A Certificate of Divorce, Authority, and the Illusion of Power

There comes a point in life where theory dies and reality takes its place.

For years, I—like many others—wrestled with Scripture from a distance. I read, I debated, I tried to reconcile differing interpretations, and I listened to others who spoke with confidence about subjects they had never actually lived through. Divorce was one of those subjects. It is easy to speak about it in abstraction. It is entirely different to walk through it.

Now having lived through it, I can say this plainly:

Much of the confusion within Christendom regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage does not come from Scripture being unclear. It comes from people being unwilling—or unable—to accept what is clearly stated.

And that distinction matters.

Two Systems: One Real, One Temporary

The world operates under two systems:

1. The civil system—courts, laws, decrees
2. The spiritual system—God, covenant, truth

I am fully aware that these two systems collide. They always have.

The courts have already declared me divorced. They have issued their decree. They have exercised what they believe to be their authority.

And yet, I reject the idea that their declaration carries ultimate authority over a covenant made before God.

Because it doesn’t.

A covenant made before God is not created by the State—and therefore cannot be dissolved by it.

That is not confusion. That is consistency.

Why I Created the Certificate of Divorce

The Certificate of Divorce I created is not a legal document. I have no illusions about that.

It is something else entirely.

It is a formal declaration of conscience.

It is a statement that says:

“This covenant, which was entered into before God, is now being addressed before God.”

Not the courts.
Not society.
Not public opinion.

God.

The certificate is not about convincing Kelly.
It is not about arguing with the courts.
It is not about seeking validation from anyone.

It is about alignment—between what I believe, what I have lived, and what I understand Scripture to teach.

The Authority of Scripture vs. The Illusion of Ambiguity

One of the biggest problems I see today is the idea that Scripture is somehow unclear on this subject.

It isn’t.

Christ’s words are short, precise, and direct. Paul’s words are equally deliberate. The Mosaic Law provides structure and precedent.

The confusion does not come from a lack of clarity.

It comes from what people do after reading that clarity.

I’ve heard the arguments:

- “Is this universal or situational?”
- “Does another passage limit this?”
- “Is silence elsewhere meaningful?”

These questions sound thoughtful on the surface, but in practice they are often used to dilute what has already been clearly stated.

If Scripture explicitly states something in one place, and another passage is silent on that same detail, then the silence does not override the statement.

To suggest otherwise is to elevate ambiguity over clarity—and that is neither logical nor faithful to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

Clarity vs. Absurdity

Let’s be honest about something.

There is a difference between:
- legitimate contextual interpretation
- and intentional absurdity used to confuse

For example:

God commanded Noah to build an ark.

No rational person reads Genesis 6 and concludes:

“Therefore all of us are now commanded to build arks.”

That’s not interpretation—that’s nonsense.

And yet, I’ve encountered arguments just like that. Arguments designed not to clarify, but to mock clarity itself.

That kind of reasoning is not intellectual honesty. It’s obfuscation.

And sadly, people are led astray by it.

When People Leave the Faith Over Noise

I’ve seen the consequences of this firsthand.

A friend of mine—someone I personally baptized—once asked a simple question about the stars. I gave a brief, grounded answer. Nothing mystical. Nothing speculative.

Later, he spoke with an atheist friend.

That friend introduced him to astrology.

Instead of rejecting it outright, my friend tried to reconcile it with Scripture. When he couldn’t, he chose astrology—and walked away from the faith entirely.

Over horoscopes.

That wasn’t a failure of Scripture.

That was the result of:
- confusion
- poor reasoning
- and being influenced by something that sounded compelling but wasn’t grounded in truth

And it broke my heart.

The Reality of Experience

Here’s something that needs to be said plainly:

Many who speak on divorce within the Church do so without having lived it.

That doesn’t make them evil.
It doesn’t even make them unintelligent.

But it does mean they are often speaking from incomplete understanding.

I know this because I was once there myself.

I tried to make sense of it from the outside.

Now I understand it from the inside.

And like a child who grows up and finally understands his father, I can now say:

“I get it now.”

Not because I wanted to.
Not because it was easy.
But because it became unavoidable.

What I Now Hold to Be True

After everything—Scripture, experience, reflection—this is where I stand:

- A marriage covenant made before God is real
- It carries weight and consequence
- It is not subject to the whims of civil authority

And when that covenant is broken through adultery:

- Scripture speaks clearly about what follows
- Not ambiguously
- Not vaguely
- But directly

I am not claiming universal agreement.

I am claiming clear conscience before God.

Belief Without Permission

There’s a line from The Matrix that captures this well:

“My beliefs do not require them to.”

I don’t need:
- the courts to agree
- Kelly to agree
- society to agree

Truth does not require consensus.

Conviction does not require validation.

Final Thoughts

The Certificate of Divorce is not about control.

It is not about power.

It is about recognition.

Recognition that:

- there is a higher authority than the State
- there is a covenant that exists beyond paperwork
- and there is a responsibility to act in accordance with what is true

Whether anyone else acknowledges that or not is irrelevant.

Because in the end, this isn’t about them.

It never was.

Back to top