|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: divorce
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
seekingsister. Let him. And bless him. And Ahleal V. And other non-postmodern views here. When I made my pot-shot on the other thread, I was implicitly INCLUDING you by the way. And I'm sorry for not being able to say that then. I'd have come unstuck with the Host I feared. To the Roman Catholic eye we are invincibly ignorant of our all but unforgivable sin: God may be able to change our minds to agree with Him in Purgatory.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.
I'm picking a fight with you concerning your opinions, not concerning your person, and I will do so here. As for your post, you answered in the affirmative to Ahleal V, but then re-iterated issues which - if one agrees with Ahleal V - are actually non-issues. That is what my response pointed out.
--------------------
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 Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?
In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?
In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.
Which gets us back to where we came in. How would a minister ever know they had a full and unbiased appraisal of the facts?
In reality, only a couple of people really know who left whom for whom and why. I wouldn't want to be the judge.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?
In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.
Which gets us back to where we came in. How would a minister ever know they had a full and unbiased appraisal of the facts?
In reality, only a couple of people really know who left whom for whom and why. I wouldn't want to be the judge.
Obviously no one can ever fully know another one's heart, the hidden sins, their motives, the complex mitigating factors. And none of us perfectly knows the heart of God and how divine mercy tempers divine judgment.
But a pastor is called most of all to "the cure of souls"-- to provide life-giving counsel that requires us to enter into that fraught territory. We will do so imperfectly. We will blunder and assume wrongly. Hopefully, we do all that with a huge dose of humility and compassion-- and a tremendous amount of prayer. But asking a pastor now to weigh in on a matter of such spiritual significance is like asking a fire-fighter not to venture near fire. That's our job.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
seekingsister
IngoB is well within the rules. If you are fed up with him, you can call him to Hell.
Barnabas42
Purgatory 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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Making judgements of this sort is surely part of the job of being a Protestant minister of religion?
Of course, these days, if a minister doesn't feel that s/he can conduct a marriage ceremony in good conscience then a couple can go elsewhere and find a minister who will. Whether we think this embarrassment of choice is a good thing is another matter, but this is the inevitable outcome of having a plurality of denominations and theological variety within individual denominations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
And talking of baptism, I'm concerned here if it is the case that one parent is - in opposition to the other parent's sensibilities - impeding the gift of holy baptism being conferred to the children, along with some degree of basic Christian teaching and an opportunity to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. The atheist parent can always serve as a worthy example of moral uprightness, compassion, and intellectual integrity in an individual who does not accept the narratives of theism generally or Christianity specifically.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?
In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.
Which gets us back to where we came in. How would a minister ever know they had a full and unbiased appraisal of the facts?
In reality, only a couple of people really know who left whom for whom and why. I wouldn't want to be the judge.
Obviously no one can ever fully know another one's heart, the hidden sins, their motives, the complex mitigating factors. And none of us perfectly knows the heart of God and how divine mercy tempers divine judgment.
But a pastor is called most of all to "the cure of souls"-- to provide life-giving counsel that requires us to enter into that fraught territory. We will do so imperfectly. We will blunder and assume wrongly. Hopefully, we do all that with a huge dose of humility and compassion-- and a tremendous amount of prayer. But asking a pastor now to weigh in on a matter of such spiritual significance is like asking a fire-fighter not to venture near fire. That's our job.
My view is that it is a minister's job to have a view in the context of the confessional (or private counsel, for those who don't practice auricular confession). But it seems to me that by permitting or refusing a second marriage, a minister effectively makes a public statement about how "guilty" or "innocent" someone was in the break-down of a previous marriage. That seems like a huge responsibility and one that I would have thought it was difficult to exercise fairly in most communities.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?
In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.
Which gets us back to where we came in. How would a minister ever know they had a full and unbiased appraisal of the facts?
In reality, only a couple of people really know who left whom for whom and why. I wouldn't want to be the judge.
Obviously no one can ever fully know another one's heart, the hidden sins, their motives, the complex mitigating factors. And none of us perfectly knows the heart of God and how divine mercy tempers divine judgment.
But a pastor is called most of all to "the cure of souls"-- to provide life-giving counsel that requires us to enter into that fraught territory. We will do so imperfectly. We will blunder and assume wrongly. Hopefully, we do all that with a huge dose of humility and compassion-- and a tremendous amount of prayer. But asking a pastor now to weigh in on a matter of such spiritual significance is like asking a fire-fighter not to venture near fire. That's our job.
My view is that it is a minister's job to have a view in the context of the confessional (or private counsel, for those who don't practice auricular confession). But it seems to me that by permitting or refusing a second marriage, a minister effectively makes a public statement about how "guilty" or "innocent" someone was in the break-down of a previous marriage. That seems like a huge responsibility and one that I would have thought it was difficult to exercise fairly in most communities.
It is extraordinarily difficult. That's why they pay us the big bucks (a joke, I hope you realize). But seriously, that's why I said all the things above re: it's difficulty, the hope that it is entered into prayerfully and humbly and with a tremendous sense of our inadequacy. And note my post above: I myself am divorced and remarried, so I'm fully aware of the gravely dangerous territory we're treading on here. But if you are going to take seriously the call to "the cure of souls" then shrinking back when the way gets difficult is not an option.
--------------------
"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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
My last post referred to Erroneous Monk's comment.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
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
Thank you. And the question is, what do you believe I should DO? Having established that I'm committing a sin - either the divorce itself or the marriage I'm in- what do I actually do, to be redeemed in the eyes of the Anglican church? Into which, incidentally, I was christened, and confirmed at the interesting age of 10.
ETA a comma.
[ 04. March 2014, 18:17: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Thank you for this loving and generous response. I believe it. So it is understood that I shouldn't attempt to leave my current husband and return to the first one? Because it would hurt all the children involved, even if it were possible?
So for my sister, who is in a loving long term relationship with another woman, is it equally understood that to break this relationship would cause nothing but pain, to their ability to function in the world, as well as to all the children who call them mum, auntie, grandma?
I do want her to go back to the church, but it feels a place of impossible contradiction.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... But it seems to me that by permitting or refusing a second marriage, a minister effectively makes a public statement about how "guilty" or "innocent" someone was in the break-down of a previous marriage. That seems like a huge responsibility and one that I would have thought it was difficult to exercise fairly in most communities.
That's actually quite a good argument for what used to be and is still often, the CofE practice of leaving it to the state to perform remarriages, and having prayers for the couple - in the past relatively quietly - afterwards. This approach isn't open to the RCC, but both CofE and English civil law derive from the situation before the Reformation, unaffected by the Council of Trent. Marriage takes place under natural law, elsewhere or outside the church door, not by operation of the church. A civil wedding causes people to be married just as much as a church one.
One way of looking at this, is that because of the marital history and the dilemmas involved, the couple have to take their own moral responsibility for what they are doing. They are not entitled to expect the minister, the church, or someone else to carry it for them. They can ask for prayers. They can't insist that either God, or anyone else on his behalf, blesses them.
It's the difference between recognising/accepting and the demand that 'I am entitled to be affirmed'.
It also means that one is saying that whatever the past history, those who enter into marriages are bound by them. The same commitments apply to all marriages, whether civil or ecclesiastical. A person isn't entitled to say 'well because I was married in a Registry Office, I can commit adultery or ditch him or her when they get Alzheimers'.
Tangent and dead horse alert
Wow. I've realised from that, I may be the only person in England to have persuaded themselves that the line taken by the Bishops on the forthcoming introduction of same-sex marriages is actually more right than any of the alternatives that the various pressure groups would like to shift them to, in either direction.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Enoch -- Are you advocating that the Church of England shouldn't perform any weddings, even heterosexual first marriages and only perform blessings after a civil marriage? That seems very French.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Thank you for this loving and generous response. I believe it. So it is understood that I shouldn't attempt to leave my current husband and return to the first one? Because it would hurt all the children involved, even if it were possible?
So for my sister, who is in a loving long term relationship with another woman, is it equally understood that to break this relationship would cause nothing but pain, to their ability to function in the world, as well as to all the children who call them mum, auntie, grandma?
I do want her to go back to the church, but it feels a place of impossible contradiction.
I am grateful for Lamb Chopped words of grace, which really are our Lord's.
And it is in that spirit that I hope you, and they, might be able to come back to church. Because there is no entrance exam, no prerequisite. Just come.
It is understood that when people come to Christ, the Holy Spirit lives inside them, and that changes stuff. That may mean changes down the road-- for you, for your sister and her partner. For me. For all of us. It's impossible at this point to predict what those changes might be, because God's agenda is so seldom our agenda. But it all begins simply by coming, and being open to the Spirit.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Enoch -- Are you advocating that the Church of England shouldn't perform any weddings, even heterosexual first marriages and only perform blessings after a civil marriage? That seems very French.
And what a great system it is. Marriage isn't just for Christians you know. I find the approach here sidesteps a whole host of problems. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
To me it seems very odd that a vicar or other non-civil servant should be able to perform the duties of an officer of the state.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Sorry Taliesin, I've come back after supper and realise I've cross posted with your posts. I was replying to one by Erroneous Monk.
My view, for what it's worth, is that you're married to the person you're married to at the moment. Your commitment is to be the best possible wife to him in every sense and mother to all your children, irrespective of which marriage they come from.
Your first marriage is dead. Gone. Irrespective of how or why, you must not and should not be looking over your shoulder and asking yourself questions about this. All that could do is undermine your commitment to the life you are now living.
The law of Moses is wise in that where people have divorced and married other people, it forbade them from marrying the original spouse again, ever, even if both of them become free.
As for your sister, I really can't answer and am not going to. She isn't asking the question and it's for her and her partner to answer for how they live, not you or me. It's not news to anyone to say that people have widely divergent views on same sex relationships. There's a whole board on the ship where people spend days arguing about them. All I would say, is that irrespective of anyone's view on same sex relationships, if she has entered into a civil partnership, the commitments it creates take priority over those arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest
Enoch -- Are you advocating that the Church of England shouldn't perform any weddings, even heterosexual first marriages and only perform blessings after a civil marriage? That seems very French.
No. Of course not. Where do you get that impression from? I was answering Erroneous Monk's question about the minister of religion having to take responsibility for making a public statement about who was responsible for the breakdown of a previous marriage.
There is though, a side issue that I do think follows on from what I've said. I suspect that if asked, I'd say logic demands that CofE clergy in the diocese of Europe in countries like France where all church weddings follow civil ceremonies, should do all weddings as blessings of weddings that have already happened rather than perform a second illusory wedding ceremony. I've no idea whether that's actually the case.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's funny, I can't think of any hard words in Christ directed at soft targets.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd say logic demands that CofE clergy in the diocese of Europe in countries like France where all church weddings follow civil ceremonies, should do all weddings as blessings of weddings that have already happened rather than perform a second illusory wedding ceremony. I've no idea whether that's actually the case.
As I understand it, even for religious weddings in the UK it is the wording, plus the signing of the register in the presence of someone qualified to act as registrar in that locality, that makes the wedding legal. I don't see that happening in a religious ceremony on this side of the Channel whatever wording is used.
[ 04. March 2014, 20:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
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.
Thank you for this loving and generous response. I believe it.
Snip.
I am grateful for Lamb Chopped words of grace, which really are our Lord's.
And it is in that spirit that I hope you, and they, might be able to come back to church. Because there is no entrance exam, no prerequisite. Just come.
It is understood that when people come to Christ, the Holy Spirit lives inside them, and that changes stuff. That may mean changes down the road-- for you, for your sister and her partner. For me. For all of us. It's impossible at this point to predict what those changes might be, because God's agenda is so seldom our agenda. But it all begins simply by coming, and being open to the Spirit.
I wanted the thread to end here. Beautiful, both of you. And Enoch, later, oddly enough.
Many thanks, all, that's me done here. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I wanted to address this verse
"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]
I think we should look at the sociological context of the verse in order to understand it. In Jesus' day it was the man that had all the rights when it came to marriage. All a man had to do was to say. "I divorce you" three times and it was a done deed. Women had no rights. They were to do the husband's bidding. If she could not satisfy him it was very easy for him to break it off. He did not worry about having to satisfy her at all.
What would happen to women if they got divorced? It was pretty ugly. They became castaways. They usually were not accepted back into their family of origin. They would lose their children. They had to come up with a way of supporting themselves; and, more often than not it met they became prostitutes. Needless to say most women would want to avoid that at all costs.
Consequently, when Jesus tells his listeners that if a man divorces his wife to marry another he is the one committing adultery. The man is violating the trust of his wife.
Don't forget that when a person (usually the woman) was accused of adultery, rabbinical law would say the person should be stoned to death. So Jesus is saying "You better think hard about divorcing your wife, because if you do you should be stoned to death."
Conversely women who had been divorced were easy marks. They would likely do anything to avoid the life that would be in store for them. Often they were forced to accept marriages which were worse than what they originally had. Think, sexual slavery.
Yes, Jesus was using strong words. But he was addressing a terrible situation, especially for women.
It is not the act of divorce that is sinful, but the actions that lead up to that divorce. But I have to ask, which is worse: staying in a loveless relationship which leaves everyone hurting or recognizing the relationship has died and moving on? There are necessary evils, especially if it gives the parties a chance to have a fulfilling life.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Gramps49. Context. Luke 16:18 has none around that text.
Luke 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Remarriage after divorce (only a man's prerogative) is a sin.
Paralleled with an exception in Matthew (the net of context widens):
Matthew 5:31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Remarriage by a man after divorce EXCEPT for his wife's adultery is a sin. Marrying a divorced woman under any circumstances is adultery of course therefore. Why isn't that canon law?
Which abrogates which?
Paul wasn't concerned with such legalism and obviously understood Jesus' teachings as hyperbole, not timeless, universal, narrow absolutes. Ethics are more important than rules.
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
... and widens ...
The trajectory of the law as deconstructed and amplified by Jesus is humane, six times in the Beatitudes alone. Never inhumane. Everybody knows what that means.
... and widens ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Full disclosure: I am planning to marry a person with a living previous spouse (I don’t have a ring on my finger yet, but it is very, very obviously on its way). So this is kind of personal to me (and I reserve the right to back out if it gets heated, although for the moment I’m pleased to be finding this discussion remarkably civilised).
People’s reactions to divorce and remarriage are kind of interesting IME and show a lot about the way they understand grace. Example: my pastor recently went for coffee and Serious Discussion™ with my boyfriend.
He (my boyfriend) didn’t relate the whole conversation to me, but the salient bit was this: “I don’t care about your past. It’s your future that I’m interested in. I don’t need or indeed want to know what happened between you and your ex so long as you’re sure you’ve dealt with the fallout. OTOH, la vie en rouge does need to know. Have you talked to her about it?” (FTR, yes he has and while he certainly didn’t do everything right in his first marriage, he was more sinned against than sinning AFAICT.) Anyway, "I care about your future, not your past" is the reason I know I’m in the right church. That is what grace is about.
Other people (basically all GLEs) can’t handle it all. One person (her parents are divorced, and I think she still has a lot of hurt about it) started off with “do you know what happened in the marriage” to which my answer was pretty much “yes, but you don’t need to know and I’m not telling you.” She then asked me if I know my boyfriend’s ex to get her side of the story. Because that would be the perfect way to build trust ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) . This person cannot believe that a person would ever really change. It’s inconceivable to her that I don’t need to dig around all the gory details of the marriage from every angle because I actually trust my boyfriend to tell me what I need to know. In her head he’s a divorcee and ergo untrustworthy for life.
Then you get the “but I always hope they could get back together, and haven’t you watched Fireproof?” Sweetheart, Fireproof is a movie (and quite frankly not a very good one ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ), and real life isn’t always quite so neat. Also my boyfriend and his ex have been divorced for over ten years, so it’s probably a bit late for that question now. (Actually, at the time, my boyfriend wanted to try to save the marriage. His ex didn’t. Sometimes it really does only take one to divorce.)
And yes, I do think some people look at divorce as the great unforgiveable. One really weird incident – one of the very few people who came up to me directly to give me a speech. “Maybe I’m religious (why yes, yes you are) but you know… marriage is an image of Christ and the church and bla bla bla…” I find out a few weeks later that the guy’s own son is going through a divorce. Figure that one out, if you will.
There are definitely a small number of people who are ticked off because they figure that the Divorced Sinner™ boyfriend en rouge doesn’t deserve to be with someone as fabulous as me, but again, I don’t think they have an awesome handle on grace. That’s what grace is – getting what you don’t deserve because God is nice like that. Also he agrees with them that he doesn’t deserve it and consequently is doing his best to conduct himself in a suitably grateful manner. As a result he treats me like the Queen He spoils me rotten and I couldn’t ask to be treated with more respect. (Besides which he knows from hard experience that divorce bloody hurts and he has no interest in ever suffering like that again so he is pretty determined to marry the right person and make it work this time.)
Another thought that I heard recently from a lady who teaches a lot on relationships: the Bible says that God brings beauty out of the ashes. In the case of divorce, yes there is devastation, but God can bring something beautiful out of it, which might be a future with a different person. However, what God doesn’t do is bring beauty out of the embers. Until the fire has completely gone out and you’ve made your peace with the failed marriage (on the inside of yourself at least – you can’t always do much about the other’s person’s feelings), you aren’t ready to be with someone else.
And now the bit where I think the heat might arise – that thing about remarriage being adultery. I gave this some very serious thought, and when I did, I realised how odd Jesus’ statement is. Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of grace, makes a statement that is harsher than the law. What is that all about? Looking at the context in Matthew, I realised that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees – and it comes right next to a load of “you have heard it said, but I say to you” statements. The point of all these (don’t murder? Forget that, don’t insult your brother) is to say that if you want to keep the law, you need to keep it all, and to its pristine standard. So never mind giving your wife a certificate of divorce, you must never get divorced ever. Too hard? Can’t be done? Then in that case, you might just be better off under grace. In which case ISTM that remarriage is still up for grabs if you’ve truly understood what grace is about.
(I feel like that was a bit muddled, but hopefully someone will be able to figure out what I’m rambling on about ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) )
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
And now the bit where I think the heat might arise – that thing about remarriage being adultery. I gave this some very serious thought, and when I did, I realised how odd Jesus’ statement is. Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of grace, makes a statement that is harsher than the law. What is that all about? Looking at the context in Matthew, I realised that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees – and it comes right next to a load of “you have heard it said, but I say to you” statements. The point of all these (don’t murder? Forget that, don’t insult your brother) is to say that if you want to keep the law, you need to keep it all, and to its pristine standard. So never mind giving your wife a certificate of divorce, you must never get divorced ever. Too hard? Can’t be done? Then in that case, you might just be better off under grace. In which case ISTM that remarriage is still up for grabs if you’ve truly understood what grace is about.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Well said!
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I think there is some misreading going on. Or missing the point. The "certificate of divorce", that is the get, is the man giving his ex-wife permission to remarry. It is not a legal separation, they had those as well. So there is no notion here of divorce without remarriage - that's a false reading added later in a different context.
In the law as they had it at the time a man could do that but a woman couldn't. So insofar as it was wrong for a once-married woman to remarry, her ex-husband caused her (and her new husband) to commit adultery by granting the certificate.
In our system either the husband or the wife (or both together) go to a court to seek permission to remarry. In their system the husband was in effect the "court" the wife had to apply to. It was up to him.
The legal point Jesus is addressing is whether or not he can grant that permission for any reason he fancies (whether or not his wife actually wants it) or if he needs a serious reason to. Jesus's opinion is that he needs a serious reason, such as adultery or other infidelity.
But it is explicitly about permission to remarry - not about separation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
LVER (and anyone else this subject impacts on) - I can really recommend David Instone-Brewer's book on all this. I think Ken recommended it (?) - I bought it a while back. I don't think it'll change your mind on anything (and personally, I don't suppose your mind needs changing) - but it will give you a solid feel for why some other opinions you have heard which feel wrong, probably are wrong. I think you'd enjoy it, and it would be really sensible reading as part of a Christian preparation for marriage in these circumstances.
cheers
Mark
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
la vie en rouge - your final para says it all. Why would Jesus be a narrow minded reactionary ... fascist in only ONE regard only?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
LVER (and anyone else this subject impacts on) - I can really recommend David Instone-Brewer's book on all this. I think Ken recommended it (?) - I bought it a while back.
Thanks - I just downloaded it. If this conversation hasn't died a death by then, I'll come back later and let you know what I think.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's perfick. I've been going on about it here for a couple of years. It must be good, IngoB dismisses it out of hand.
The main tenet is that if a slave wife had the right to walk away free from a loveless non-marriage, Jesus abrogated that for a desert empty of intimacy?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hate to rain on the party, the more so because I agree with much of the philosophy--but you can't use the slave wife example to support it. A (former) slave wife could never be sold again into slavery once she had been married to the master or master's son. Also, if he did any of a certain list of things (including refusing conjugal rights) she could walk out free and he couldn't do a darn thing about it. However, the text says nothing about love etc. Moses' law tends to deal with the concrete and provable. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think there is some misreading going on. Or missing the point. The "certificate of divorce", that is the get, is the man giving his ex-wife permission to remarry. It is not a legal separation, they had those as well. So there is no notion here of divorce without remarriage - that's a false reading added later in a different context.
In the law as they had it at the time a man could do that but a woman couldn't. So insofar as it was wrong for a once-married woman to remarry, her ex-husband caused her (and her new husband) to commit adultery by granting the certificate.
AIUI this is still Jewish law. Some men who divorce their wives demand that the wife agree to accept very small child-support payments. Otherwise they will withhold the get, which means that any future marriage the wife contracts will be considered adultery under Jewish law
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Which is why it is common here in divorce proceedings for a wife to seek an order that the husband take all steps necessary on his part to allow a get to be obtained.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
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?
You are committing adultery (Luke 16:18); separate from your husband at once.
HTH.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
TubaMirum, if anything could convince me to throw all the Ship's Commandments out the window now, your post would do it. HTH.
[Duplicate post deleted - Eliab]
[ 08. March 2014, 06:30: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
TubaMirum, if anything could convince me to throw all the Ship's Commandments out the window now, your post would do it. HTH.
If I've understood your meaning correctly, you're getting close to referring to a personal attack you would have made if the rules allowed - which is basically a way of bringing in and disguising a personal conflict. It would be much better for this thread if personal conflict were raised openly in Hell rather than obliquely here.
It might be worth a PM to see if TubaMirum was being entirely serious first, though.
Eliab
Purgatory Host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not a problem Lamb Chopped, the umbrella is in the Torah:
Exodus 21:10–11 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Marital rights include love, intimacy, emotional support.
Which you didn't get Taliesin.
Which I didn't.
And neither did I give and when I did it was not just too late it actually couldn't be received in any reciprocal or redeemable way.
So yes sin is in ALL divorce. In all unhealable broken relationships.
Taliesin - divorce is NOT a sin.
Lovelessness is.
TubaMirum's.
Mine that contributed to the long and short train wrecks of my life. That caused them.
And I'm with God on it. It's HATEFUL. I hated it. Hate it yet. The vilest thing I have ever experienced, even, appallingly, worse than having my father die in circumstances I won't describe.
It grieves me yet and that has taken five years.
The context of Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 is OBVIOUSLY only Deuteronomy 24:1. Is arbitrary patriarchal lovelessness.
ALL is forgiven. Stay with God's blessing Taliesin.
[ 08. March 2014, 07:50: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry, but this is a continuation. Five years ago. And 35 years ago. I've never got over either. You never do. And you have to accept that. And there is no 'have to'. You will or you won't. Both. Concurrently. It's like surviving two train wrecks where you were the driver. I have three lifetimes in my head.
You've had, what, a 10 year gap Taliesin. That's good. The emotional half-life of a former marriage is roughly that. Half the length of the marriage.
I remarried less than three years after my 26 year marriage ended. It was a long while ending. Full of terrible alienation and increasing separations. It was in every sense a helplessly, undiagnosed bipolar marriage. Until it was diagnosed. Which gave it the coup de grace. Of denial.
If I put in a novel it would win the Costa prize at least. But I can't.
There was a day I walked round a huge empty graveyard and I couldn't stop sobbing. But I did. You feel it's over. The evisceration is numbed. Your guts have been shat out and can no longer feel the fall down the elevator shaft.
They grow back.
Especially in a new love. I thank God that my new love never sees it. It's remarkable what one can hide, being extroverted. But it's been there so bad as to have me sobbing EVERY day walking back to the car in the evening in our first year. Never in the morning. Funny that. The mornings were WORSE. Black depression. Nobody would ever know.
But luckily I'm so superficial work would distract. Walking with God in utter raw nakedness kept me going.
The contingent guilt, shame, pain. And sudden realisation that no matter how cauterized I'd become in many ways, to the absent, utterly alien cold raging mind of my ex-wife, I received news of her pain. Of her loss. Of me.
And I knew what that was like.
I know God HATES divorce. Because I do.
Don't listen to the voices of loveless, superstitious, fear-ridden, fear-mongering patriarchal abuse Jesus exposed.
But it will hurt and there will be unintended consequences regardless. That's creation for you. Even God knows that.
[ 08. March 2014, 09:18: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
divorce is NOT a sin.
Lovelessness is.
TubaMirum's.
Declaring one's own behaviour as sinful is at one's own risk. Declaring other posters' behaviour sinful is a sin against the Ship's Ten Commandments. The hosts will take a very dim view of further infringements of this nature. Go ye and sin no more.
/hosting
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
TubaMirum, if anything could convince me to throw all the Ship's Commandments out the window now, your post would do it. HTH.
[Duplicate post deleted - Eliab]
Why? This is exactly and precisely what the church teaches about gay relationships (AKA "same-sex marriage").
Savvy?
[ 08. March 2014, 16:00: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Because the manner in which you state it appears to be contrary to Jesus message and manner. It appears quite rude.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because the manner in which you state it appears to be contrary to Jesus message and manner. It appears quite rude.
Try taking a look at "Taliesin"'s intro post, if you want to see "rude"....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Hello, you apparently didn't read the rest of my postings... the whole point of the thread was to draw the parallels between divorce, which Jesus condemned but is now socially acceptable, and the long term relationships of same sex couples. Perhaps you'd like to pop back and read the thread before you comment further.
I asked what a church would tell me to do, and you have apparently responded with the advice of your church (or alternative faith/non faith system).
Good luck with that.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
This thread was moved to Purgatory because the OP indicates it is a discussion about divorce, and not same sex relations, and that's how the conversation has overwhelmingly gone since.
For this conversation to continue here, unchecked, it's going to have to stay on that topic and stay polite.
And since Lamb Chopped has helpfully opened a Hell thread to deal with the personal conflicts, the hosts will take a still dimmer view of any further personal swipes on this thread.
If anyone has any problems with this, the Styx is the place to discuss them.
/hosting
[ 08. March 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Was I not polite? I thought asking a person to read what has already been written was ok, I was told to do that by B62 not long since. And, I opened the thread in dead horses, because I was relating it to my comments on another dead horses thread. I should have linked. Sorry.
And possibly I should be raising this in the Styx.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Apologies to all for my wrong-doing here; I didn't mean to screw this up, but I did.
Sorry folks.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Apologies to all for my wrong-doing here; I didn't mean to screw this up, but I did.
Sorry folks.
Handsomely done. Apologizing isn't easy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
