I belonged to a baptist church where there was an abusive husband -I know about the physical violence, but no more details - and the pastor helped the wife and children to leave. One day he came to the church building, acting all violent, and after her to kill her and grab the children. The church people were instructed to keep him talking while she and the kids were whisked out the back way. There was no question of blaming her or saying she should not be able to remarry. The man had broken the marriage. It no longer existed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
And that for most people it isn't one big thing that makes you think "enough is enough", it's years of little things

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
I belonged to a baptist church where there was an abusive husband -I know about the physical violence, but no more details - and the pastor helped the wife and children to leave. One day he came to the church building, acting all violent, and after her to kill her and grab the children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:

I don't know why but evanglical (and particularly charismatic) churches seem to be much more open to the remarriage of devorced persons than other churches.

---

In my experience it is the other way round. So I suppose all the churches vary - maybe according to the view of the priest or minister in charge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
I am getting rather fed up of the aggressive responses by gbuchanan who repeatedly says certain posters' views "stink" or "are beneath despising"...(Hostly suggestions, please?)

---

So, I would recommend that those who are upset by the arguments presented here pause to calm down before responding. I would also ask that those who are want a reasonable discussion recognise that there are certainly people reading this thread who have been hurt by a divorce or abusive marriage for whom such a debate can never be a purely academic exercise.

I would also add that speculation about whether, or how, people have been personally affected by the subjects discussed here is not acceptable.

WE DO NOT KNOW

and we certainly do not have enough information to jump to the conclusion that she has the right to get remarried - if physical but not verbal abuse is grounds for divorce AMD remarriage - which I personally doubt. It is not hard to construct a possible scenario that is the run up to this incident that at least evens the blame. Let's not be so judgemental (an ironic comment from me I know....)

You know, even with Biblical stuff, there are times when, if you haven't been there, you simply aren't able to pronounce on something with any authority.

I'm not saying I WILL ever have another relationship - indeed, it's more than possible that I won't. But on the ohter hand, I have beaten myself up for years about failing - and I happen to interpret Scripture as saying that God loves me and might even give me a second chance!

quote:

---

I don't know why but evanglical (and particularly charismatic) churches seem to be much more open to the remarriage of devorced persons than other churches.

---

Not here they're not!!! They are also very anti sex-before-marriage and so force many situations where young people marry so they can have sex. No wonder people have just left the church! Double standards.

Of course, the simple answer to all of this ridiculous hoo haa is to do away with marriage altogether. What a useless institution. It is the cause of grief to so many within and without, and who have been through horrid marriages.

Even in marriages which stick together people find it hard to raise children. Just because mummy and daddy stay together doesn't mean the children will be either happy or grow up to have good marriages themselves. I think of my own parents' marriage and am simply disgusted, and dismayed at the effect my Dad's continual and prolonged absence has had and has on my brother. It's now at the point where my brother verbally abuses my mum - because my dad does NOTHING about it. He should defend her. He promised to uphold her and respect her. Bollocks. He does nothing of the sort in so far as my brother is concerned. (Sometimes I want to kill him (my brother) because my mum doesn't deserve the crap she gets from both my brother and my dad.)

So I think the world would be better off without marriage as an institution. And DONT throw all the Bible passages at me. As far as they're concerned, you can flush them down the toilet, or stick them in a personal bodily orifice that never gets the sunlight. (In fact flush the whole damned book down there. It's just a load of promises that have not been delivered on.)

As for divorce:

There are many cases where divorce is the best option. No one should judge another about this. By all means hold your own opinions. But don't then make people feel like they are disobeying by getting out of a nightmare. OK so the divorce rate is growing. But lets face it; human beings are the same as they always have been, and in the past the stigma associated with divorce was a major deterrent. But I'll bet abuse of all sorts and adultery and dishonesty are no more today than they were in the past. It's just that now societal norms have changed.

The only totally inexcusable reason for divorce is boredom with ones partner - and admittedly women are the victims of this more often than men. It's so easy to find a nice young attract lissome woman to replace the middle-aged frump your first wife has become. Faugh!

Oh. And the suggestion of punishing both parties for marrying by not letting them divorce and remarry, forcing them into supposed celibacy is a misnomer. Most would probably go out and find some sort of satisfaction anyway. Afterall, once the commitment is gone, what reason do they have to remain faithful? It's not like they are going to sleep together again, so why not go out and horse around?

If that means I'm roasting on a spit for all eternity, so be it. I have to tell those of you who are adamantly against remarriage (including advocating punishing people who do it) that your responses demonstrate an appalling lack of grace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
As far as they're concerned, you can flush them down the toilet, or stick them in a personal bodily orifice that never gets the sunlight. (In fact flush the whole damned book down there. It's just a load of promises that have not been delivered on.)

---

Well I guess that just about says it all.

The lingering question in my mind is about the origin of all the pain that we feel about this topic.

Is it caused by the overzealous judging attitudes of self-righteous church institutions and individuals?

Is it caused by people's failure to obey Jesus' words?

I guess that it is more complicated than either of these. The only certain thing is that there really is a lot of unhappiness in the arena of intimate relationships.

Some good points there Freddy.

Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
And that for most people it isn't one big thing that makes you think "enough is enough", it's years of little things

Yes, that's it exactly. This is what has to change. This is where we should focus our energy. The prescription of attending church, reading God's Word, praying together, and living a moral life is extremely helpful here."

quote:

---

Yes, that's it exactly. This is what has to change. This is where we should focus our energy. The prescription of attending church, reading God's Word, praying together, and living a moral life is extremely helpful here.

---

Actually, I think the changes necessary go deeper than that. What’s needed is a change of attitude towards the other person and a desire to put them first; a shift in priorities so the home / family is considered more important than say work or church. (The Scripture model is “Leave, cleave and belong” which suggests a completely different set of values)

Tubbs

An evangelical CoE minister told me how he used to ask his Bishop for permission to conduct a marriage where at least one partner was divorced (as he was supposed to do) but the Bishop always replied "If you think that it is right to marry them do it" that he stopped asking unless he thought that there might be some publicity.

i hope my daughters never feel they need to be an "absolute paragon of virtue." i know i don't. and i've also got a really hard time w/the notion that divorcees should be punished. haven't they already been?

mrs. tubbs...i find myself agreeing with many of your posts these days...hope that doesn't scare you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I'm one of the few people on this board who's actually been through it.

---

quote:

---

How do you know? Divorce can affect many people: partners, parents, children, second wives, step-parents...... Just because I and other posters don't want to explain our situation in great, tedious detail, it doesn't mean we haven't been through it. I should imagine most posters on this thread know only too well what it is like and have to cope with others' attitudes to their situation now and in the future. Otherwise we would not be posting......

---

You missed out friends who've sat with a bottle of wine in one hand and a box of Kleenex in the other and just listened .... And then tried to stay neutral

Divorce doesn't just affect the immediate family but everyone in that particlar group

Then it happened. Having married right out of university, the marriage was a complete mess by the time I was 25. In my case, we were too young to have gotten married. Having been raised to believe that divorce was unacceptable, I continued in the marriage. There were no children. I even had many discussions with a minister who was a friend and whom I trusted. This was a big step for me, because I do not discuss my feelings easily – I usually take the attitude “get over it”.

After much praying and soul searching, I realized that I could not continue in that relationship for another 50 years. I had come to the point where I decided that being rejected by my family and my church would be the easier of the two outcomes.

So, then I had to tell my parents. As background, my father was a Baptist minister who had performed the wedding ceremony. Our family was one where drinking, smoking, playing cards and dancing were not allowed. The only family member who was divorced was one of my mother’s sisters, and she was the black sheep of the family (although not just because of the divorce). However, I had come to the point where it was necessary to risk being shunned by my family.

When I talked to my parents, they were very supportive, realizing, as I had, that the marriage was not going to work, and that divorce was an acceptable alternative. The rest of my family was also supportive, except my brother who wrote me a “sermon” about the trials of Job. Incidentally, I have only spoken to him a few times in the last 20 years. The thing I learned is that sometimes, second best is the best you can manage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Chorister:
How do you know? Divorce can affect many people: partners, parents, children, second wives, step-parents...... Just because I and other posters don't want to explain our situation in great, tedious detail, it doesn't mean we haven't been through it. I should imagine most posters on this thread know only too well what it is like and have to cope with others' attitudes to their situation now and in the future. Otherwise we would not be posting......

---

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.

quote:

---

However, I did see a statistic which suggests that over 90% of ADHD kids are fatherless at home. But then a huge proportion of ANY kids are ADHD now - so it might as well be environmental or (my pet theory) too much loud music over two generations!

---

My pet theory is its an alliance between psychiatrists & drug companies to make money out of hassled parents.

Some US surveys report 15% of boys as ADHD - that isn;t a mental disorder, that is opne end of normal variation.

The behaviour of children hasn't changed, but society is becoming less able to tolerate it as we demand more from them and restrict their freedom more and more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But for people who have not been divorced to speak so glibly about it is just WRONG.

---

My strong suspicion would be that there is virtually no one participating here who has not been divorced, or been closely affected by it.

We seem to be forgetting that many who have been through this often shattering experience emerge from it with a passionate opposition to the societal forces that allowed/encouraged their beloved to desert them.

When your wife decides that your marriage is not a good one, and that she would be better off on her own, and then follows through on her ideas - well it is no fun at all. And then maybe you watch her life deteriorate over the ensuing years, maybe for the same reasons that made her feel "trapped" in a "loveless" marriage. It doesn't make you a "believer" in the healing power of divorce.

Wives whose husbands have taken up with the younger woman, and filed for divorce, might also not be great fans of the idea that churches should permit divorce. You watch your former husband, with the little tramp he married, sitting as a respected deacon in your church, and you just wonder what you did wrong...

I'm not saying that the deserting spouses are necessarily wrong in these situations, because we don't know the real situations. My point is simply that many divorced people are more convinced that divorce is straight from hell than anyone who has never been through it. They are aware of the pain associated with it, and, right or wrong, speak from experience not naivete.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My fundamental point is that in practice the breakdown of a marriage is almost never only one partner's fault. And if we take a wide understanding of mental illness, then sole responsibility becomes even less common. Given that, the case for remarriage of the 'innocent' party becomes a vanishing small occurrence.

---

That, Enders Shadow, is seeming to suggest that the spouse thus must be in part responsible for what is done to them - that is not justifiable in the bald terms in which you put it. Furthermore, many forms of abuse are not the result of mental illness, nor is mental illness more than very rarely the outcome of a single other person's action.

I do not see how the simple rules of proof can be applied, and you rightly suggest many of the problems involved. However, I think it is possible to place this in a more inclusive framework for those who are abandoned by a spouse, and ditto for those who leave a spouse.

You say that hard cases make bad law, well hard laws are flawed also. I am utterly unable to find any Christian virtue in a policy which adds to the suffering which surrounds divorce. From my understanding, only Christ and Christ only stands in propitiation of sins, and we are not required to demand the sacrifice of others lives (though we, of course, offer our own) to satisfy a picture of God which emphasises law above grace, which seems to me to be exactly what Jesus came to do.

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 used to help in research on this topic, and I am still involved in endeavouring to support people who have suffered the circumstances I described. They are not a trivially small proportion, as I have pointed out. Let me give some further figures to, I hope, give you some insight into the degree of emotional difficulties that they face. Many divorcees do remarry, and indeed the average time between the breakdown of the relationship and the forming of a further one is around three years (again, in the UK). In many circumstances which you describe, the leaver will infact be in a relationship in a very short time, and those have an extremely high, and indeed unsurprising, rate of failure.

Conversely, those who have been sexually assaulted, including exhibitionistic types of assault, rarely establish a new relationship until around 10 years, and often that is about the time they get to the "going out" phase, nothing more, as it were. Often, it takes 6 or 7 years to get over post-traumatic effects such as flashbacks, panic attacks etc.

In common with those who suffer any type of sexual attack, there is a significant and nearly universal sense of guilt and shame. Even secular social standards are far from supportive, and for Christian victims in particular, there are extreme difficulties in regaining self-respect and self-confidence.

This is not helped at all by sweeping statements about leavers. Most of the victims of these attacks will be the ones who leave, not vice-versa. Most divorces will be contested, and the promise of the spouse to "be better" is unsurprising (and not to be dismissed off-hand). However, it is very rarely the case that the victim ever feels able to trust their spouse intimately, and this clearly affects future relationships too.

It is my experience that the church's teaching on divorce is profoundly spritually damaging to this group. The language of guilt and sin, felt as I've said by the victim in any case, is compounded by an inability of the Church to discuss their circumstances and experiences directly and supportively. Many feel that the church is asking them to sacrifice their sexuality for their salvation, either by staying in union with their partner, or not being allowed to have another. For most, regaining the point where they emotionally want another relationship is a very significant part of identifying themselves as healing. For those who are Christians, particularly from a more conservative background, the feeling that they are not allowed that damages their morale and their progress.

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. I am also strongly convinced that through the normal framework of Christian ethics, people in such circumstances are unusually vulnerable. It is by our treatment of the weakest that I believe our truest values can be understood, and I think thus it is behoven to us all to do be sensitive to this issue.

If our teaching on marriage were to not have an explicit place to include this, then we would without doubt be deliberately and inexcusably sacrificing the hopes of these for the benefit of others - and I find that utterly unconscionable. We cannot be perfect, but I think we can do better.

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.

quote:

---

My point is simply that many divorced people are more convinced that divorce is straight from hell than anyone who has never been through it.

---

And some are more convinced that MARRIAGE is straight from hell than anyone who's never been through it. I will not do that again. Ever. And if I hadn't been allowed a divorce, I would have ended up physically dead. There's a comforting prospect: stay married and eventually be murdered/commit suicide, otherwise you're a bad and selfish person.

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.