quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
Chorister and Freddy (and others taken in the Cross-fire), many apologies for my excessively strong language earlier in this thread.

---

Thank you. I also apologise for my cavalier and glib comments in my earlier posts.

quote:

---

What I would like you both to do, and what was upsetting me so much, was your apparent refusal to consider altering your wording in such a manner as still suffices to communicate your common point - which as I understand it is to engage with those who find themselves "traded in" (dreadful term) by their partner.
I know more people in the circumstances you rightly identify as hellish personally than in any other position regarding divorce. However, it is not the only experience, and I think language which isn't carefully crafted gives the impression that the one who leaves is always wrong..

---

I hear you. I certainly understand that the one who leaves is not always wrong.

I especially agree with regard to those who have suffered attacks, especially sexual ones.

quote:

---

I don't think that our rightful concern over the ridiculously high divorce rate generally should stop us being able to craft language which encapsulates both the need for commitment in marriage and has sensitivity to the extreme circumstances experienced by a few.

---

Again, I agree. Of course it depends on how you define extreme circumstances.

quote:

---

The usual approach, which I think you've alluded to Freddy, is to use informal casuistry (I use casuistry in it's proper rather than pejorative sense) in individual cases. This is, I'm afraid, not really good enough. It lacks the explicit support which I find is needed, and because it's sort-of-unofficial, it isn't saying as a community that "we are with you", which is the broad and open inclusion which doesn't require private wounds of a very private nature to be made known.

---

I understand what you are saying. In my church the explicit support of our doctrine is given to those who divorce for adultery, and also for a number of other reasons that amount to adultery - such as desertion, openly obscene behavior, addiction to pornography, and similar things.

The explicit support of doctrine is also given for being separated from a spouse for a large number of reasons ranging from abusive behavior to alcoholism to insanity. But the explicit freedom to divorce and remarry depends on the behavior of the offending partner. If they remain faithful and reform, then the marriage may continue.

I realize that this is not good enough in yours and in many people's eyes. But these detailed Swedenborgian tenets are considered to be divine revelation in our church, and we are not free to change them. They seem good to me.

I understand from your, and from other, posts that the harsh doctrines of the church are reasonably seen to be hurtful to many people who have found it necessary or desirable to divorce their partners. This may actually be the foundation of much of the pain that is common in our culture with regard to this issue.

However, I see no acknowledgment on your part that it may also be possible that a society that permits and fosters divorce without just cause is itself a cause of this increasing unhappiness. This is obviously my position. When society does not sanction divorces, they increase, along with the pain that accompanies them.

I realize that people differ on this issue. I believe strongly that the, as you put it, "ridiculously high divorce rate generally" is caused largely by the decreasing allegiance of our culture to the morals of Christianity - and that there is a correspondingly unfortunate increase of depression, despair, anti-social behavior, unhappiness, and simple loneliness.

People are free to differ on this. But it would be nice to see an acknowledgment of the possibility that Christ's words on the subject are true as He spoke them, and that they were spoken to reduce, not increase, pain. It is also possible that He was wrong, or that He was speaking rhetorically or allegorically.

I appreciate the experience and the research that you have done on this issue. The statistics are especially helpful. Please understand that I also have quite a bit of experience and professional knowledge of these things. I expect that all of us in this discussion do - either professionally or personally. I would not discount anything that any of our posters have said.

Although I do take Erin's point that there are marriages that are worse than divorce; I can only say I sympathise for what she's had to deal with. For me, the divorce was far worse than the marriage (although the marriage was pretty bad, I was not subject to physical or sexual abuse, only the psychological kind).

The Orthodox Church's position on the whole divorce/remarriage thing is that remarriages are at the discretion of your bishop, and you only get 3 tries max (and 3rd marriages are granted very rarely even at that).

I am very grateful for this "second chance" for I am now very happily married to a wonderful woman who is everything my first wife wasn't -- supportive, forgiving, and PLEASABLE. (Ever heard that song, I think it's from the 70s, by one of those four-black-guys-in-silk-jackets groups, that goes, "But I could never make you happy; I just wish I didn't love you so, it makes it so very hard to go"? That was my first marriage.)

So I have plenty of patience and sympathy with people who get divorced and wish to remarry. Or wish never to remarry, as Erin has stated. The message of the Cross is one of forgiveness and healing, not rigid rules and finger-pointing.

There's my .02 worth.

quote:

---

I am utterly unable to find any Christian virtue in a policy which adds to the suffering which surrounds divorce.

---

Huh - what happened to the virtue of obedience?
Consider:

Philippians 2

6Who, being in very nature[] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Hebrews 5
6And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."[]
7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Matthew 7
The Wise and Foolish Builders

24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Matthew 21

The Parable of the Two Sons

28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.
32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

In this season of Lent, when we remember the outstanding wisdom of the disciples in applying human logic to the suggestion that Jesus should be willing to die on the cross, we need to be a EXTREMELY careful when we interpret the bible. And when we end up doing something that 'The Lord' unambiguously commands us not to (i.e. remarry after divorce) we are really inviting trouble.

quote:

---

And when we end up doing something that 'The Lord' unambiguously commands us not to (i.e. remarry after divorce) we are really inviting trouble.

---

I have so far stayed off this thread, which itself has been a bit of a penance, but I really cannot refrain any longer.

Let me declare an interest: for more than 20 years I have been married to a divorcee. So I am sure than ES will simply ignore everything that follows.

What Jesus actually says is that even to look on a woman lustfully is equivalent to adultery. And elsewhere, he stops the stoning of a woman by demonstrating to the crowd that they are all equally guilty.

Now there are two ways to react to the Sermon on the Mount. One is to take it absolutely literally. In which case, ES, I guess you are obeying the entire Torah without omitting a yod or a vav, so long as Heaven and earth endure. Of course, you may have a bit of a problem taking your skin diseases to the Temple for examination, but there are plenty of Kosher butchers and grocers up there in Manchester. And I'm sure you enthusiastically join with your fellows in dispensing Torah justice, which even Orthodox Jews are too namby pamby to do nowadays.

Alternatively, you can read those awkward passages about love being the first commandment, and not judging. You can relate to the Jesus who tells us to be grown-ups, acting responsibly out of love rather than behaving like cruel children who use laws to hurt and destroy. You can choose to go with Brian Paddick who tried to bring real community policing to Lambeth, rather than the editor of the Daily Snarl who has tried to destroy his career. And perhaps if we all choose to do this, we will create a world in which people, who are loved and valued rather than prohibited and diminished, will make fewer mistakes. Some old stuff about the Kingdom of Heaven.

In fact, Jesus said that anyone who set aside the Law would be the lowest in the Kingdom of Heaven. He also said that it was better to be the lowest in the Kingdom of Heaven than to be John the Baptist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand from your, and from other, posts that the harsh doctrines of the church are reasonably seen to be hurtful to many people who have found it necessary or desirable to divorce their partners. This may actually be the foundation of much of the pain that is common in our culture with regard to this issue.

---

quote:

---

However, I see no acknowledgment on your part that it may also be possible that a society that permits and fosters divorce without just cause is itself a cause of this increasing unhappiness. This is obviously my position. When society does not sanction divorces, they increase, along with the pain that accompanies them.

---

quote:

---

People are free to differ on this. But it would be nice to see an acknowledgment of the possibility that Christ's words on the subject are true as He spoke them, and that they were spoken to reduce, not increase, pain. It is also possible that He was wrong, or that He was speaking rhetorically or allegorically.

---

quote:

---

The bottom line is how to end the pain. I admit that the answer is an open question.

---

quote:

---

In the case of the physically abusive husband turning up at the Baptist church we really don't know whether the wife has been an absolute paragon of virtue - or an emotionally abusive harridan who having the ability to achieve her abuse verbally, is not perceived as part of the problem.

---

Please tell me you are NOT saying that someone who is abused is any way responsible for causing the behaviour of the abuser. That's what this reads like and it is a LIE.

It's a LIE used by abusers to justify their behaviour ... It's a LIE that too many victims end up believing - which helps keep the cycle going. And it's a LIE that too many people believe when dealing with victims of abuse. [He seems like such a nice man ... she must have done something terrible to make him hit her with that hammer ...]

quote:

---

Perhaps the solution is a combintion of the ancient and modern. That is, we should make divorce more difficult. From a legal and social perspective, in the US, it is no-fault divorce, originally supposed to free women, that is responsible for the impoverishment of many women, and the children for whom they are still overwhelmingly responsible. The statistics on this are overwhelming.

---

But "no-fault divorce" is overwhelmingly used by women to divorce men.

quote:

---

One close relative had nothing but a small inheritance and a small alimony for a short time after thirty years of marriage and four children which she raised, when her husband traded up for a new model. I say, bring on fault-based divorce and make it complicated again. Then those who are just bored can't say "bored", they have to give a better reason.

---

This misses the point which is the breakdown of the marriage and the separation. The piece of paper is just that - a piece of paper from the government which says that they recognise that your marriage is over.

If it is harder to get the piece of paper, people will still split up. And that will probably make it harder for many women if it is more common for women to have to go to court to get money from their husband than the other way round.

Increasingly large numbers of people don't go through the formalities of a State-recognised marriage ceremony - but from a moral point of view (which is I think what started this topic) they can be just as married as someone with all the right certifcates. Neither the government nor the church makes a marriage, the couple do.

Divorce is hell, it is hateful. The worst part is what we were doing to our daughter, who suffered tremendously, through no fault of her own. Ten years later I am still angry about it - not what was done to me, what was done to her.

If you are sitting on a bed with a little child and she says:

quote:

---

do you remember, do you remember, you and me and Mummy used to lie in the bed together when I was little and cuddle each other? That was nice. Are we going to do that again soon?

---

Or if you are with the kid, 3 or 4 years old, and her Mum left on Friday night to go somewhere with her new boyfriend and you know perfectly well that she won't be back till Monday afternoon, just as she has done almost every weekend for a year, how do you explain that to a three-year old?

And if you are walking home from school with a slightly older child and you pass the street where you used to live, and her Mum still lives, but today it is your turn, and she cries and screams "I want to go to my Mummy's house" what can you say?

quote:

---

And when we end up doing something that 'The Lord' unambiguously commands us not to (i.e. remarry after divorce) we are really inviting trouble.

---

That is not true. That is not what the Lord says. If you are going to be a Biblical literalist you might as well quote it properly.

If we believe the Gospel of Matthew (& if we don't why are we even having the argument?)
Jesus, explicitly and bluntly said that divorce is not permissible for "any cause".

But he also said that divorce is permissible for certain causes. NB these causes are not (or not just) "adultery". The Greek word used is "porneia". The word for adultery is quite different, "moichao" - it occurs twice in the same verse!

I don't know exactly what "porneia" meant in 1st century Palestine. I imagine it included adultery, but possibly a lot more. Traditionally English Bibles render that word as "fornication" which isn't a translation but a transliteration - they are just leaving the Greek word in (Latinised) and not defining it. 700 years earlier hundreds of miles away in Greece it might have meant visiting prostitutes, or "doing the sort of things that prostitutes do". Whatever they are. Modern Bibles usually just say "sexual immorality".

Secondly, there is no concept either in the ancient Jewish society that gave us the OT, or the Greek/Roman/Syrian society that Jesus lived in; of partial divorce that didn't allow remarriage. That was something invented much more recently.

The thing Jesus is talking about, which our Bibles translate (perhaps mistranslate) as "divorce" is what they called the "get" which was a certificate given by a man to his wife which gives her permission to remarry. (As polygyny was allowed, men did not need such permission for them to remarry).

The literal, plain, meaning of Matthew 5:32 is that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than "porneia" causes her to commit adultery (it is assumed that she will remarry - that is what the "divorce" means in this context) and that the man who marries such a women (i.e. the one divorced for "any cause") commits adultery.

It does not say that a divorced man who remarries commits adultery - the New Testament never mentions that circumstance because it couldn't arise in Jewish Law which permitted a man to have more than one wife (though it was deprecated).

It does not say that a woman divorced by her husband for a just cause may not remarry.

NB in the law of the time the just cause doesn't have to be the woman's fault. One of the most common legal problems they had was when a man abandoned or mistreated his wife & she had to go to him to get the certificate. Sometimes he would refuse, leaving her unable to remarry although he could. (This is still a problem in Orthodox Jewish communities - rabbis have come up with all sorts of inventive and persuasive ways round it).

Jesus was not talking about our more recent ideas of a judicial separation that didn't allow remarriage. The "divorce" in this passage is something that comes after the separation and explicitly gives permission to remarry. He would no more talk about divorce without permission to remarry that he would talk about motor cars. It hadn't been invented yet.

And as for saying that Matthew doesn't count because Mark left out part of the quote - well Mark left out the Resurrection as well.

Sorry to go on about this but my fundamentalist hackles rise when people misquote the Bible, and even more when the misquotes become ingrained into tradition (I bet you thought there were two of each kind of animal taken onto the Ark... read it again!)

There is no concept here of divorce without remarriage, the sort of compulsory celibacy some churches try to force onto abandoned spouses. Jesus is saying that someone divorced without cause isn't validly divorced. But he never says that someone who is validly divorced is not allowed to remarry. In fact he assumes that they will - which is why a man who divorces a woman without cause makes her commit adultery. And presumably therefore it is his sin, not hers.

The whole thing is in the context of an ongoing argument amongst rabbis as to whether divorce was allowed for any cause or just for sexual crimes. Jesus is taking one side.

The literal meaning of Jesus's words is that remarriage is allowed only in certain situations, but those situations are not defined.

The implication is that Jesus would almost certainly have condemned our culture's easy use of divorce, and condemned the idea of no-fault divorce. But Jesus's literal words do not rule out all divorce for Christians.

quote:

---

But "no-fault divorce" is overwhelmingly used by women to divorce men.

---

This is actually how it was imagined, that is, that women not be stuck in bad marriages and have to prove that the husband was sleeping around or was cruel. It was part of the 70s free-to-be-me stuff that has still left lots of people thinking that marriage is about individual happiness more than anything else. Nonetheless, no-fault divorce rebounded against the very folks the original legislation was supposed to protect, interestingly enough, and many attribute the increasing feminization of poverty to no-fault divorce laws.

Sure, people are going to get divorced even if there are legal obstacles. The point is, legal obstacles build in an incentive to make things work in a situation that is only boring, rather than intolerable. In Pennsylvania, a no-fault divorce takes 90 days - three months! This is so whether the marriage lasted 2 years or 40. A regular fault-based divorce takes two years.

In Pennsylvania, fault grounds are:
- willful and malicious desertion or absence without reasonable cause for one or more years
- adultery
- cruel and barbarous treatment
- bigamy
- conviction of serious crime
- indignities rendering condition intolerable and life burdensome

I would think this would cover most intolerable situations, and for just being bored, it doesn't seem unreasonable to make people wait a while and not get out of it instantly.

Amusingly, in Virginia, sodomy or buggery is listed as a separate ground! (Wouldn't that also constitute adultery?) State laws (in 1997, anyway) can be found here:
Divorce Laws in the United States and ABA - Grounds for Divorce in the United States

quote:

---

I don't know exactly what "porneia" meant in 1st century Palestine.
I imagine it included adultery, but possibly a lot more.

---

According to my lectionary of koine Greek, the most common meaning was 'sex in exchange for something'.

1 Corinthians 7

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

which gives far less wriggle space than that surrounding the gospel passages.

As far as the shot across the bows from Alan is concerned; yes I did hear it - and yet the discussion was drifting away from obeying what appears to be the clear command of scripture by means of a drip, drip, drip application of hard cases to undermine the conservative interpretation. There is no simple answer to this - it is always harder to defend the 'hard' line than to succumb to the emotional logic of those who suffer as a result of that policy. Therefore the appeal to the emotionally highly charged material that I quoted is a response to the emotionally highly charged material that has been presented on the other side.

To repeat; the verse quoted above rules out remarriage of divorcees - it does NOT rule out divorce.

Divorce is always painful. Those caught up in it deserve as much support as widows.

Thing is, why SHOULDN'T hard cases 'drip drip drip' at conservatism? Are you beyond changing your opinion on the grounds of compassion? I feel as though I'm anti-transplants - anything which needs a death for another to live, anyway - but if one of my family needed one, I suspect I would change my mind. (Nor would I assume I had the right to dictate others' decisions).

Do you follow EVERY prescription in the Bible? Do you avoid meat with blood in? Never touch a menstruating woman? Eat shellfish?

There is a fundamental difference between the Old Testament laws that are explicitly rejected in the New Testament, and a COMMAND of Jesus, as reported by St Paul in writing to Christians facing many of the same issues as we are today.....

I've opened a new thread in Hell to try to unpack some of the wider issues:

'Who do you serve? Who do you trust?'

quote:

---

There is a fundamental difference between the Old Testament laws that are explicitly rejected in the New Testament, and a COMMAND of Jesus, as reported by St Paul in writing to Christians facing many of the same issues as we are today.....

---

As usual, ES, you don't bother to read other people's posts, or if you do you simply ignore the bits that don't meet your needs. You are once again ignoring the apparently direct statement in the Gospels that not a yod or a vav will be removed from the Law while Heaven and Earth endure. If you persist in your Biblical literalism, uninformed as it is by any background in theology, then you cannot dismiss the Torah, and you need to explain the shellfish.

quote:

---

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

---

And St Paul's understanding of divorce would be what exactly? I suspect that Paul's understanding of divorce would be closer to Ken's description than ours.

Ever heard the expression,

"A text without a context is a pre-text?"

If you want to discuss the Bible and quote bits from it, then you need to consider such matters as the intended audience, the culture it was written, how it fits in with other bits .... And here we are back to proof texting again

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
And St Paul's understanding of divorce would be what exactly? I suspect that Paul's understanding of divorce would be closer to Ken's description than ours.

Ever heard the expression,

"A text without a context is a pre-text?"

If you want to discuss the Bible and quote bits from it, then you need to consider such matters as the intended audience, the culture it was written, how it fits in with other bits .... And here we are back to proof texting again

Tubbs

---

Furthermore, ES is ignoring other relevant parts of Paul's teaching. e.g. the usual interpretation of Paul's teaching that I've ever heard re. non-believing spouses is that if a non-believing spouse divorces a Christian, then the Christian is free to remarry. There may be an element of assuming that in this case adultery by the other will de facto have occurred, but it is not explicit, nor is any reference to that principle made, so I see little scope for arguing that there is any such connection.

I have to say I don't think ES has responded in any degree to ameliorate their views in light of the sensitivities of others - which includes a broad spectrum of individual circumstances which we all, whatever direction we're coming from, are, I think, trying to engage with. Nor does any element of contrition occur to me to be present in regard to the hurt which their postings may have caused.

Ken's notes are I think indeed relevant, and there are a number of social factors which he didn't mention which are also relevant, but which I don't think add to the fundament of his contribution, so I don't see any need to expand on it at this time.

quote:

---

And why do the kind of anal retentive Christians who spend their time wanting to forbid people from doing things always quote Paul rather than Jesus? Is it because St. Paul, with his Pharisaic background that he never loses, spends his time apparently preaching love while actually trying to obtain power over people by making up rules?

---

I think that may be unfair to St. Paul. I think that the reason St. Paul may be more popular with literalists is that he is much more 'conservative' on ethical matters than Jesus. St. Paul declared the Law redundant but when the Church at Corinth decided that the ethical teachings of the law could be dispensed with he responded angrily. Corinthians and Romans are both, in their ways, attempts to rehabilitate the ethical teachings of Judaism without unsaying what St. Paul said about grace in Galatians.

That aside, gbuchanan is quite right, that St. Paul is evidently watering down the rigour of Jesus' ethical teaching for pastoral reasons. So the drip, drip, drip of hard cases was eroding the conservative stance in the 1st Century CE. The idea that those of us who don't take a hard line on divorce are unscriptural is therefore incorrect!

(As the Bishop said to the actress...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
It may be that my experience is unusual, but the churches I know are generally a lot more understanding about the need for people to get divorced (for many reasons) and subsequently (in some cases) to get remarried, than they were several years ago.

---

That is definitely true in my experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

---

Nice quote! It would actually make a pretty interesting thread to note the number of OT laws that Jesus abrogated or modified.

quote:

---

I have a shelf or three full of programming and systems manuals, and a shelf or two of Bibles and theology. And I can tell the difference.

---

Over the past three months or so everyone I have been truly impressed with has been a Friend. Think the Lord is trying to tell me something?
I recentlywas talking to my sister about the burnt-dinner-vs-adultery debate to which daisymay referred.(she is a divorced mother, who was fretting about Jesus's words on divorce and where she stood spiritually in light of them.) I referred her to the above debate expressed my belief that Jesus was making a statement about the cavalier manner in which the women of his time were treated, and that since then his words have been converted into a dogmatic tool to control people.That's pretty much where I left it.Thanks to all for giving me more insight, which I can pass on to her.

quote:

---

I have a shelf or three full of programming and systems manuals, and a shelf or two of Bibles and theology. And I can tell the difference.

---

Over the past three months or so everyone I have been truly impressed with has been a Friend. Think the Lord is trying to tell me something?
Thanks, Panurge

-------------------

Just thinking out loud

[fixed UBB code]

The stricutres about divorce have to be understood in hte light that women could be badly treated and possesions were often only the mans.

Society is different ie women have possesions and greater Freedom.

Divorce I believe is not God's best for people yet we are sinful and God forgives our mistakes. God is a god of new starts new begginning so re-marriage is fine it is not ideal and we should not make a hobby of it

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
- does anybody know of any concrete cases of people being cast out of a church because they either got divorced or remarried,

---

Unfortunately, I do know of one recent case, in a fairly conservative church. A man was deserted by his wife, who took the kids and absconded back to her country of origin. She later had an affair. The man, several years later, has got married again, to another divorcee, also several years out of a hard marriage. Their church doesn't now accept them, tho' the man grew up there; they are asking for some kind of evidence about the wife's adultery.....

Several members have left in disgust at the cruel treatment. There have been stormy members' meetings. When the couple have turned up in church (some family still attend) some other members have walked out of the service.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
does anybody know of any concrete cases of people being cast out of a church because they either got divorced or remarried, or is the resentment against church teaching based on experiences of years ago?

---

I'm aware of one case where this happened - indeed the priest preached a sermon about the evils of divorce and the illegitimacy of the children of a second marriage whilst looking directly at one individual and their family throughout before the casting out happened.

I divorced my wife three years ago on the grounds of her admitted adultery, although the marriage had broken down about a year before that. As a GLE, I had to be sure in my own mind that what I was doing was 'right' (whatever that means) before instituting proceedings for divorce. I agonised for weeks over the decision until I came across the bit in Matt 19 which has been quoted - to me, that gave me the 'let-out' and I felt able to press ahead with proceedings. Please don't misunderstand - this was the standard I applied to myself then; I would have been easier on others. I was aware at that time of the apparent conflict between the rather legalistic 'theological' standard I had set for myself on the one hand and the 'pastoral' requirement to care for the person concerned on the other - a case of law v. love I suppose. I have to say that my charismatic evangelical church were wonderful to me - no-one condemned me, i had a lot of support and a lot of love, and they saw me through the pretty tough times I had. I am now engaged to be married and again there have been no negative comments ( and not just because it was a 'clear-cut' issue divorce - there are others within the church who are divorced & remarried where it is not so 'clear cut' and they are equally accepted and loved)

Nowadays I take a more relaxed theological stance - not particularly because of my experience (as that can be dangerous - tail wagging the dog etc) but because of the way I now approach Scripture, much more contextualised, exegesis'n' hermeneutics etc. I agree for example that Matt 19 is addressed to a cultural context whereby women could be divorced and then made destitute at a husband's whim. So, knowing what I know now, I would have been far less hard on myself then.(Having said that, the wonderful lady I am marrying has Exclusive Brethren parents, so in asking for their permission, I had to fall back on Matt 19!)

I think the overriding principle has to be 'love/ grace/ mercy over law/judgment' and wherever there is a conflict/ doubt, err on the side of the former. BUT also, for me there had to be an admission of fault on my part too - I was far from a perfect husband and had to acknowledge my part in the breakdown of the marriage; that's what I meant when I put 'clear cut' in quotes. It often takes two to break a marriage as it takes two to make it and, IMHO, as long as there is acknowlegdment of fault where it lies, repentance and a seeking of God's forgiveness, there is no reason why divorcees cannot remarry with the love and blessing of their church, whatever the reason for the divorce.

Yours in Christ

thus Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Apologies for causing confusion - the passage I was basing my comments on is

1 Corinthians 7

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

which gives far less wriggle space than that surrounding the gospel passages.

---

is in complete agreement with the words of Jesus in Matthew. It is instructions to Christians on how to behave. It says that a wife should not leave her husband and a husband not divorce a separated wife. (2 different concepts still the wife is enjoined against separation, the man against the legal termination of the marriage)

Which is no surprise - we know the Apostles, and the Lord, disapproved of divorce.

What it doesn't say is that divorce can;t happen, If the man does leave his wife and does divorce (i.e. issue the certificate, the "get") she is, presumably, able to marry.

Paul says divorce is [almost always] wrong but I don't think he says it is impossible.

Which is exactly the sticking point, Most traditional Christian teaching in the West from early times to the 16th century held that divorce, & therefore remarriage, was impossible (though St. Augustine seems to allow it). So an abandoned spouse could never remarry, because they hadn't really been divorced (remember the only point of the "get", the divorce certificate, is to legitimise future marriage).

I don't think Paul is saying that. I think he is saying that divorce is (usually) a sin, but is possible. (And sometimes it may be permissible as well - he certainly allows it in verse 15)

Paul disapproved of murder, but that doesn't mean that the church has to teach that all murdered people are still really alive.

The literal meaning of the NT scriptures on divorce seems to be more or less like this:

1) Divorce is almost always a sin, and Christians should avoid it.

2) Divorce can be sought by Christians when their partner is guilty of "porneia" (undefined, but almost certainly includes adultery and may include some other sexual misbehaviours).

3) A Christian who is abandoned by their partner without "porneia" should not seek divorce, but reconciliation.

4) Paul adds to this (he is more permissive than Jesus) that a Christian who is abandoned by a non-believing spouse can, if they wish, seek divorce.

That being said, this is particularly to those who are, very appropriately, sorrowing with and for the children of divorce. Once someone's marriage has deteriorated past a certain point, the children are going to suffer. You can't save them from having problems. You can, to some extent, choose their problems by choosing whether to stay in a bad marriage or break up the household. Speaking as one of the children they stayed together for the sake of, it sucks. I know I would have grieved if my parents had split, but, looking back, I am convinced I would have been vastly better off with one reliable, stable parent than the craziness I grew up in. I can remember being 8 and wondering which of them I would live with; they divorced when I was 23. So I spent 15 years waiting for the other shoe to drop.

If you love them, and if you can refrain from using them as a bargaining chip (it helps if your ex can as well, but you can't control that) they'll hurt, but they'll be okay.

My prayers for all here.

Hmmm - I like it...

Well it's true that we're straining at gnats here - but the fact is, I and many others simply have to live with it!

You see, lots of sins are fine, because once they're done, they're over. As long as a man REALLY repents of going to a prostitute, that's fine isn't it! The fact that she has added to her list of men who've used her (however willing she's been) and he might revisit the experience countless times - even during sermons!! - doesn't count because there is no visible reminder of the sin. It's over. Whereas with SEX (STDs, Babies...) the results are so much more... noticeable. And the same with divorce. So it's MUCH easier to create a group of sinners who are Worse Than Me.

Every time I wake on my own or take the girls away on our own, or even pay a bill on my own, I am reminded of my change of status. It isn't something that changes or disappears. I imagine even if I were to remarry, part of me would still feel divorced. (Others will know the answer to that one). It is like an amputation - a deep sadness at one's own silly choices and failure to follow through.

BUT...
... it has happened.

So there isn't a lot I can do about my label now!! Yup, I Failed. And you know what? I can't help suspecting this will turn out not to have been the worst thing that ever happened to my ego. In the longer term, a bit of failure never did any Christian Pilgrim's soul too much harm.

Luckily I can forgive myself, you see. (A trick which has taken some 25 years to learn!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Really. So why don't all of the stepchildren, children, second spouses, friends, etc., tell me what it's like to come to the realization that a marriage is irretrievably broken. While you're at it, tell me what it's like to know that sense of complete and utter FAILURE that this brings with it.

You can know some of the pain, I am not denying that. But for people who have not been divorced to speak so glibly about it is just WRONG.

---

This is going to sound a little polemic, and I have been holding off on posting it for a while to try and be a bit calmer about it. I'm not being glib.

Children whose parents divorce have an extremely similar experience to the partners. For younger ones, they often actually believe consciously that they are the ones who have caused their parents to split up. In other words, that they have failed to keep the family together. Exactly what divorcing couples feel; and the spouses often have just as little justification - it is an extremely similar situation to an abused spouse feeling, if only I had been a better person, we could have stayed together.

Older children often feel the same thing subconsciously, even if they don't logically believe it. If children are of an age where they might be forming relationships of their own, they feel the same hopelessness, that there is no point in trying to form relationships because they are all doomed, I have obviously never been in a situation where I learned how to have a good relationship, so why bother. Exactly what many divorcees go through.

Alternatively they may feel, well I can have a fun relationship but there's no point in trying to go for anything longlasting as that's obviously not going to work - look at my parents - and marriage? pah, tried and failed. Again similar to many divorcees.

Another possibility for this set of older children of divorce is seeking a partner very quickly and getting serious, getting married very quickly, just to prove they can do it, and find some stability. Also a pattern, and for similar reasons, to some divorcees.

Though younger children of divorce don't go through these sets of behaviours immediately, for obvious reasons, they can surface later.

Grief - a prime feature of divorce for the couple - is also almost universal in children of divorce. Even if they don't lose contact with one parent, sadly all too common, they grieve for the relationship, for the happy family life they may have thought they had (again something that many divorcees go through - but I thought it was happy! what happened? am I mad? can't I tell happy when I see it?).

In a final irony, many children of divorce have their own selves wished into nonexistence. When you hear your parent say, I wish I'd never met my spouse and never married them, what does that do to you? Where do you stand? It's bad enough realising that your happy childhood wasn't happy. Realising that someone wishes you didn't exist, and that someone is a loving parent, pretty much has to be the end.

I realise from this I may sound like I'm completely anti-divorce. I'm not, as I hope some of my previous posts explain. Where there is unresolvable conflict, even if there are children involved, it is the best thing.

However divorce is not really about just a couple, and I think I'm saying this really for pastoral reasons. My description also focuses on families that cope badly with the divorce - sadly a very large number - and in many cases the children as well as the adults feel a huge relief once the separation is final, to be out of the line of fire.

But with the focus on children's experience of divorce, I haven't seen anyone address the question of whether following divorces involving young children, remarriage shouldn't be allowed for the sake of the children? A question I posed on the first page and which hasn't been answered by any of the anti-remarriage faction.

I was also married to a divorced man who had a daughter with his first wife.

in order to stay together, my parents eventually did a re-write of history. if we wanted to stay in their good graces, we had to never refer to the past. unfortunately, this resulted in my parents divorcing several of their own children instead of each other.

Anyway this is a longwinded way of saying a very simple thing: sometimes divorce is necessary and the lesser of evils. This doesn't make it good simpliciter; just relatively good.

(egads! Relativism!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Mousethief/Fr Gregory or any other Orthodox shipmates. I was once told that divorce and remarriage were possible within the Orthodox church because it recognised that a marriage can die, just as one of the partners can. However, I can't remember who told me, or if they were a reliable source. Is this a fair summary of the Orthodox position on this topic?

---

Obviously this is a metaphor (marriages aren't trees or dogs that they can physically die), and as with any metaphor, it has its good and its bad points. I don't think there is an official metaphor for understanding the divorce/remarriage thing in Orthodoxy.

It is a matter of what we call "oikonomia" --where pastors (in this case, bishops) have the option of tempering the "rules" to fit the needs of a particular case, out of pastoral love and in pursuit of what appears to be "best" for the people involved (always a judgment call, of course!) If our pastors sometimes err on the side of leniency, it is because they are aware that we are under grace and not law, and realize that they are making judgment calls. When they err on the side of strictness, it is because they are afraid of damaging a person's theosis (literally, "godification" --i.e. growth in grace) by indulging the person's wants at the expense of their needs.

Taken all together, I am very happy not to have to be making those kinds of decisions! And God grant strength and peace to those who have that burden.