuse will know that he or she did everything possible. Through this process, sin is confronted and the abusive spouse is given an opportunity to change. In some situations, the abusive spouse will see the fault in the abusive behavior and repent. Although the process of setting boundaries is hard, both spouses stand to benefit and the marriage could be saved. Restoration keeps a family together; when successful, the couple can experience the reconciliation Paul spoke about. If the marriage can not be saved, the abused spouse will walk away better equipped to avoid experiencing similar mistreatment in future relationships. While divorce is permissible for abuse, it is not required; sometimes redemption occurs when the abused spouse chooses to remain in the marriage. Every situation is unique and the Lord’s guidance is essential.

Regardless of whether or not the marriage continues, those seeking help with a difficult or abusive marriage will benefit from being surrounded by strong community who can support, strengthen, and guide them. Both paths (setting boundaries and going through a separation or divorce) are difficult to walk; it is essential for the abused spouse to be surrounded by a community who will pray and remind him or her who she or she is to the Lord. It is also important not to judge or pressure him or her; these situations are complicated and only the Lord knows all the details. If the abusive partner is willing to partake in Christian community, sinful behavior should be confronted in ongoing relationships that provide accountability and support. Both spouses should be lead to forgive. The question, “to divorce or not to divorce?” is rarely black and white. Being in community can help to avoid hasty decisions that will lead to regret.

Whenever possible, it is best to for Christians to seek His restoration and reconciliation in relationships. Sometimes, despite great efforts and intentions, ending a marriage is the only way to put an end to continued abuse. The Bible does allow for divorce in these circumstances, yet it should be the last option, whenever possible. Divorce is messy, costly, painful, and it tears a family in half. The Church should come along-side people in abusive marriages and articulate that the Word of God brings freedom and not condemnation. A spouse who is truly experiencing ongoing abuse is free to stay or free to leave, although should be encouraged to seek restoration whenever possible; he or she should be supported in seeking the Lord's guidance. A spouse who is separated from and abusive marriage should be encouraged to seek reconciliation if the abusive spouse is willing to repent, but should not be forced to remain in limbo forever; if reconciliation is not a reasonable option, then divorce may need to be considered. If there is physical abuse or impending violence, urgent action must be taken to get the abused spouse to safety, whenever possible. A spouse who has already divorced from an abusive marriage and suffers from guilt should be supported in understanding the Lord's grace and freedom. The men and women in abusive marriages need to know God's intentions for marriage. They are likely to be too they are worn-down, stretched-thin, and exhausted to seek in-depth answers themselves and need support. Hasty answers will likely lead to regret, but those willing to walk with through these situations Lord will experience His faithfulness and grow in faith.

Resources:

Cloud, Dr. Henry and Townsend, Dr. John. Boundaries in Marriage. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities. Downer's Grove: IVP Books. 2003

Kniskern, Joseph Warren. When the Vow Breaks: A Survival Guide for Christians Facing Divorce. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers. 1993