Interesting, and I would be among those who would want to track along the lines Vanhoozer and Webb (and you) are suggesting. Seems like this is part of what Jesus did which rankled the Pharisees who were intent in keeping the letter of the Law, but somewhere along the line lost its spirit.

What is his connection with NT Wright’s little essay on the topic? It seems he is using it as his starting point? Does he quote or cite him?
This one
I have found that essay to be one of the most helpful things I have ever read in terms of Biblical study and application. It demands an innovative praxis in a way that prevents an innovative reading of the text.
We are forced to deal with the text on its own terms in order to move beyond the existing text and into our own context where we are ‘writing new text’ so to speak, but that new text must remain consistent with the whole.
For example, I don’t think the best way to answer questions about divorce is to look up all the references to divorce in scripture. Rather, we need to understand what God is doing (whole narrative arc) and how marriage fits into it, then begin asking questions about current practice. In this context Jesus’ comments about divorce can be seen for what they truly are. Additionally, in this context, we can begin to understand what the real issues for God are, and for ourselves.
If we understand what God is doing in marriage, then we can understand why Jesus would try to strengthen the institution of marriage by His comments, yet, at the same time grant that certain marriages, simply aren’t marriages…
I think in that light, a case can be made for divorce on grounds of abuse.

Vanhoozer’s approach seems more reasonable than the other two discussed this far. Of course, the open-endedness is likely to cause concern.
Divorce is an excellent question to bring up in this context. Letter of the law it would seem to me that a man is permitted to divorce his wife if she is unfaithful and a woman is never, ever permitted to divorce (male infidelity is never given as a justifiable reason).
I don’t think that this is right, not because of any text but because of the entire text and teaching. Love and concern for others does not mean allowing oneself (or one’s children) to be abused physically or mentally when another option is available. But this is not only going “beyond scripture” it is also a minority opinion in church history – so it is “beyond tradition.”
Interesting to think about.

I guess what I am saying is, the disciples were more likely to be the perpetrators of violence against a wife, and so Jesus’ words to them are not the best place to go for wisdom there.
Paul says a husband cares for himself by caring for his wife, and this seems like it applies perfectly to the abusive husband.
But this requires a broader scope of reading than simply looking up divorce in a concordance…

I agree with RJS that Vanhoozer’s process of “going beyond” Scripture is more reasonable and creative/innovative. As a pastor I’ve seen the devastation of text-based “principled” approaches to divorce. With the classic no divorce except for *porneia* (adultery/sexual immorality–Mat 5:32 and 19:9) and “the willful desertion by the unbelieving spouse” (1 Cor 7), all kinds of ethical schemata are derived to restore sanity into a troubled marriage relationship. Horrible abuse, but no adultery? Then, separate until one of the spouses (usually the husband) does commit adultery and, viola!, you have “grounds” for divorce. I’ve seen this played out. Abusive husbands remain abusive until the wife files for divorce and, thus, threatens his bank account. Then he becomes the loving, pliable puppy who will “do anything to save my marriage.” Usually the no-grounds-for-divorce-wife reneges and sooner or later the abuse happens again. Text-principle-application leads to unbelievable ethical contortions when applied to marriage, divorce and remarriage.
If Jesus and Paul raised the bar of human relationships to the level of receiving and expressing the *agape* of God in the Great Commandment and in the Ephesians 5 text specifically for marriage, then any enduring practice that violates love and demeans another human being is a violation of marriage as God intends marriage to be. With this approach, we don’t have a text and principle, we have an ethic that requires sustained and community-affirmed wisdom. I have seen the concept or idea of marriage extrapolated away from the human beings involved and observed the despicable damage done in the name of the concept. Marriage LAW replaces Sabbath LAW in our day to the detriment of the people involved. I am coming to believe that this is nothing less than pastoral malpractice. To paraphrase Jesus “Marriage was made for man and woman, not man and woman for marriage.” Jesus is Lord of marriage.

now that’s a very interesting question?
i’m not sure if this problem could be solved solely in a theological manner?
some musings?
afaik ???? answered that ?????? wrote this precept just for the hardness of the man’s heart?
so divorce is not allowed!
basta.
but?
maybe one should ask the question in a different way?
i.e. how could such thing happen in a christian congregation that every member looks away from the apparent?!
and why shouldn’t it be allowed for a spouse who experience such abuse or cruelty to talk about the situation to others and ask for help?
why shouldn’t it be allowed for a parishioner or a vicar to talk to the spouse about his unacceptable behaviour? not in a judging way but in a compassionate way? usually there are reasons for such an attitude?
question is why we don’t really talk in our congregations?
in our marriage liturgy we ask the living g-d for his blessing, guidance, assistance and help for this marriage?
so?
if those in trouble with their marriage don’t talk about their problems and don’t enlist for g-d’s (and a vicar’s or advisor’s) assistance or help they easily get into some sort of vicious circle which leads to total destruction of the marriage in the end?
that i noticed that in my job?
so one key to this issue might be to talk about things openly!
not to gossip?
imho there’s a responsibility to the couple as well as to the congregation for a marriage?
to save it when it’s in trouble?
but to be frank?
i’d say if one won’t stop being cruel or abusive then – and just then! after everything else failed – divorce should be allowed?
just for the hardness of the man’s heart?
next point might be the question of sin and forgiveness?
some people make divorce the second unforgivable sin – which it definitely isn’t?
i’m also not not sure if adultery just and only means cheating? doesn’t adultry also and even more mean betrayal – betraying g-d and betraying the spouse and betraying the marriage through the way one acts?
so – who’s the one sins?
the one who betrayed the marriage or the one who asks for deliverance from the evildoer and for divorce?
the other thought i’d like to point out is that divorce is something what g-d didn’t intend when he created man but there might be certain circumctances where it should be – as ultima ratio and just for the hardness of the man’s heart – allowed to divorce?
after (!) verything else failed?
in the end – aren’t we all in need of forgiveness?
he who’s without sin may throw the first stone?
am i that wrong with this blue sky thinkin’?

oh – and one more thought?
a marriage is very, very hard work!!!
for both!!
and both should know that before they marry!
it’s a good thing that some parishes offers marriage courses?
unfortunately we made a feeling we call love the basis of our marriages – but the real love grows over the years?
that also should a couple know when they marry?

“Vanhoozer believes we have to use all the disciplines and the church in order to discern how to live biblically today.”
I agree with this statement. I think in the past we only used the scriptures specific to marriage without taking the whole of scripture and God’s nature into consideration. I think serial behavior might be cause for divorce. What I mean is, serial adultery and abuse for which the offending party seems unwilling to change. At that point, you’re dealing with someone who is unrepentant and to stay and expose one’s self and/or children to such behavior is to self-inflict an injustice. Better to leave the situation and pray for the person’s repentance and salvation

I have heard it argued that physical abuse or ongoing substance abuse represents an abandonment of the marriage just as real as physical abandonment. It is a rejection of the essence of what marriage is in favor of self – much like adultery is – and therefor falls under abandonment. It has always seemed to me that this may be stretching the actual text past what it says, but certainly fits within the concepts of the bible.

A pastor once presented to me an approach to this issue based on Matthew 18:15-17. He seemed to believe in treating it not as a marriage issue but as an issue between believers. If a husband was beating his wife, then she should “show him his fault in private.” If he repented and stopped, then the problem is solved. If not, take along other believers. If that does not result in repentance, it should go before the church. If he won’t stop after being rebuked by the church, then he is to be regarded as an unbeliever.
At this point, the scripture in 1 Corinthians 7:15 regarding being abandoned by an unbelieving spouse would apply. In this pastor’s view, a husband driving his wife from the house via violence was essentially the same as abandonment and she was not only free to leave, but to marry again in the Lord. Same for adultery. Of course a spouse would not be required to divorce under these circumstances, but would be free to do so.
Some might regard this as being able to get out of a marriage “on a technicality” but I’m not sure. Marriage should not be something that protects a sinner from the consequences of sin.

I find Vanhoozer’s argument compelling in part because this seems to be how Paul himself operates in 1 Cor. 7. In 7:10-11 he cites the “command from the Lord” not to divorce. But then in 7:12ff he goes on to give his own exception “I and not the Lord.” Paul felt free to use the “theodrama” of which he was a player to apply its teachings to a new situation not dealt with in Jesus command. A situation where Gentile converts would be living with unbelievers. This might serve as a model for the kind of thing of which Vanhoozer speaks.

Here’s a sketch of one approach to the issue of divorce and the Bible:
Mark’s Jesus offers no exceptions – no divorce. Period. And no remarriage. Period.
Paul, attempting to deal with realities in his churches, offers the exception that desertion by an unbelieving spouse makes divorce permissible (though still not required). And, by distinguishing between separation and divorce (separation only for brief periods), I think Paul is letting us know that divorce implies remarriage. (Otherwise, it seems to me, he would simply call for permanent separation.)
Matthew, writing still later (and perhaps trying to deal with more practical marital issues that were arising in the church) let’s us know of another exception mentioned by Jesus — porneia, presumably adultery or something similar.
So the principle is, in Malachi’s words, that God hates divorce. That divorce is always awful and a result of our hard hearts. But it is not absolutely forbidden, nor is it an unpardonable sin. Jesus and Paul offer two examples where this presumably lifelong covenant may (with grief and repentance) be broken; and perhaps there are some others.
While I think it could be argued that physical violence is a form of desertion from one’s marriage vows, and therefore a permissible reason for divorce, I prefer to argue that it is one of a limited number of reasons — beyond the examples of desertion and adultery clearly mentioned in scripture.
In our day of no-fault divorce, Christians need to demonstrate before a watching world the beauty of life-long covenantal marriage. But we cannot demand that women remain in relationships where their health or life is in danger — as somehow an obedience to Christ. Violence is no picture of Christ and the church.

Scot, I read your post, was ready to comment and then read John F’s comment. He expresses this much better than I can. The scenarios that John alludes to are all very, very real. Many of us who have dealt with men/women on a congregational level have see this kind of twisted reasoning again and again. Somehow, great effort is made to be technically correct (as perceived by them) while completely missing the spirit of Jesus’ ethic. Consequently, the agape of God is quite often not displayed while men and women argue about who is more right than the other.

NT Wright wrote an article that makes almost the same exact statement about the Bible: that it is a script of which we are participating in. This idea has been extremely helpful in my reflection on the purpose and nature of the Bible. I had been struggling with what it was after moving away from a strict inerrancy view. This metaphor of the Bible as made up of acts, and that we are part of an act as well is a helpful one for our time. A time when a lot of Christians say that you either read the Bible literally or not at all.

Some have been asking if Vanhoozer references N. T. Wright, I am not sure if he does in the short article in this book, but he certainly does in his book length treatment of this hermeneutical method in The Drama of Doctrine. I too think that this method has much to offer, and if you are in this boat, you will also want to read the following in addition to N. T. Wright’s The Last Word:
-Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theoloigcal Dramatic Theory (5 volumes): this is the watershed work, and everyone who uses the metaphor of drama in theology needs to wrestle with it
-Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: although writeen on a more popular level, this books shows how this metaphor can work out in practice.
-Samuel Wells, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics: this book focuses on the ethical side of the coin, and shows the potential of the metaphor.
-Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: this is the longer form of the article in Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology
-Trevor Hart, ed, Faithful Performances: this collection of essays approaches this issue from a variety of different angles, and is a great introduction to some of the most pressing issues.
I hope this is helpful.

Short answer: what John said in #5 and Bob in #12. Also agree with Rebeccat in #9 and Brad in #10.
Longer answer:
I don’t know exactly how this correlates with Vanhoozer’s theodrama, but I believe that there is such a thing as the spirit of a teaching and that we can be fair to that spirit even if it goes beyond the letter.
Deut 24:1-4 assumes that marriage, divorce, and remarriage were an unfortunate part of life. It forbids a man to remarry a wife he has put away who has then married another man and been put away by him.
Ezra 9-10 God’s people have a big divorce proceeding and send their foreign wives and children back home
Malachi 2:13-16 The men were “breaking faith” with the “wife of your youth” – creating a first wives’ club, so to speak. In this context, God says “I hate divorce.”
Matt 5:31-32 an exception for marital unfaithfulness
Matt 19 exception for marital unfaithfulness
Mark 10 and Luke 16 repeat Jesus’ discussion but with mention of the exception
1 Cor 7:12-14 a believing spouse should not divorce an unbelieving spouse (this is not a direct line from Ezra 9-10).
1 Cor 7: 15-16 A believing spouse who is abandoned is not bound.
Deut 24 assumes that divorce and remarriage will occur but it limits it. Matt 5 and 19 establish the importance of marriage but allow that exceptions will occur for unfaithfulness. Paul adds the exception of abandonment.
I have seen the Malachi passage used to suggest that God will be displeased with any victim of abuse who divorces, but this is unfair to the context. The context is more like middle-age men who divorce their first wife for a “trophy wife”, something like that.
Marriage is between people, and sinful people will create victims. I believe that the sense of these passages are that marriage is very important, more important than convenience to be sure, but not more important than people. It seems that Paul does not adhere to “letter of the law” of Deut 24, Ezra 10 or of Malachi 2. I believe that the spirit of these passages indicate that when a hard-hearted spouse deserts the marriage the other spouse ought to work and hope for reconciliation until reconciliation is out of the question, and then the remaining spouse is free to move on, even to remarry. In my mind, there are cases of abuse that could be considered desertion and on those grounds divorce is on the table.

I forgot to answer this. Yes, Vanhoozer has made ample use of Tom Wright’s 5 Acts. Because Vanhoozer does make use of the Act of the Church as one of unfolding canonical revelation, he does go beyond the Bible biblically, and in some ways his view is very similar to Webb’s and distant from both Kaiser and Doriani. Perhaps what divides Vanhoozer from Kaiser and Doriani is that both of them tend to think what they are doing in “applying” the Bible is what the Bible actually is saying, while Vanhoozer tends toward the unfolding of what is infolded in Scripture.
A way to say this is that Vanhoozer “theologizes” on the basis of the Bible but in conversation with the great tradition.

A reservation I have about the theo-drama paradigm, similar to Webb’s trajectory, is that it seems possible to abuse the notion, to make the text submit to my idea of what the drama should be and ignoring the clear intention of some text or another because it doesn’t fit my picture of what the drama is supposed to be. This doesn’t invalidate the idea but it does call for caution and intentional consideration, I think.

Are there major differences between Vanhoozer’s ideas and dispensationalism?