|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: divorce
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
This is not rhetorical.
Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?
And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Which church? And are you a person divorced from their same sex spouse since you raised this in Dead Horses? (As a "a trendy liberal" who does understand the "fuss" although doesn't agree with all its implications, I hope you don't mind my asking, savvy?)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The British Methodist Church certainly isn't 'trendy', but it seems to be one of the most liberal of the mainstream churches in the UK regarding divorce.
I believe there was a time when a high percentage of Methodist weddings involved divorcees. This was because divorced people would often turn to the Methodist Church when the CofE refused to remarry them. The clergy (who themselves may divorce and remarry) no doubt expect couples to have learnt from their prior experience and to take remarriage seriously, but in my many years as a Methodist I've never heard of divorce and/or remarriage representing a problem.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This isn't a DH topic. Purg Hosts may wish to redirect this discussion to the Pope Francis thread, or accept a fresh thread. I've asked them.
Feel free to discuss pro tem, but you will either be on the move or redirected shortly.
Barnabas62
DH Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The thread's off to Purg to discuss divorce as a general topic. If anyone wants to discuss same-sex divorce as a separate topic, please feel free to start a thread specifically for that purpose.
Barnabas62
DH Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.
Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?
And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?
I have no knowledge of your circumstances but there is always grace.
I'm a Baptist Pastor and have a few divorced folk in my church and have even officiated over one's (2nd) marriage.
So to answer your question you'd be vey welcome.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
The churches view (cofe) is that marriage is a faithful lifelong commitment, however it recognises that we are human and not perfect and that mistakes happen and we need to be gracious.
After all the church is full of divorced people or those whose close family are divorced
ps. I am married to a divorced person
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
You might find David Instone-Brewer's work on the Biblical grounds for divorce interesting.
Summed up in a simple presentation here
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
I think the RC line is that you are supposed to stay single and celibate as long as your first partner is alive. If you remarry, you commit adultery with your new wife and would not be allowed to receive the sacraments.
However I know of one case where a remarried woman is accepted as a Eucharistic Minister, so there may well be some priests who are willing to interpret things differently.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I've become a trendy liberal, pro-gay marriage the lot wuss, from a bitterly conservative background as the result of becoming biblically orthodox: seeing the trajectory of grace, particularly with regard to marriage which took a great leap forward in the Bronze Age when even slave wives could walk away from a loveless marriage contract.
Let alone one full of lies, deceit, betrayal, brutality, madness, addiction, deprivation, depravity, dysfunction, abuse, syphilis.
Yep, Christians should make the Christian best of it, i.e. with the fruits of the spirit. Where one or both can't, it's over. And not alive still in heaven.
The church's job? To protect. To shepherd. To counsel. To bless. In remarriage where there is no reason why not.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
You might find David Instone-Brewer's work on the Biblical grounds for divorce interesting.
Summed up in a simple presentation here
Thanks for that Lucia. That link didn't work for me but I found it here
one of his statements: quote:
Divorce itself is not sinful, but breaking your marriage vows is sinful
does not make sense. Divorce is breaking your marriage vows! The vow that goes "till death do us part". This is not conditional, so divorce is a breaking of it.
[Disclosure: I am divorced and remarried]
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?
I don't "savvy" in the least. It was the liberals who have gone before us that made divorce socially acceptable. You very likely wouldn't be divorced if it weren't for liberals.
What are you supposed to do? Same as everyone else. Micah 6:8 doesn't change no matter what your marital status is.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
Some churches (I am thinking RCC in particular, but there are hardline clergy in the CofE) make divorce the unforgivable sin. Is it really Christian to say that all other sins (murder, for example)can be forgiven but not suffering the break-up of a marriage? That is not my idea of Christianity.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.
Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?
And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?
I'm an evangelical, so I guess I qualify as a "non-trendy liberal" and I do fuss/care about marriage (tho not so much about SSM), so don't know if you want my 2 cents or not... but...
I'm an evangelical, ordained clergy. And I'm divorced. So the church's response has been, in my experience... grace.
My take on it is this:
1. The Bible has some strong words to say about divorce, and even says "God hates divorce"
2. Jesus 'raises the bar" on divorce, but also provides some exceptions (and yes, I know the exceptions may be a scribal gloss, but they are also part of canonical Scripture, thus authoritative)
That tells me that God doesn't like divorce, but not because he doesn't like "rule breaking". God hates divorce, because divorce causes tremendous pain and suffering-- for everyone involved. You know that already. God isn't opposed to you, he is opposed to the painful circumstances you find yourself in.
I'm not one to say "it takes two to divorce"-- in most states in the US, that's not the case, and in many/most divorces there's one person who wants it a lot more than the other. There are all sorts of reasons and circumstances. I know nothing about any of that for you and your situation. I only know that God does know-- it all. God knows, and he cares. He cares about your failures and he cares about your pain. And he is not anywhere close to done w/ you. There is grace and there is life ahead.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Divorce is a sin. But God forgives sin.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Divorce is a sin. But God forgives sin.
Not every person who is divorced chose to be divorced. I find it hard to call it "sin" when it wasn't chosen (and all the inevitable DH places that goes...)
I'd rather say, "divorce is brokenness". We have divorce because of the brokenness of this world.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There was an interesting article in the New York Times about an Orthodox Jewish Woman getting a divorce. After the ceremony, the Chief Rabbi of the court told her a story;
The temple altar, the Talmud says, weeps when a man divorces his wife. When a revered rabbi got divorced, his students came to him and asked: “How can this be? Does our tradition not teach that the altar weeps over a divorce?”
The rabbi looked at his students. “Better the altar should weep than should I.”
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I will just copy and paste what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America says about divorce and remarriage:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recognizes that divorce is often a tragic necessity when, as a result of sin, a marriage is no longer viable. Those who obtain a divorce are encouraged to recognize their own contributions to the failure of the marriage. Divorced persons may remarry in the church.
In other words: divorce itself is not a sin. It happens usually because of sin. For those who want to remarry a little more counseling is recommended 1) to ensure the parties have sufficiently gone through the grief process (in a way, it never ends) and 2) to ensure the parties are committed to getting beyond the problems that caused a divorce.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.
Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?
And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?
Okay, this below isn't real helpful, and contains a hell of a lot of yaffling on, but you aren't supposed to do anything. You haven't got a time machine! Wait a minute, you are supposed to do one thing--to receive the kindness and love of God, and stop worrying about anything in the past, whether it's divorce or anything else.
As for whether divorce is a sin--
Well, it's an evil, certainly--in the same sense in which cancer or war or poverty are evils. They are horrible things which ought not to exist in a perfect world. But they do exist, and people suffer from them, including total innocents. And Christians ought to do what they can to make things better wherever these evils do exist (and duh, not to make things worse, like by being nasty to people who suffer from them).
But a thing can be an evil and not be a sin. It only takes one person to break a marriage. And sometimes it doesn't even take one--I know of a case involving psychotic break, and neither person was responsible for what happened.
And even if it IS your sin (general "your" here), it is forgivable as all sins are forgivable (yeah, yeah, I know about the single exception, but it certainly isn't divorce!).
I know the arguments that say that a person who remarries is committing adultery again and again and again. I do not believe or agree with this. Once a marriage is shattered, it's broken. It isn't going to get any more broken because of repeated acts of sex etc. Does a mirror get more broken if it gets dropped repeatedly?
A broken marriage may be re-made (if both persons are able and willing to make the attempt, along with a shedload of divine and human help!), but in that case it's basically a new marriage--rather like melting down shattered glass and recasting the mirror or whatever it was. It's a new thing, not the old thing carrying on. And it seems to me that the act of breaking a marriage does not happen when the papers are signed, or when a remarriage is contracted, but much earlier. For example, when one partner commits adultery, or desertion, or ...
(I suspect the reason Christ mentioned adultery as an "exception" is because if adultery has happened, the marriage is already broken. The same goes for Paul's counsel regarding desertion. In such cases, the marriage is clearly kaput and the Christian believer is not obliged to try to raise the dead, as it were. Which is what the RC church seems to me to be requiring. Oy vey.)
So if someone is already divorced, what are they to do? Behave like any other Christian believer whose sins are forgiven. (and hopefully learn from the experience, as we all ought to do from our own broken places)
Should they be admitted to the Lord's Supper? Lord, yes. They need it desperately.
Should they be admitted to Christian leadership? Not until they've healed. Divorce seems a lot like amputation, to me. It's going to take time to heal. And a healing person should not be placed under additional strain. The amount of time this takes will differ from person to person, I think. And you'd not want someone scandalous in leadership at any time (say, a person whose divorce is the direct result of running off with a thirteen-year-old child they've gotten pregnant). But that isn't most divorced people, is it?
As for remarriage--I think this has to be allowed to divorced people, even those who have been classic adulterers and totally wronged their 100% innocent first spouses. Unless anybody wants to reinstute OT Jewish Law and stone the people. Because anyone who commits adultery clearly doesn't have the supernatural gift of celibacy, and the only way they can reasonably be expected to stay out of sexual sin in the future is if they're either dead or remarried. And if we concede this to former adulterers, how much more to those who are not!
Forgive the longwindedness.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
one of his statements: quote:
Divorce itself is not sinful, but breaking your marriage vows is sinful
does not make sense. Divorce is breaking your marriage vows! The vow that goes "till death do us part". This is not conditional, so divorce is a breaking of it.
It makes sense to me. "Breaking your marriage vows" refers not to separation, which may happen for any number of reasons, but to infidelity.
So splitting up is not the issue. The issue is getting together with someone else.
And in most traditions this is not an issue either for the injured party (i.e. Matthew 19:9). They are free to marry as they wish.
What we are talking about here, I assume, is when we leave a person who has not been unfaithful to us, and then take up with someone else. This is wrong, according to almost all Christian traditions.
What then? I think that we all know many people in that situation. We also know many people who do other things that might be held up to moral scrutiny. It is a painful part of life. Repentance involves understanding what is right and wrong, seeing our faults, taking steps to avoid repeating them, and many other things.
I think that it is important to understand that everyone has things in their life that they are not proud of, that trouble them, and that they are trying to get past. Relationship issues loom large among them.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Some churches (I am thinking RCC in particular, but there are hardline clergy in the CofE) make divorce the unforgivable sin.
This is a misrepresentation. Divorce can most certainly be forgiven. It just doesn't follow that forgiving divorce is the same as waving a magic wand and pretending that the marriage didn't happen. If I lend you my car and you crash it, I can forgive you, but my car is still in bits in the ditch.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Divorce is a sin. But God forgives sin.
Not every person who is divorced chose to be divorced. I find it hard to call it "sin" when it wasn't chosen (and all the inevitable DH places that goes...)
I'd rather say, "divorce is brokenness". We have divorce because of the brokenness of this world.
I think we're talking past each other. I didn't say "every person who is now divorced sinned by being divorced" -- certainly there are people who do everything they can to stay married, but their spouse will have none of it.
But also I believe it is possible to sin unintentionally, and even unknowingly. This is a question of different concepts of sin. If you take a judicial, law-based understanding of sin, then of course intention has a huge deal to do with it; you shouldn't be condemned before the law for something you didn't choose to do. But that's only one way of looking at sin. Sin as brokenness, as you allude to, is not a question of legal blame.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
I presume that people are meaning 'dissolution of marriage' when they are talking about divorce. Marriages break down and partners separate without any 'dissolution of marriage' taking place. Some pedants would describe these couples as divorced even if they are still living under the same roof. The dissolution of a marriage is a legal recognition that the marriage has broken down. Surly if there is any sin it occurs during the marriage and contributes to its breakdown.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think a lot depends on the attitude. Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because our hearts are hard. To me this is a recongition of human fallibility.
I've seen a big difference in attitude between people who genuinely regret the failure of a first marriage (for whatever reason) and approach the possibility of remarriage as an expression of grace (as others have said) and people who come brandishing this avenue of grace as a right to which they are entitled.
I recall in particular a pastor I knew who divorced his wife to marry his mistress, with whom he had fathered a child, proclaiming that this child was (somehow) the "bolt" (sic) that sealed and legitimised the latter relationship, fully justified a remarriage, and pretty much to hell with anyone who dared suggest otherwise (he wrote a book about all this).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not every person who is divorced chose to be divorced. I find it hard to call it "sin" when it wasn't chosen (and all the inevitable DH places that goes...)
I'd rather say, "divorce is brokenness". We have divorce because of the brokenness of this world.
In a later post, you also note that in many of the US states it does not take 2 to divorce. That is very much the position here, where divorce laws are federal, not state - the only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and the only evidence of that is 12 months separation. So should one party simply walk out and remain away, after 12 months that party can obtain a divorce. The only possible defence is that there has not been the 12 months of living separately and apart, and there is no discretion to refuse a decree.
But here, and in most of the jurisdictions I know of, the marriage recognised by law is a purely secular event to which parties may at their discretion add a religious component*. Divorce law only deals with the secular component** and extends to such matters as ongoing maintenance, distribution of property and custody of children. To hearken back to the Extraordinary Synod thread, it would be a good outcome of that Synod were the Catholic Church to recognise the existence of both components and the validity of the divorce at least for these secular matters.
So to be divorced pure and simple is no impediment to full participation in a church life. There may still be some Anglican churches where a second marriage would not be carried out in the church, and the remarriage treated as resulting in sinful acts. That is the position of most Catholic churches although there are some where a more liberal approach is adopted. In the last 40 years or more, I have not heard of any problems with divorce in the mainline Protestant churches.
* Both are dealt with simultaneously here, unlike the common European practice of 2 ceremonies.
** It is common here for an application for the dissolution of the marriage of a Jewish couple to include a request for an order that the other party take all steps necessary for a Get to be obtained.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Oh goodness, sorry people, I opened the thread, then my battery died... here I am this morning, realising I should have linked to the thread which spawned this one, at least. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
On the thread in DH that pointed out kids leaving the church and citing attitudes to GLBT, I pointed out that in the lifetime of the elderly in the churches, attitudes to divorce have changed completely. Methodists have been marrying divorcees for decades, and say, without a trace of irony, that it's not for them to judge, but God.
In my church I am totally acceptable. I could become a lay preacher, my children can be baptised, my husband and I are welcome as a proper couple everywhere, no raised eyebrows or veiled comments.
Interestingly, the young mum who is a lay preacher, missionary, primary school teacher and all round good egg does get some disapproval because she's not married to the baby's dad. Not much, but significantly, from the old guard.
Baby was happy accident. But even so, she was obviously living with the divorced man who is the dad, he is always prevailed upon to fix the church roof or whatever, why should having a baby and being a bloody good parent suddenly bar her from ministry?
To return to me and the DH, for my sister to be acceptable to the church she should leave her wife and be celibate for the rest of her life, apparently. What about if she agreed to be celibate but just loved her wife?
But I divorced my husband because I was terribly unhappy and I've married my current husband. I've since become a Christian. We weren't married in church. I have two girls from my first registry office marriage and two boys from my second.
None of the children are christened because my husband is starting anti church. Though he would also fix the roof because he's a sweetie.
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.
Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?
And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?
I have no knowledge of your circumstances but there is always grace.
I'm a Baptist Pastor and have a few divorced folk in my church and have even officiated over one's (2nd) marriage.
So to answer your question you'd be vey welcome.
Same here - although one rider. I'd be more concerned about marrying a couple who are both divorced and where one was the cause of the break up of the other (new) partner's marriage.
I don't say I wouldn't do it but I'd have to explore a little more fully why they now want to marry and what has changed to bring them to this point. What I don't want to see is the church being used to recognise and affirm "adultery "
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Double post to add, 'starting' should read 'strongly' but the auto correct on this is a constant battle, and I can't link to posts, or I would create a link to my post in the DH thread. I really appreciate the responses so far, really thoughtful and interesting.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?
Well, we're all in trouble with God for something - it's called sin. But I don't see you being in any more trouble than I am (and I'm married) just because you are divorced.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What the parallel discussion on the Pope Francis thread clarified is the Catholic position. You may have to separate, and you may indeed get a civil divorce as a result. And that may indeed be a just outcome, since issues such as personal safety, or the safety of children, may be at risk if you continue to live with the person you married.
But if you have been properly married once, you cannot remarry. If you do, you commit adultery. If you do remarry in a civil ceremony, and are in a full sexual relationship with your remarried partner, then the Catholic church will, at present, regard you as living in an ongoing, sinful state.
You can read a lot more about that position, and the arguments for and against, on that thread.
What the Orthodox say has been for me best summed up by this quote.
quote:
According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony. The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.
The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. The Holy John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin.
............
It is important here to explain a fundamental element of the Orthodox Church’s doctrine, namely that the dissolving of a marriage relationship does not ipso facto grant the right to enter into another marriage.
........
By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness. A second or third marriage will always be a deviation from the “ideal and unique marriage”, but often a fresh opportunity to correct a mistake.
Quotes from this link.
What Protestants say depends on which denomination you belong to. If you go to a church and it is an issue for you, it is best to find out what the line is in that church, with that particular pastor. The great majority of Protestant churches have no difficulty in allowing divorced people into membership, though there is variation over permitted roles and also whether remarriages can take place within the church (rather than a civil ceremony).
It is a complex picture.
For all of the Christians I know, who have lived through marriage breakup, divorce and remarriage, the major issue of conscience has been over the lifelong vows they made before God. Most know that they have broken a promise themselves, no matter how they see the behaviour of their ex-partners. For better, for worse, til death do us part. Worse means worse. Most did not know how bad it could get until they had to live with it, found no cure despite in many cases very great efforts. They found that the marriage had died and their hope in its resurrection had died as well. After that, it was making the best of a bad job.
Again, in my experience, second marriages between Christians turn out to be better than their first marriages. Folks have lived and learned more about compatibility, the differences between selfish and unselfish loving, the fact that we when we fall in love we can fool ourselves about the person we've become attracted to, etc.
For anyone who is genuinely troubled by this issue in their personal lives, I think the best answer is always to work it through with people they know and trust in real life. Websites like this can provide facts and ranges of opinions, but in the end it is a matter for the individual to come to terms with their beliefs, personal consciences, and any tension which exists between the two.
[ 04. March 2014, 08:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
I'm honestly curious as to why so many posters presume that divorce allows for a re-marriage as opposed to separation?
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." [Luke 16:18 ESV]
Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life, as is Ordination. Why should it not be the case for Marriage? (At least, for the life of the couple who are so joined.)
These are hard words, indeed. But the NT is full of hard words, some of them considerably harder then these.
I never thought I was a particularly extreme Anglican, but I seem to be quite out of pace with the thinking on this one.
x
AV
[ 04. March 2014, 10:28: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
But I divorced my husband because I was terribly unhappy and I've married my current husband. I've since become a Christian.
Does this mean that you (and/or your previous partner) were not baptised prior to your first marriage? At least the RCC would consider that as very important in judging your current status... see for example here for an explanation. If your previous marriage did not rest on all four of those pillars, then by RC understanding it was not sacramental; hence it could be dissolved, and apparently you did dissolve it. That means your current marriage is OK at least concerning the existence of a prior (not-sacramental and dissolved) marriage for RCs.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life, as is Ordination. Why should it not be the case for Marriage? (At least, for the life of the couple who are so joined.)
It should be the case.
The issues being raised are:
- should the victim of a spouse who cheats/abuses/abandons them be consigned to a life of celibacy because of sins committed by their ex
- what is the likelihood that a cheater who abandons their spouse is capable of living a life of celibacy, and might it not be better for that person to marry rather than burn (to paraphrase Paul)
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My attitude, reflecting The Salvation Army's view, is that if a remarriage will be a means of grace to a hurting individual or 2 hurting individuals, then of course remarriage should be graciously allowed. Why would we want to perpetuate loneliness and unfulfilment in a person's life through the unwanted failure of their relationship. Remember, marriage is not (merely) a legally binding contract, it is the loving covenant entered into with honest and hopeful intent. The failure of the marriage is deeply and personally felt and can only bring great regret and remorse, even when it's the best thing for reasons of safety, sanity, or happiness.
If a person subsequently can find a partner whose very presence can bring healing and self-worth, another opportunity to express love and commitment, then it can only be right for the church to offer the grace of marriage as long as the intent is as pure the second time as it was with the first marriage.
However, I would personally take an extremely dim view of a remarriage where the person requesting said marriage was the cause of the breakdown of the first relationship, even if if the divorce proceedings were precipitated by the innocent party. And if someone has left a marriage specifically to pursue a second relationship with a particular person, I would refuse outright.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life, as is Ordination. Why should it not be the case for Marriage? (At least, for the life of the couple who are so joined.)
It should be the case. The issues being raised are:
- should the victim of a spouse who cheats/abuses/abandons them be consigned to a life of celibacy because of sins committed by their ex
- what is the likelihood that a cheater who abandons their spouse is capable of living a life of celibacy, and might it not be better for that person to marry rather than burn (to paraphrase Paul)
That's precisely the wrong way of thinking, and for just the reason that Ahleal V raised. Sacramental marriage is not a matter of morality (what should be the case) but of being (what has become the case). One cannot become unbaptised, unconfirmed, unordained or (sacramentally) unmarried, once one has been baptised, confirmed, ordained or (sacramentally) married, respectively. No human power can achieve this. The particular difficulty of sacramental marriage is that one side of the "union of one flesh" can unilaterally sin, and thereby victimise the other side. But that just is the risk one runs when tying oneself to another in a sacrament, and the mere fact that someone can get hurt by someone else's sin via this sacrament does not prove that it does not exist.
So, the victim of an unfaithful spouse may indeed be condemned by them to a life of sexual continence. And arguably that's a more "personal" hurt than say the life of sexual continence to which the opposite gender at large condemns one who cannot find a partner to marry. But that one can be hurt with something does not make it pop out of existence. And I'm not quite sure how the "cheater" ends up being concerned with sexual continence in your second question. But good on them if they are, and yes, the same rules apply. The "cheater" cannot get past their sacramental marriage any more than the "victim", simply because that is an objective (if spiritual) reality.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life...
Are they?
Does being baptised as a baby and then confirmed as a teenager guarantee a life of saving grace and eternal life in the presence of Christ?
I don't think so. These things are cheapened beyond measure if one beliefs that they are simply a pre-paid insurance policy against damnation. I would have thought that one should actually live up to one's baptism and confirmation.
I see nothing in the Bible that suggests these two ceremonies are sufficient and have no need to living faith. The epistles of Paul - indeed the entire teaching of the New Testament - strongly suggest otherwise.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's precisely the wrong way of thinking
I am speaking from my own opinion, and not in regard to the view held by the Roman Catholic Church. The person I responded to is an Anglican.
Feel free to have a problem with my thinking, but to call it wrong, within the context of the Church of England's view on divorce, is inappropriate.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are they?
Does being baptised as a baby and then confirmed as a teenager guarantee a life of saving grace and eternal life in the presence of Christ?
A more appropriate analogy is, being baptized as an infant and then as an adult converting to Islam. I suppose those churches that hold to the view that baptism and confirmation are one-time deals, believe that the conversion to another religion is just pretend or make-believe.
Because that's certainly their view of second marriages - that they are a farce.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are they?
Does being baptised as a baby and then confirmed as a teenager guarantee a life of saving grace and eternal life in the presence of Christ?
A more appropriate analogy is, being baptized as an infant and then as an adult converting to Islam. I suppose those churches that hold to the view that baptism and confirmation are one-time deals, believe that the conversion to another religion is just pretend or make-believe.
Because that's certainly their view of second marriages - that they are a farce.
Indeed. It's why baptismal regeneration is nonsense.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
one of his statements: quote:
Divorce itself is not sinful, but breaking your marriage vows is sinful
does not make sense. Divorce is breaking your marriage vows! The vow that goes "till death do us part". This is not conditional, so divorce is a breaking of it.
It makes sense to me. "Breaking your marriage vows" refers not to separation, which may happen for any number of reasons, but to infidelity.
So splitting up is not the issue. The issue is getting together with someone else.
Says you.
Clearly the marriage vows promise a life of intimacy and proximity ("to have and to hold, to love and to cherish" or whatever formula used) until the death of one or other spouse.
Breaking these vows through withdrawal of intimacy or abandonment is no less breaking one's marriage vows than infidelity. My Nuptial Mass didn't involve me "vowing" fidelity at all, but did say that the exchange of rings was a sign of fidelity. Yes, I do appreciate that fidelity is, in any case, one of the obligations of marriage, but to say that "breaking vows" means infidelity only seems bizarre to me.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
However, I would personally take an extremely dim view of a remarriage where the person requesting said marriage was the cause of the breakdown of the first relationship, even if if the divorce proceedings were precipitated by the innocent party. And if someone has left a marriage specifically to pursue a second relationship with a particular person, I would refuse outright.
This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for people to draw lines when people are not really in a position to judge the relative "wrongness" of any marriage breakdown.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does being baptised as a baby and then confirmed as a teenager guarantee a life of saving grace and eternal life in the presence of Christ?
No, it doesn't guarantee this. But it makes it possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
These things are cheapened beyond measure if one beliefs that they are simply a pre-paid insurance policy against damnation. I would have thought that one should actually live up to one's baptism and confirmation. I see nothing in the Bible that suggests these two ceremonies are sufficient and have no need to living faith.
Given that you hold forth so strongly against this opinion, I'm sure you are able to point to someone who actually holds it. After all, you wouldn't want to be caught fighting straw men, would you now? Or are you simply being particularly blissful today?
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I am speaking from my own opinion, and not in regard to the view held by the Roman Catholic Church. The person I responded to is an Anglican. Feel free to have a problem with my thinking, but to call it wrong, within the context of the Church of England's view on divorce, is inappropriate.
Why would it be inappropriate for me to call your thinking and apparently the CofE's view wrong, given that they are both at odds with reality and the truth in my opinion? If you had said something like "the CofE teaches that ...", then it might be inappropriate to call that wrong. Because your opinion about what the CofE teaches could be right, even if the CofE teaches falsehood.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's the wrong way of thinking for a Roman Catholic. Which HAS to be fine by non-Roman Catholics, no matter how awful it looks from the outside.
(So, sorry for the previous pot shots!)
The Roman Catholic position is what it is and as in all areas of distinct, mandatory Roman Catholic teaching cannot be questioned, with a view to antithetically challenging it, using Roman Catholic epistemology. That isn't logically possible.
Those of us who are from non and post-Roman Catholic, indeed non and post-sacramental, traditions are doing what Brian said: working it out for ourselves based on a faithful postmodern trajectory.
Which is where David Instone-Brewer fits. And John Piper doesn't.
And thanks Barnabas62. Most inclusive.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The point is, that one either agrees with IngoB and the RCC or one doesn't. It's logical but it's a bit like getting stuck on whether one can eat milk and meat at the same meal. If one doesn't, as so often, Lamb Chopped talks a lot of compassionate sense.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why would it be inappropriate for me to call your thinking and apparently the CofE's view wrong, given that they are both at odds with reality and the truth in my opinion? If you had said something like "the CofE teaches that ...", then it might be inappropriate to call that wrong. Because your opinion about what the CofE teaches could be right, even if the CofE teaches falsehood.
You are picking a fight with me, based on an entirely reasonable post that doesn't say what one should or must think, but simply lists two of the issues being debated in this thread.
Take it to Hell buddy.
[ 04. March 2014, 12:48: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for people to draw lines when people are not really in a position to judge the relative "wrongness" of any marriage breakdown.
What isn't a minister in a position to judge the causes of a marital breakdown? Aren't they the ones who conduct the marriages in the first place? I think ministers see quite a lot of couples in different stages of life and relationships, and are probably infinitely more capable of using good judgement in this area than, perhaps, the courts or lawyers are.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?
No, you are not in trouble with God, how should you be? "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)
The point to the divorce sayings, whatever you make of them, is guidance in the future. It is not to make forgiven, washed-clean Christians worry about the past.
As Paul puts it, after naming off a bunch of sins, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)
That's it. Finished. End of story. Forgiven. Over.
At this point, if you go back to God on it and start fussing about shades of possible guilt and what-should-I-do-now, you're likely to get a pair of raised eyebrows and "What? Whatever are you talking about?"
Because "I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
(Hebrews 8:12)
He really meant it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for people to draw lines when people are not really in a position to judge the relative "wrongness" of any marriage breakdown.
What isn't a minister in a position to judge the causes of a marital breakdown?
In my view, no, nor is it their job.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
]In my view, no, nor is it their job.
I find it odd - that church staff do premarital courses and marriage courses, but in your view are not in suitable position to counsel on remarriage.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed. It's why baptismal regeneration is nonsense.
Mudfrog, this is a total tangent and I don't want to take it further on this thread than this post (but would be happy to discuss by PM or on anothe thread), but baptismal regeneration is not what you think it is. We who believe in it do NOT accept the Calvinist idea of "once saved, always saved." So get it right out of your head that we regard baptism as some sort of automatic "get out of hell" card. It is a gift, and a powerful one. But you can always throw the gift away, if you're of a (astonishingly foolish) mind to.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
