Church Elder Allegedly Killed His Wife Because His Religion Won’t Allow Divorce
What do you do when you’re a high-ranking official in a church that doesn’t approve of divorce, but you’ve been cheating on your wife? For one man, murder was apparently his only option.
Stephen Allwine, a church elder at the United Church of God, has been charged with killing his wife because divorce wasn’t an option in his conservative church. I guess he either forgot that the Bible itself says “Thou shall not murder,” or he was more scared of earthly judgment from his church than punishment from God.
Prosecutors say Allwine, an “Internet technology specialist,” was using the infidelity website Ashley Madison to cheat on his wife, Amy. When his position in the church prevented him from separation, he began researching ways to kill her, including hiring a contract killer on the dark web using Bitcoin.
Allwine is accused of using an anonymous alias, “dogdaygod,” to hire an Albanian mafia group to off his wife. When that plan failed, he apparently took matters into his own hands, shooting her with a gun he bought three months earlier.
But the dark Web machinations suddenly took on new significance in November 2016 when Amy Allwine was discovered dead on the floor of her bedroom. Initially thought to be a suicide, police soon suspected foul play. Within months, they would allege Stephen Allwine was actually “dogdaygod.” He had killed his wife after Besa Mafia failed to come through.
These kinds of homicides, sadly, aren’t unusual, but what makes this case stand out is that Allwine’s motive seems to be almost entirely based on his religion. He went on trial this week for premeditated first-degree murder, and the prosecution says his faith — and position in the church — led him to kill.
The situation laid out by prosecutors was a mix of religious guilt and piety, online double lives and desperate measures…
“He was seeing other women but he didn’t want to divorce her because of his position in the church,” Washington County prosecutor Jamie Kreuser told a jury this week, the Star Tribune reported.
Of course, Allwine denied the allegations, but the evidence against him seems pretty strong. The police say Allwine was the only one shown on security camera footage when his wife was shot and killed with a gun registered in his name. They also found gunshot residue on his right hand, but not on hers.
Search warrants on Stephen’s computers showed he had been accessing the dark Web since 2014, the City Pages reported. Investigators also discovered a 35-character bitcoin wallet address on a backup drive for the suspect’s cellphone.
The same code was used by “dogdaygod” in the user’s transactions with the Besa Mafia account, prosecutors say.
This case should be a slam dunk for the prosecution, but even a guilty verdict and a long sentence won’t bring Amy back. And no resolution will likely get the church to update its strict policy on divorce.
Tags
Who is online
448 visitors
Till death do you part ...
Hey it worked for Henry VIII!
No it didn't
He divorced 2, beheaded 2 and only one died while married to him
It worked at least twice.
What'a a "populas?"
Not the entire population.
My family is from Arkansas. Various jokes that I was raised with were "incest is best" and "if a young'n ain't good enough for their own family then why would they be good'n enuff for anyone elses?"
In later years, I found out that they really weren't joking.
Incest is a reality in my family, in my husband's family, and many of my friends' families.
My husband's aunt was raped repeatedly by her father when she was around 12 years old back in the early 1930s. She died a few years ago. It is too bad that she did not live to experience the ME TOO movement. Maybe it would have brought her some peace.
May I put it this way: If your understanding of murder is it is unapproved in scripture and against the law of the land both, then this bankrupt "elder" had this same understanding too! That he was searching around for a way to illegally, but "safely" extricate himself from his lifelong marriage, while holding onto his status means he had an issue with coveting sordid gain. By the way, the church is set up against such gains too!
we know its against the law the of land. Are you suggesting its not "unapproved" in Scripture ?
Or it means he was trying to appease his religion/god which he felt "trapped" him in a Marriage he no longer desired to be apart of, this was definitely the wrong method to leave the Marriage but he apparently felt it was his only option to still appease his religion/god.
You are free to think whatever if you wish. In the NT it states in Matthew 9:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
1. It is better to stay married to the "one flesh" you have become. Marriage is a picture of mankind's relationship to God. Throughout scripture it can be extrapolated God hates divorce because it is a picture of "going 'a-whoring' after other gods." If you are familiar with Bible parlance. Also, it is why scripture gives a picture of God as a "jealous" God. Israel constantly swore fidelity to God and was often caught up on the "high places" or in the "belly of their homes" with their household gods making sacrifices.
2. Note that this so-called "elder" scripturally could have left his wife (alive), since he was involved in sexual immorality . Instead, he attempted to cover it up (COVER-UP) taking her life from her a violation of his giving her a scriptural writ of divorce and U.S. law.
There is really nothing to argue here.
i'm simply asking you questions, if that's an issue then let me know, i haven't stated what i do or don't think.
so God hates divorce as you pointed out - apparently this guy (or his church) had the same viewpoint and in order to not displease his God (or religion) he felt that the only way out was to kill her ? you still didn't answer the question:
in reference to murder.
do you think its better to stay married to the "one flesh" if one spouse is physically abusive ? are there any verses which allow divorce under circumstances of physical abuse ?
he could have ? you just stated - "Throughout scripture it can be extrapolated God hates divorce because it is a picture of "going 'a-whoring' after other gods."" - so where is the verse where your God states "sure, its ok if you are involved in sexual immorality that you can divorce" ? it seems the guy in this article missed that verse or verses.
i'm not trying to argue either, nor am i stating you are wrong or that your beliefs are wrong or anything of that nature - i'm simply asking questions.
1. If this so-called "elder" intended to not displease God (or Faith), he would have taken the option to divorce her (Moses, Jesus approved.) or he could have even used Paul's I Corinthians 7 reciprocally :
10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
2. As you can see, Paul did not resolve the issue by assenting to another different woman. This man was supposed to stay unmarried! No license to take a life!Thus, it is this so-called elder's lusts, plural, which drove him to break faith with Moses (if you need OT authority), Jesus, and Paul. He has no excuse under scripture to commit murder.
ok, i'm a bit confused since you stated: ""Throughout scripture it can be extrapolated God hates divorce because it is a picture of "going 'a-whoring' after other gods."" - but now you are saying that God states it's ok ? Or is just Paul who states it's ok and not God ?
ok, so that's Paul's take - i didn't ask for Paul's take on things (which seems to be slightly different than the earlier verse given - " 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” - and even that verse states that the husband is allowed to divorce the woman for her committing sexual immorality but nothing about him committing sexual immorality, unless you state that he can commit sexual immorality and still remarry while the wife (now ex-wife) should remain divorced forever ?) , i asked about God.
I still did not get this answer -
Your scripture verse even states that "the husband should not divorce his wife" so it looks like this guy was correct in reasoning that he was "trapped" in a marriage that he no longer wanted to be in. Is this correct ?
I am going to post something from Paul with the intend that you can discern that v. 29 speaks to the positive t reatment of self, which "one flesh" relationships are. Anything short of posting the full context could be misconstrued as leading you to a desired conclusion. I will let you derive your own answer. Okay.
Ephesians 5:22-33 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Marriage Like Christ and the Church
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [ a ] in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh . 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she [ b ] respects her husband.
So you can see the reciprocal nature of the married man and woman revolving into and around each other. This is no space for abuse to exist in a "nourishing" relationship scripturally-speaking. Of course, in relationships stuff happens and the "one-flesh" are to remedy it accordingly and get back to acting in unison.
"On background," God, indeed, hates divorce. We referenced that above. Also, Jesus confirmed what Moses stated about divorce in the Old Testament in this way:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “ Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
and
Deuteronomy 24 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Law of Divorce
24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife , 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord , and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.
Forgive me if this comes off as arrogance, for it is say humbly. You should meditate on the volume of information I have shared with you to get a total understanding. These "pictures" can not be treated in isolation from one another, but are building on one another (1+1+1 +1 . . . .). Let it saturate for some period of time. Another consideration is reconciling scriptures (merge them together to get a working life application).
Points:
1. God hates divorce. Marriage is for life. It is a picture of God's relationship to his people (God will not divorce his people.)
2. God authorized Moses to allow divorce due to the hardness of the people's hearts. Moses allowed multiple 'outs' or at least that is the way Israel proper worked it out.
3. Jesus set the record straight. Marriage can only occur if sexual immorality occurs. Again as far as God is concerned, a "picture" of the infidelity of going after other gods.
4. Paul says marriage is for life, but practically-speaking if the person leaves you anyway, they should stay unmarried and alone.
See how the concessions build?
No. See the other posts I have supplied since you wrote this one, please.
the only thing the above scripture states is that a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, except in the case of adultery - then ? it doesn't really state anything, but if you go by "if-then" logic then the man who divorces his wife for sexual immorality (doesn't specify if its his part or her part, the implication seems to lean towards on her part and nothing is specific on his part) is allowed to remarry without committing adultery. If you feel I have the wrong conclusion - please explain.
this passage has nothing to do with the situation described in the article. For this article the passage would have to be about punishment for the "former husband" for committing sexual immorality (adultery) against his wife and what would happen - this passage explains nothing on that topic, it only talks about the wife leaving a husband because he found indecency in her (which didn't happen in this article) and what happens to her, nothing about what happens to him.
oh.. so its all about what you feel and interpretation ? its nothing concrete or "written in stone" ? that would explain why the man in this article felt he had to commit his heinous act to leave his marriage.
this explains why the man in the article did what he did.
so this is up to interpretation and applied to Israel ? It also makes me wonder why God made this exception suddenly and only for Moses and Israel - didn't anyone think to ask ?
did you mean "divorce" instead of "marriage" ?
what constitutes "leaving" ? is that divorce ? is it just the man or woman disappearing forever ? is it death ? is it someone running away ? who stays unmarried and alone ? if the woman leaves - does the man stay unmarried and alone ? if he remarries we established it's akin to "adultery", correct ? if the man leaves - does the woman stay unmarried and alone ? this leaves a lot of questions
i'm sorry, i do not, i need more information than you have provided. So far, you have provided no specifics and not have answered my specific questions.
this still seems to be true. There is nothing stated in scripture that goes against this, he was "trapped" in his marriage since his wife didn't commit sexual immorality.
that simply means there is nothing written in scripture for cases of abusive husbands (or abusive wives) and that the only conclusion most would come to is that they must stay in the marriage since the overall decree (as you stated) is that God doesn't allow divorce, period.
i'm still waiting for answers for:
and
and
i need actual precise answers supported by scripture so i can see where this man's thinking was errored. I appreciate your responses. Thank you.
You're being argumentative. Sorry! I can not be of any useful service to you. My advice: Read the entirety of the Old and New Testaments, concentrating on the New Testament for comprehension.
you are kidding right ? i'm only asking questions and trying to get precise answers supported by scripture for these questions, so far you haven't given that to me and i've explained why - you feel this is being argumentative ?
i've even stated that if my interpretation is incorrect - then please explain why etc, and you still feel this is being argumentative ? **sigh**
if you don't have the answers - you could just simply tell me and i will ask someone else, its not a big deal, really.
I did. Read my last post again. Godspeed to you.
i read your last post - it didn't answer any of my questions which i posted again for you.
you haven't shown any verses that state God said "sure, its ok if you are involved in sexual immorality that you can divorce" for the male. It does state things of that nature for the female, but the male.
you also stated contradicting verses - does God state its ok to divorce or does God hate divorce and its never ok ? Paul stated it was ok - but does that go for God as well ? it seems Paul is contradicting God, please explain.
plus there is this
and that hasn't been answered either among other things. As i stated - i need actual precise answers supported by scripture so i can see where this man's thinking was errored. I appreciate your responses. Thank you.
if you really don't have the answers - then just tell me you don't have the answers, its ok.
He intended to "sin" either way. But one (divorce) would have been public knowledge. The other (murder), he intended to keep a secret.
And no resolution will likely get the church to update its strict policy on divorce.
I'm pretty sure that they take a strong line against murder too. If this guy couldn't figure that out, he may have a good chance at an insanity defense. Or, the court may disallow it; most people who commit crimes don't figure that they'll get caught.
Does this apply to people who believe that Yahweh is watching and judging them?
How does a Christian justify murder to Yahweh? I wonder if they really understand the rules of their own religion.
Mo,
This guy obviously did not believe that. He was one of the many people who use his religion as a status symbol. That has nothing to do with actual belief in a religious concept. There are people who actually do believe in their religion but they usually don't commit murder or, for that matter, any other crimes.
My comment was from the civil perspective as a cop. Most people who commit crimes don't figure that they'll get caught. That, of course, makes sense. If they knew that they'd get caught, they wouldn't commit the crime, unless they were total morons.
We have no way of knowing what this particular guy believes.
However, I have known Christians that truly believe that Yahweh will forgive them of everything just as long as they pray and say they're sorry.
This is why I made the sincere statement that there are Christians who don't really know the rules of their own religion.
Sure we do. The entire motive he gave involved the use of his position in his religion as a status symbol and how he didn't want to lose that. Tells me right there that he doesn't really believe what his religion teaches. If he did, he wouldn't have put his status in his church at the fore front of what he said.
However, I have known Christians that truly believe that Yahweh will forgive them of everything just as long as they pray and say they're sorry.
You missed the third and fourth parts of that Mo. First, they must confess their transgression, either to the religious leadership or directly to their God. Second, they must sincerely repent their behavior. Third, they must make whatever amends they can make (obviously that would be hard in a murder). Fourth, they must accept whatever secular punishment is demanded by the State. (I think I got those right. Can't be sure, though, since I'm an Agnostic. I would suggest that you ask Enoch, if you want something more detailed. He's a brilliant religious scholar.)
I think that you're right that the Christians you spoke of generally and this guy specifically, do not understand the rules that are required by their religion.
It is the people who think they get a free "get of the Hell free" pass that missed the third and fourth parts.
Those people have always reminded of this scene from one my favorite movies....
If this be true, I would say he needs another religion.
He is, obviously a far from perfect human being. Now he'll pay for his crime and will answer for it after. This is not a religious problem, it's a human being problem.
It's a religious problem from the standpoint of values. The christian/evangelical right has lost any right to claim a moral high ground. This story just highlights the propensity of religions to care about their values only when it benefits them. So quick to forgive, so quick to give a pass to someone who talks their talk regardless of their actions. Which are against almost everything Jesus preached. No wonder the masses are turning against organized religions.
Oh, that leaky boat sailed and sank decades ago. In fact, it's always been a grift.
To these phonies - god is green and he folds.
Yeah, but two Corinthians is the whole ballgame, right?
Oh, that's hilarious. This wackjob murders his wife and suddenly all christians are responsible? Wow! Even non-religious people here managed to figure out that he was violating a religious prohibition against murder. Kinda makes it hard to blame the religion, doesn't it.
The hilarity continues! Please identify the church leaders who are "giving a pass" to maniacs who murder their wives.
I have to agree with you. If that was true, every one of these would eventually kill their wives for one reason or another. Screwing around on your wife? It's morally wrong, with or without religion. So, he was aalready in violation of church teachings (and any moral compass he might have possessed) by doing that. Laying it at the feet of religion? That presupposes that anyone that kills their spouse for similar reasons must be an evangelical type. Not so much.
do you feel that this man's religion had nothing to do with his motives for his actions ?
I'd say it's a pretty thin allegation that he was ready to strictly adhere to the prohibition against divorce, but not the prohibitions against adultery or murder.
it's odd that you seem to be stating that murder was this man's first choice... now, he definitely voluntarily committed adultery. of course, originally he was looking to have someone else kill his wife - i guess he felt that if someone else committed the murder then his hands would be clean ? it was only after all of that fell through was the man desperate enough to commit the murder himself. Now, do you feel that this man's religion had absolutely nothing to do with his motives for his actions ?
No, all I am saying is that the proposal - that his actions were motivated by a strict adherence to religious rules - is improbable given the evidence of his behavior. I think it's more likely that she threatened to shame and humiliate him publicly and, in a rage, he killed her. He probably stayed married to her more for financial and social reasons that religious ones.
i could see that as a possibility - i don't think his religion was the sole motivation but could have been in part for his motivation, would you agree ?
I don't know anything about his marriage or his financial situation nor his social situation so i cannot comment on those aspects.
As a social/political status issue, yes. His whole social life and self-esteem may have been wrapped up in his status with the church. That happens with some elders, and it when it does, we have to acknowledge that they have lost their way. They are doing it wrong. If this was the case with him, he has made an idol out of his social/political position and so it follows that he would be willing to kill for it. At that point, we aren't talking about scripture or ideology anymore. You can find warped thinking like this in any social or professional hierarchy.
This is why I like little churches with rotating elders instead of big bureaucratic religious institutions where a position of authority in the church becomes its own reward instead of a humbling responsibility. This is the model we have at our church, which is described as "EV-free," meaning it's evangelical, but we're independent and autonomous. We don't operate subordinate to some larger organization. Elders come and go, and nobody on staff is making very much money. It's nothing anyone would be willing to kill over.
do you think that if this guy was, for example an Atheist, that he still would have committed the heinous act ?
that's an interesting model - i can see where it has many advantages. I think some of the big bureaucratic religious institutions are out of control with greed and power, its a bit sad in my opinion.
Sure, why not? He could hold a position of authority in any organization and if his position were threatened by scandal, he might easily kill to preserve his status. There's nothing about being atheist that would retard that impulse.
In fact, we could reasonably speculate that the subject of this article was, in fact, an atheist because he clearly did not believe that God would punish him for this murder. He may have only been involved with the church for the social status it bestowed.
there wouldn't be any scandal if he were an Atheist since divorce would have been a perfectly valid option, correct ? his religion didn't allow for divorce did it ? it seems you wish to take this guy's religion completely out of the equation for any part of his motive when the article (and the court case itself) seem to disagree. I'm not stating that his religion was his sole motivation (i think it was a combination of things) but i won't leave his religion completely innocent on influencing this guy's perceptions and becoming part of his motivations.
he may have believed that his god would have punished him - but if he repented then he would have been forgiven as well. since there are no set criteria for religious followers, its all a matter of interpretation, then if this guy claims to be religious - he is - and there's nothing anyone can claim to otherwise since there's no set criteria for religious followers.
Not correct. Look at how much Trump was attacked by the Left for three marriages and his alleged mistreatment of women. None of that is religious, but it was made scandalous.
But then that would have been true for the divorce as well, wouldn't it? We can't have it both ways. This guy was clearly focused on his earthly social status, not his relationship with God. His behavior cannot be said to have revolved around scripture as a guide. His behavior is more a-theistic than theistic.
not a valid comparison since Trump is more well-known and in a higher public facing office than this person in the article (plus, Trump has stated before he is Christian - Presbyterian i think to be exact). Since this guy did adhere to his religious beliefs (his church) - divorce was not an option as it is basically forbidden by his religion. His original option wasn't to murder his wife - he sought out to contract someone else to do it, which would leave his hands "clean" in the eyes of his religion (he'd be the "grieving" widower and not a murderer unless it was otherwise discovered) so he wouldn't have lost his position in his religion or church. So yes, if he would have been an Atheist then divorce would have been an option, it wouldn't matter if there would have been a scandal since he wouldn't be a religious leader his in church or is religion because.. well -- he's an Atheist in this scenario. His concern was his church and religion.
he behavior was theistic - the court case was built upon it and the evidence points to it, can you show evidence to the contrary ? if you take religion completely out of this - this guy wouldn't have been worried about his status at his church (or religion) since he wouldn't be apart of it, and he wouldn't have worried about what his religion dictates or what his god thinks since... he'd be an Atheist - so you absolutely cannot conclude this guys actions were a-theistic. he was worried about his position in his church (and religion) - that is theistic by nature.
It is obviously that he would have been a better human being without religion when it comes to divorce.
Without religion, he could have had a no fault divorce and would not have needed to justify it to anyone.
Testosterone and ED pills turn old farts into mental cases. Of course being thumped out of reality doesn't help either.
So very Christian and "family values" of him and I bet he's anti abortion
Find a new church or kill my wife?
If true and this nutcase actually would have his wife murdered so as to comply with his religion's anti-divorce decree then he needs to be removed from civil society.
But wait, wouldn't that mean he's being denied his "religious freedom" or is being persecuted?
i think that's the entire point quite honestly
his "religious beliefs" and "religious freedom" still doesn't allow him to break our secular laws, correct ? does that apply to everything or just this instance ?
I was being more facetious than serious in my reply.
That's not entirely accurate. The article itself says the motivation was religiously based.
nobody is claiming he was justified or allowed - drawing parallels since there are similar concepts of someone's religion being a motive (fully or partially) for breaking secular law, calm down.
absolutely untrue since the guy stated he motives were partly due to his religion (his church).
some of the people on here - yes. they will always exist, just as those who are pro-religion will find opportunities to degrade others' beliefs too, please don't pretend its a one-way street.
I don't really care how you take it. I stand by what I said. If you can't see how my comment was intended (the smiley icon was a clue), than that's your problem.
I would say his religion is only very peripherally to blame here. Christianity obviously frowns upon both murder and divorce.
Either way, he was going to sin, in the eyes of his religion. But one sin could (he though) be kept secret. Divorce can't.
His choice was a result of how he thought he would be perceived in his religious community - either as a divorced adulterer, or (he hoped) as the grieving widower of a murdered woman, who happily finds love again.
do you think if this guy was, for example an Atheist, that he would have committed this heinous act still ?
I figure if he were an atheist, he'd have divorced.
But his religion didn't promote murdering his wife. His fear regarding how he'd be perceived, and his incorrect belief that he could keep her murder a secret, are why he killed her.
ok, so admittedly - his religion (or his interpretation of his religion) played slightly more than just peripheral influence. His perception of how he'd be viewed played a part as well - which his concern to that had to do with his place within his religion (his church) since he was a religious leader. I'm not saying his religion is the sole reason for his motives - but i won't downplay how much it had a part in his motives.
I don't see any way he could have interpreted his religion to justify killing his wife. He knew killing her was wrong. He also thought divorcing her was wrong. But he didn't expect to get caught for killing her.
He knew both choices were condemned by his religion. He knew he wouldn't be regarded as innocent by his god. He wanted to be regarded as innocent by his friends.
he wasn't originally planning to kill her - that was his second option after hiring a hitman didn't work out. So in his original line of thought - he didn't divorce her nor did he actually kill her so it would satisfy the requirements for his religion. He only killed her later after desperation since the first option didn't work out. (at least that's what the story seems to state)
he wanted to still be highly regarded in his religion - period. he didn't want to lose his position as a religious leader and could always repent for his sins to be forgiven by his god.
I think his motivation to choose murder, in person or by proxy, was 1) maintaining his status in the church and 2) what he thought he could get away with in the eyes of the law.
i can agree with that. I just also think that his religion (or religious beliefs or church etc) played a bit more than just a peripheral influence, but was not the sole motivation for his actions (based upon the story).
The conditions would certainly be different because he would not have to worry about divorce restrictions.
However, anyone who would commit murder for convenience is a morally sick individual who would be capable of murder given the right circumstances. Religion or irreligion does not matter IMO.