quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

That is definitely true in my experience.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Just thinking out loud

[fixed UBB code]

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

Society is different ie women have possesions and greater Freedom.

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Yours in Christ

thus Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

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

1 Corinthians 7

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My prayers for all here.

Hmmm - I like it...

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

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

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

BUT...
... it has happened.

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

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

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(egads! Relativism!)

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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