A few months ago, I was asked as part of a group to study the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, especially as it concerns the debate mentioned in the essay here. The original form of this essay was a much longer work (30-some-odd pages) defending a much different position. At a certain point, I had to stop and ask myself, “Why am I trying to jump through so many hoops to defend this position?”

Ultimately, through much more prayer and study, I began to see the original position as untenable and un-Christ-like.

This is a heavily revised version with a much different focus, parsed down for readability and directness. I was asked by a few people to share my thoughts and make them public.

Few moral and pastoral questions have proven as enduringly complex, or as deeply divisive, as marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In the landscape of modern Christian ethics, there is a tension that exists between two fundamental biblical imperatives: the prophetic demand for moral purity and the pastoral mandate to shepherd broken souls toward salvation. This intersection is perhaps most strongly felt in the issue of the “alien sinner”—an individual outside the covenant of Christ—who seeks baptism while living in a marriage contracted after an unscriptural divorce.

Does the Gospel demand the dissolution of this family unit as a condition of repentance and salvation, or does it offer a mechanism for such a relationship to be redeemed? Is the “adulterous” nature of the union an ontological shackle that persists through the waters of baptism, or is it a moral debt that is paid and transformed by the stewardship of grace?

To answer, one must navigate the tension between akribeia (exactness) and oikonomia (economy)—principles that have defined Christian jurisprudence for two millennia.

A definitive modern expression of this controversy occurred in January 2003, during the Satterfield–Evans Debate on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage held in Marietta, Georgia. The debate featured Phillip Satterfield, representing the “Strict” or “Dissolution” view, and Dr. Jack Evans Sr., a towering figure in the African American Churches of Christ, representing the “Pastoral” or “Redemptive” view.

The debate centered on a specific doctrinal proposition, affirmed by Evans and denied by Satterfield:

“The Holy Bible teaches that an alien sinner in an adulterous marriage may repent of sins, including adultery, be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, including adultery, without dissolving his or her last marriage contracted before baptism, and be saved eternally.”

Satterfield’s argument was rooted in a strict reading of the “creation ordinance” and the present-tense grammar of Matthew 19:9. He argued that if a relationship is defined as “adultery” by Jesus, it remains adultery until it ceases. Baptism, in this view, forgives the guilt of past acts but does not legitimize an ongoing state of sin. To remain in the marriage is to remain in the sin. Therefore, repentance requires the cessation of the sexual relationship, effectively mandating a second divorce or celibacy within the home.

Evans, however, argued from the standpoint of the “alien sinner’s” status. He contended that the “old man” of sin is crucified in baptism (Romans 6:6). If the convert is truly a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17), then the pre-baptismal liabilities, including the irregularity of their marriage covenants, are washed away. For Evans, demanding the breakup of a family was not “repentance” but a new tragedy that violated the spirit of the Gospel. While he did not use the term “Economy” (oikonomia), his argument served as a plea for the church’s authority to declare a sinner “clean” based on Christ’s blood, prioritizing the salvation of the person over the strict enforcement of the marital statute.

This debate functions as a theological fulcrum for the Churches of Christ and the broader Restoration Movement. Historically, this movement has sought to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” However, the text of Scripture is often silent on the specific procedural remedy for an unscripturally remarried convert.

Strict interpretative models like those of Gordon Wenhamand Thomas Schreiner emphasize the permanence of the creation ordinance, arguing that an “adulterous” union is an ongoing state of sin that baptism cannot erase without cessation. This view fears that allowing the marriage to continue turns grace into a license for immorality (Jude 4). They argue that just as a polygamist must put away his extra wives, the adulterously remarried must put away their current spouse.

Conversely, pastoral models like those of Rubel Shelly and John Meyendorff argue that the Cross redeems states of being and that the church is entrusted with the “stewardship” (economy) of grace to manage these complexities. They fear that the strict view turns the Gospel into a system of law more rigid than the Mosaic code, effectively barring the “sick” (Mark 2:17) from the Physician unless they first heal themselves by destroying their families.

This article employs a six-part integrative hermeneutical framework to construct a comprehensive analysis of the issue.

The study begins by establishing the foundational theological tension that frames the entire debate: the relationship between the “Prophetic Standard” of marriage as a creation ordinance and the “Pastoral Application” of the church as the steward of grace. This initial section explores the ontology of marriage and examines the definition of repentance, setting the groundwork for the specific biblical arguments that follow.

Following this theological grounding, the paper proceeds to a grammatical-historical examination of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:1–12. This exegetical analysis focuses on the context of the first-century Hillel-Shammai debate to clarify the intent behind Jesus’ prohibition of divorce. Special attention is given to the semantic range of porneia and the theological implications of the “eunuchs for the Kingdom” saying, arguing that these texts function less as legal statutes and more as a counter-narrative to Pharisaic legalism.

The analysis then shifts to the apostolic application of these ideals in 1 Corinthians 7. By analyzing Paul’s instructions to a complex Gentile community, specifically the “Pauline Privilege” and the command to “remain” in one’s calling, this section argues that Paul provides the essential template for economy. It demonstrates how the apostle applies the absolute ideal of Jesus to the messy realities of Corinthian life without compromising the Gospel’s transformative power.

To broaden the perspective beyond purely textual analysis, the study also incorporates a historical-theological framework. This section contrasts the akribeia (strictness) characteristic of the early Latin canons (exemplified by Tertullian and the Council of Elvira) with the developing theology of oikonomia (economy) in the Byzantine East, particularly in the canons of St. Basil. This historical survey provides a crucial precedent for the thesis that the church has long recognized a distinction between the ideal of marriage and the pastoral management of human brokenness.

Moving to the specific context of the Restoration Movement, the essay examines the doctrine of Congregational Autonomy. By empowering local elders to make binding judgments on “matters of opinion” regarding the reception of converts, autonomy allows for the exercise of pastoral discretion in cases where a universal strict rule might obscure the mercy of Christ.

Finally, the study synthesizes these exegetical, historical, and ecclesiological threads to articulate a theology of “Redemptive Economy.” This conclusion argues that the locus of authority for determining the status of a convert’s marriage rests within church leadership, distinct from the individual conscience, ultimately affirming the redemptive capacity of the Gospel to sanctify broken structures.

Ultimately, this paper argues that while Scripture establishes the permanence of marriage as the divine ideal (akribeia), the biblical and historical principle of oikonomia (economy), manifested in the functional discretion of church leadership and the Church of Christ congregational autonomy model, empowers elders to prioritize the salvation of the sinner over the strict dissolution of irregular unions. Therefore, a person in a complex marriage may be baptized and remain in that union, a reality validated by the grace of God administered through the church’s stewardship rather than by the marriage’s original lawfulness. Consequently, the statement that “an alien sinner in an adulterous marriage may repent, be baptized, remain in that marriage, and be saved eternally” is affirmed as a valid exercise of this pastoral authority.

Part I: The Creation Ideal and the Stewardship of Grace

To navigate the controversy of baptism and irregular marriages, one must define the theological points that create the tension: the absolute standard of God’s law regarding creation (akribeia) and the delegated authority of the church to administer God’s grace (oikonomia). These are not merely historical or philosophical concepts; both are deeply rooted in the biblical text.

Akribeia: The Immutability of the Law

The principle of akribeia (strictness, exactness) finds its biblical foundation in the unchanging nature of God’s character and His law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declares the endurance of the law in absolute terms: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:18). This reflects the warning of Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it,” a warning echoed in the final verses of Revelation (22:18–19).

In the context of marriage, akribeia is grounded in the creation narrative of Genesis 2:24. When Jesus cites this text in Matthew 19 (”from the beginning it was not so”), He is establishing the creation ordinance as an immutable standard that supersedes Mosaic concessions. R. T. France notes that Jesus appeals to the “divine purpose” of creation, which operates independently of human legislative loopholes.

For the strict interpreter, adhering to this “creation ordinance” is an act of akribeia; a refusal to compromise the “jot and tittle” of what God established, regardless of the social cost. The marriage bond is viewed as an ontological reality created by God, a reality susceptible to violation by human sin yet resistant to dissolution.

Oikonomia: The Stewardship of the House of God

Conversely, the principle of oikonomia is rooted in New Testament stewardship theology. The term oikonomia (from oikos, “house,” and nomos, “law” or “management”) appears frequently in the New Testament to describe the administration of God’s household (Luke 16:2–4; 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 1:10, 3:2; Col 1:25).

The biblical basis for ecclesial economy rests on the designation of church leaders as stewards. In 1 Corinthians 4:1, Paul identifies the apostles as “stewards (oikonomous) of the mysteries of God.” Similarly, Titus 1:7 calls the overseer (elder) “God’s steward,” and 1 Peter 4:10 calls all believers “good stewards of God’s varied grace.” Far from a rigid automaton, the ancient steward functioned as a manager entrusted with discretionary power to make decisions for the welfare of the household (Luke 12:42).

This stewardship is juridically expressed in the power of the keys entrusted to the church: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:19; 18:18). This authority to “bind” (forbid) and “loose” (permit) implies a delegated capacity to interpret the application of the law for the salvation of the person.

As John Erickson explains, oikonomia is the “discretionary power” of the steward to suspend the strict letter of the law (akribeia) when its rigid application would defeat the law’s ultimate purpose: the salvation of souls. Thus, rather than rejecting Scripture, the “Economy” view constitutes an exercise of the authority Jesus explicitly delegated to His church to manage the complexities of a fallen world.

Metanoia: The Nature of Repentance

The synthesis of these views undoubtedly impacts the definition of repentance. The Greek term metanoia signifies a “change of mind” that results in a change of life; a refrain many in the Restorationist tradition are familiar with. In the “Strict” view (akribeia), repentance is defined primarily by restitution and cessation. Just as a thief must return stolen goods and stop stealing (Eph 4:28), the adulterer must cease the act of adultery. If the marriage is an act of adultery, it must cease.

However, the “Pastoral” view (oikonomia) argues for a broader, eschatological definition of repentance. ChoongJae Lee argues that in Matthew’s Gospel, repentance is a “decisive turning of the whole person from sin to righteousness” that marks the entrance into the Kingdom. It is a shift in allegiance from the “domain of darkness” to the “Kingdom of the Son” (Col 1:13). In this view, repentance regarding an irregular marriage involves acknowledging the sin of the past divorce, confessing the brokenness, and dedicating the current household to the Lord. It focuses on future fidelity rather than retroactive destruction.

Part II: Exegesis of Matthew 19:1-12

To understand Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19, we must situate it within the bitter intra-Jewish debate of the first century. The Pharisees approach Jesus with a “test” (v. 3): “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” This phrase (kata pasan aitian) was the legal catchphrase of the School of Hillel. This liberal rabbinic school allowed divorce for trivial reasons, such as burning a meal or finding a more attractive woman. Opposing them was the School of Shammai, which restricted divorce to cases of “indecency” (sexual immorality).

Jesus refuses to step into their trap. Instead of choosing a side in the debate over Deuteronomy 24, He leaps over Moses entirely and lands in Genesis 2. “Have you not read...” (v. 4). By appealing to creation, Jesus establishes the prophetic ideal: God designed marriage to be permanent. The “Strict” view stops here, arguing that Jesus established a new, harder law. However, Jesus is actually rejecting the premise that divorce is a right to be exercised, reframing it as a tragedy that violates God’s design.

The exegetical crux is verse 9: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another commits adultery (moichatai).”

First, the term porneia must be properly defined. Some interpreters argue this refers only to pre-marital unchastity or incest. However, the consensus of scholarship (Carson, France, Keener) is that porneia is a broad term covering all illicit sexual activity, including adultery. This creates a legitimate ground for divorce, shattering the notion that the marriage bond is metaphysically unbreakable. If it can be broken by sin, it is not an absolute ontological entity.

Second, the verb moichatai appears in the present indicative tense. Satterfield argued this means “keeps on committing adultery.” However, linguistic scholars note that the present tense often denotes a “gnomic” or timeless truth (”he is an adulterer”) rather than a continuous action in every moment. The label diagnoses the moral quality of remarriage against the creation ideal; it does not necessarily prescribe the relationship’s ongoing status. Either way, proponents of the “Strict” view often stop here.

The most critical verse for the “Economy” thesis is often overlooked: verse 11. After the disciples complain that the standard is too high (“it is better not to marry”), Jesus replies: “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” Strict interpreters apply this to the “saying” about celibacy (v. 12). However, the antecedent is the disciples’ reaction to the strictness of marriage. Jesus is acknowledging a profound reality: the “Kingdom Ideal” is a heavy burden that “not everyone can receive.” This admission creates the theological space for economy. It implies that the church will contain people who fall short of the ideal. The “eunuchs for the Kingdom” represent the radical few who can live the ideal perfectly (or who sacrifice marriage entirely), but the implication is that for the rest, grace must abound.

Part III: Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7

If Matthew 19 is the “Ideal,” 1 Corinthians 7 is the “Real.” Writing to a church filled with former pagans, sexually confused converts, and mixed marriages, Paul provides the apostolic template for managing imperfection.

Paul explicitly distinguishes his authority from the Lord’s: “I say, not the Lord” (v. 12). This is the biblical foundation for ecclesial authority. Paul, as a steward of the mysteries, is authorized to adjudicate a case Jesus never addressed: a believer married to an unbeliever. If the unbeliever departs, Paul rules: “The brother or sister is not enslaved (ou dedoulōtai) in such cases. God has called you to peace” (v. 15).

The phrase “not enslaved” utilizes strong covenantal language, implying the bond is dissolved. The believer is free. The rationale provided, “called to peace,” is the core logic of economy. The strict application of the marriage bond is subservient to the believer’s “peace.” If the marriage becomes a source of war that threatens salvation, the bond yields. This establishes a precedent that legal bonds are made for man, not man for legal bonds.

Strict interpreters argue that an irregular marriage is “filthy” or “profane.” Yet Paul argues that even a marriage to a pagan, which was spiritually irregular, is “sanctified” (hēgiastai) by the believing spouse. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the convert is more powerful than the irregularity of the union. If the Spirit can sanctify a marriage to a pagan, can He not sanctify a marriage between two penitent believers, even if their history is scarred by divorce? While it does not retroactively validate the divorce, the “sanctification” of the marriage prospectively claims the family for Christ.

The capstone of Paul’s argument is the “Rule of Peace” in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” Strict interpreters (Schreiner) limit this to “social stations” (slave/free, circumcised/uncircumcised). They argue “sin” (adultery) is not a “calling.” But the Pastoral view (Shelly, Evans) argues that for a new convert, their marriage is their social station. It is the context in which the Gospel found them. To demand that a convert “undo” their marriage is akin to demanding a Gentile “undo” their uncircumcision (or a Jew undo his circumcision) to be pleasing to God. Paul’s Gospel is one of transformation in place. The “old man” died in baptism; the “new man” serves God in the situation in which he is. The command to “remain” serves as a protective fence against the chaos of legalistic disruption.

Part IV: Historical-Theological Framework

To validate the “Economy” thesis, we must show it constitutes a historic practice of the church rather than a modern invention.

The earliest post-apostolic witnesses often aligned with a strict “prophetic” reading of Jesus’ words. The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150 CE) asserts that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, “he likewise committeth adultery.” Hermas allows for separation but demands celibacy. This rigorism was codified by the Latin Fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian) and solidified by the Council of Elvira (c. 305 CE), which barred remarried women from communion until death. Augustine (c. 400 CE) provided the metaphysical glue for this view, arguing that the sacramentum of marriage is indelible. This Augustinian “indissolubility” became the standard for the Western Church and heavily influenced the “Strict” view held by many today.

However, the Christian East took a different path. St. Basil the Great (c. 375 CE), in his Canonical Epistles, reflects the tension. In Canon 4, he calls remarriage “adultery.” But in Canon 48 and others, he prescribes penance rather than dissolution. He excludes the remarried from communion for a period (often 7 years), after which they are restored in their marriage. This is oikonomia. The church recognized that the second marriage was a deviation from the ideal, but it was a tolerated reality to prevent the greater evil of fornication or despair.

The Byzantine church reasoned that while the law condemns the act, the Steward has the authority to heal the sinner. This historical fact destroys the Satterfield argument that “the church has always taught dissolution.” On the contrary, the church in the East has practiced economy for the past 2,000 years.

Part V: Ecclesiological Framework

How does this ancient theology apply to the Churches of Christ, which reject Bishops and Synods? It applies through the doctrine of congregational autonomy, which functions as the structural guarantee of pastoral economy.

In COC ecclesiology, the local congregation is fully autonomous, answering to no “Brotherhood” headquarters or synod. This ecclesiological structure means the local eldership possesses the final, non-appealable authority to interpret and apply Scripture for their flock. They are the “Stewards” of that local house (Titus 1:7).

This stewardship implies a heavy responsibility to make binding judgments in areas where the application of Scripture is complex or where biblical imperatives seem to conflict, such as the command against adultery versus the command to preserve the family and show mercy. Elders are charged with “watching for souls” (Heb 13:17), a duty that requires weighing the “letter” of the law against the “spirit” of the Gospel in the lives of individual converts.

To navigate the tension between unity and diversity, Restorationist theologians like J.D. Thomas developed the hermeneutic distinction between “Matters of Faith” and “Matters of Opinion.” “Matters of Faith” are understood as the explicit, undeniable commands of God (e.g., “Baptism is for the remission of sins”). These are non-negotiable and bind the conscience of every believer. “Matters of Opinion,” however, involve the methods, judgments, or inferences required to apply those commands to specific situations.

In the context of the MDR debate, strict interpreters argue that the dissolution of an irregular marriage is a “Matter of Faith.” However, pastoral theologians argue that determining the validity of a pre-baptismal covenant and the specific requirements of repentance for a new convert involves sanctified judgment, placing it in the realm of “Opinion.” When elders decide to baptize a “complex” couple and accept them into fellowship, they are ruling that the application of Matthew 19 to this specific case is a matter of judgment. They are effectively saying, “We, the stewards, judge that mercy is the path here.” This theological category allows for “sanctified disagreement,” permitting a congregation to exercise economy without being accused of abandoning the faith.

Congregational autonomy acts as the functional equivalent of oikonomia because it allows for localized flexibility. If the whole denomination were required to reach a consensus, the “Strict” view would inevitably dominate. But because each eldership decides for its own flock, it allows pockets of “Economy” to exist where grace is extended to complex cases. This structure preserves the “Strict” ideal in theory (as many congregations will hold to it) while allowing the “Pastoral” reality in practice (as other congregations will exercise mercy).

This diversity is not a sign of chaos, but of the heavy responsibility of local stewardship. It affirms that the final earthly court of appeal for the sinner resides with the living, breathing leadership of the local church rather than a distant synod or an abstract book of law.

Ultimately, elders exercising this authority rely on a “redemptive theology” of baptism. As Rubel Shelly argues, the Cross is powerful enough to redeem entire states of being beyond isolated acts. When elders accept a remarried couple, they are making a theological judgment: that the “old man” who contracted the unlawful union has died in the waters of baptism, and the “new man” is resurrected into a life where that union is now dedicated to God. This “case-by-case” adjudication is the Restorationist version of the Byzantine solution; a pastoral decision to extend fellowship for the sake of salvation, trusting that the blood of Christ covers the structural sins of the past.

Part VI: Theological Synthesis

The convergence of ancient Byzantine theology and modern Restorationist ecclesiology points toward a unified, cohesive position on the problem of baptism and the adulterous union. By moving beyond the binary of “Truth vs. Error” and embracing the tension between “Prophetic Ideal” and “Pastoral Stewardship,” we can construct a theology of Redemptive Economy. This synthesis rests on three pillars: the distinction between validity and reality, the ecclesial locus of authority, and the redemptive scope of baptism.

The Distinction Between Validity and Reality

A central failure of the “Strict” view is the collapse of the distinction between sacramental validity and pastoral reality. Strict interpretation holds that if a marriage is not “valid” according to the ideal of Genesis 2 (because a previous spouse is alive), it is ontologically “void” and therefore non-existent in the eyes of God. Consequently, the only remedy is to align physical reality with ontological reality by dissolving the union.

The “Economic” view introduces a necessary nuance. It admits: “This marriage is not the ideal of Genesis 2. It is scarred. It is penitential. But it is a pastoral reality that now houses the Holy Spirit.” The church validates the people while stopping short of validating the sin. By acknowledging the brokenness of the past without demanding that the penitent inflict a new brokenness on their present family, the church prioritizes the reality of the Spirit’s work over the validity of legal paperwork. This mirrors John Meyendorff’s observation that the church does not have the power to validate the sin of divorce, but it does have the power to recognize the existence of the new family unit and to dispense grace within it.

The Efficacy of Baptismal Regeneration

The debate ultimately reveals one’s view of baptism. Is it a legal transaction or a cosmic death? Satterfield’s view implies a minimalist pneumatology: baptism washes away the guilt of past acts (adultery), but it lacks the power to transform the nature of present relationships. It views the marriage bond as a static, legal shackle that the Holy Spirit cannot touch, effectively arguing that the “old man’s” debts survive the water.

A theology of Redemptive Economy argues for a maximalist view of baptismal regeneration. If we believe Romans 6 (that we die with Christ), then the legal entanglements of the dead man cannot bind the living. The “alien sinner” argument relies on the conviction that the Spirit is powerful enough to re-consecrate a “profane” house. As Rubel Shelly contends, if baptism is a true death and resurrection, then the “new man” rises with a new identity. While the social facts of the marriage remain, its theological significance is transfigured. The Lord now claims the union that was once a testament to rebellion as a context for discipleship.

The Authority of the Keys

Finally, we must recover a high view of church authority. The Bible is the Constitution, but the Elders are the Supreme Court. The text does not interpret itself. God gave the “Keys of the Kingdom” to the church to bind and loose (Matt 16:19). When elders loose a sinner from the requirement of divorce, it is “loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18). Such an act does not usurp God so much as it exercises the stewardship He commanded.

The “Strict” view essentially posits that the law acts autonomously: if the text says “adultery,” the result must be “divorce,” regardless of the human cost. The “Economic” view posits that Christ delegated the interpretation of the law to the living church. This shifts the spiritual risk from the individual convert to the leaders who “watch for their souls.” The validity of the couple’s salvation rests not on their perfect forensic adherence to the marriage code, but on their obedience to the Gospel and their submission to the church’s oversight.

Stewardship over Statute

The controversy surrounding baptism and the adulterous union transcends the subject of marriage to become a debate about the nature of the Gospel itself. Does the Good News of Jesus Christ establish a new legal code more rigid than the Law of Moses, or does it inaugurate a Kingdom where grace has the final word over human failure?

Exegetically, we have seen that while Jesus establishes the absolute permanency of marriage in Matthew 19 as the Kingdom ideal (akribeia), He simultaneously creates space for human weakness, a space occupied by the church’s authority to bind and loose. Paul expands this space in 1 Corinthians 7, prioritizing the “peace” of the believer and the stability of the convert’s calling over the rigid enforcement of marital bonds. The apostolic instruction to “remain” where one is called provides the biblical blueprint for sanctifying imperfect social structures.

Historically, the church has always wrestled with this tension. While the Latin West ossified around a metaphysical rigorism that demanded dissolution, the Byzantine East preserved the apostolic practice of oikonomia. By recognizing second marriages as penitential yet valid realities, the Eastern tradition affirms that the church has the authority to heal the sinner without overturning the law. This historical precedent validates the pastoral instincts of those in the Restoration Movement who seek to extend fellowship to the broken.

Ecclesiologically, the doctrine of congregational autonomy provides the structural vessel for this grace. By empowering local elders to function as stewards, the church ensures that the law is applied with the specific, nuanced wisdom required for each unique human story. The distinction between “Matters of Faith” (the command against adultery) and “Matters of Opinion” (the remedy for the convert) protects the conscience of the church while opening the door of salvation to the “alien sinner.”

Therefore, the doctrinal proposition that “an alien sinner in an adulterous marriage may repent, be baptized, and remain in that marriage” is affirmed. It is affirmed, validity resting on the Steward’s authority to pay the debt rather than on a voiding of the creation ordinance. The church, acting in the name of Christ, declares that the new creation has begun. In that new creation, the waters of baptism are not a shallow stream that merely rinses the surface of the past, but a mighty flood that drowns the “old man” completely. To demand the dissolution of a family is to suggest that the legal entanglements of the old life are stronger than the resurrection power of the new. To accept the family is to declare that where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more.

Get full access to Test Everything at testeverything.substack.com/subscribe