|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: God wants you stuck with each other forever
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
Despite the widespread acceptance of divorce in society, and the reality that most Christians and non-Christians alike would not prefer to live in a society where divorce is not available, the possibility of a divorce among church members lends rise to whispered tut-tuttings like no other matter.
Most historians opine that the overall success and duration of marriages has been unchanged across the centuries. Death of one spouse, mistresses, concubines, and abandonment of home and family for the army, the sea, the life of a ne'er do well, or a new frontier previously filled the niche divorce does today.
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
[ 05. January 2015, 21:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
It is because of what Jesus said.
The idea is that love in marriage is not about loving another person but about loving God.
Divorce also causes a lot of visible pain, both to the partners and to the children. One of the most common narratives of unhappy childhood begins "my parents divorced when I was..."
So although people understand that we all have failings, and that marriages often don't last, we still cry at movies where it happens.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
...the reality that most Christians and non-Christians alike would not prefer to live in a society where divorce is not available, ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
They do? I don't know anyone who thinks that. Are you sure you mean that exactly? (e.g. they would prefer to live in a society where divorce is available)
I'm having trouble parsing your last para. also - any chance of rewording it?
[ 30. May 2012, 21:04: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Scrub that first question - I can see it's a straight double-negative now. Sorry, have been reading French stuff online and forgot to change gear.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Huh?
For starters: How is divorce a moral failing of a wronged spouse in the case of infidelity/neglect? My church, at least, isn't in the business of blaming both parties for failed marriages.
Perhaps more importantly, though: I think most thoughtful churches would say that the situations that cause divorces to happen are a function of living in a broken world where we're all either agents or victims of that brokenness -- sometimes both things at the same time. I think that's a more nuanced viewpoint than what is argued in the OP.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frodgey
Apprentice
# 8890
|
Posted
As a divorce who is preparing to marry a divorcee, where neither original marriage died because of a moral failing on our parts, I have to agree that the church does class divorce as a failure.
In my mind, I am a fallen creature and the failure of my marriage is something to be forgiven - as with other occasions where I fell short of where God wanted me to be. If the marriage has died - sometimes resurrection is not an option - even for christians.
Divorce is not the unforgiveable sin that many churches appear to make it - but it is in need of forgiveness.
--------------------
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana
Posts: 28 | From: Frimley Green | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
However, looking on the bright side, divorce is not viewed by churches in anywhere near the harsh light that it was even 20 or 30 years ago. I think church leaders have come to realise that, if they did, there would be even fewer people in the pews than there already are. And also because church leaders themselves have a significant number of failed marriages and remarriages between them.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.
To some degree, yes. But divorce is almost never 50/50. Often one person wants the divorce a great deal more than the other. Often one person's particular and singular moral failing is, at the least, the immediate cause of the divorce.
Perhaps I'm a bit defensive because I have been divorced, on "biblical grounds" (i.e. adultery). And yes, it is important to the process of working through a divorce to accept your "stuff"-- recognizing & repenting for my sin and the way it contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. otoh, "it takes two to divorce" is a particularly unhelpful cliche that, legally, is simply Not True. And it hurts a lot of (relatively) innocent people when you talk as if it were.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Most religious marriage services traditionally include the promise "... until death do us part."
The question I normally put to those seeking remarriage after divorce is this - what makes you think that you can keep your promise this time? (i.e. what has changed?)
Now they may well have a good answer to that question (e.g. LC cites the possibility that they were the innocent party when their partner committed adultery and therefore they didn't break their marriage promises) but I do think the question has to be faced.
I'm afraid that sentimental answers (e.g. this just feels different) don't quite cut it for me.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.
Yes, I know a woman who morally failed in her duty to stay with her physically abusive husband for the sake of the children.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Most religious marriage services traditionally include the promise "... until death do us part."
The question I normally put to those seeking remarriage after divorce is this - what makes you think that you can keep your promise this time? (i.e. what has changed?)
Now they may well have a good answer to that question (e.g. LC cites the possibility that they were the innocent party when their partner committed adultery and therefore they didn't break their marriage promises) but I do think the question has to be faced.
I'm afraid that sentimental answers (e.g. this just feels different) don't quite cut it for me.
Yes. But I hope you do so gently.
Because I am a pastor, every single job I have interviewed for in the 23 years since my divorce, I've been asked that question. Every single time. Jobs I've gotten, jobs I haven't gotten (and, of course, I'll never know if that's why). Which means, for 23 years, I'm constantly having to re-recite yet again the narrative, the details of his sin and mine, the betrayal that I have worked hard to forgive and let go of, but every few years has to be resurrected and re-dissected yet again. Over and over and over again.
It's a good question. It's an important question. You should ask it. I understand why you're asking.
But just remember that the question itself carries with it a very high price tag.
[ 31. May 2012, 00:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. But I hope you do so gently.
Absolutely.
Just to be clear. When I post on the ship like that I'm cutting to the chase. It bears little resemblance to the way I'd go about it in RL.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
The usual answer I get to the question: "Why is this time different" is along the lines of: I was young and stupid twenty five years ago, and I have now been with X for 20 years and the kids are telling us it is time to get married." Usually accompanied by a broad smile.
Do I need to know exactly what went wrong last time? Some times yes - in which case the person tells me why, because they need to tell me. My real concern is not with the past, but with their future. Sometimes, it is essential to know what went wrong, to make sure it does not happen again; but sometimes, that which is forgiven, may also be forgotten, or at the least put aside.
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I have no personal connection to divorce nor within family, only know people who have been divorced. Thus observations only:
- "Til death do us part" seems to to me to be 3 things. First, aspirational. Something to try to do, and of those I know who've divorced, they did try, and not faintly either. Mostly really hard. Even after misconduct of varying kinds.
Second, it is a statement of fact. You get married, and you carry the legacy of the relationship with that person with you for life. Internalized. The statement means you don't just forget it. It is not taken lightly, at least I've never heard of anyone who has taken marriage with a grain of salt.
Third, if you have children, then it really means that you will be dealing with your spouse/ex for ever. Thus, a repeat of my second point, it is a statement of fact, or maybe encompasses a bit of a "thou shalt" in the sense of you must deal with this person you married for ever.
- I do think things have changed drastically over the centuries. It is not the same as it ever was. Marriage was once a brief time to make children before you were dead in your 20s somewhere. Life expectancy in 1900 was about 50, 1800 about 35, and before that, less. I always like to think of Romeo and Juliet who married after one day's acquaintance. If they lived, Juliet probably had about 8 years. People lived amongst their sewage and that of animals, washed seldom, and women died in childbirth. Men might have several years more. Thus, it really meant something for parents (or father more likely) to give a daughter away in her mid teens. Couldn't have her back, other kids needed parents. Time to cleave to another.
- We have become slightly more civilized in our regulation of human relations over time. We don't force couples in most jurisdictions to prove the person they're divorcing is a bad person, violent or unfaithful. Women are not 'given' to anyone: we've removed that strong bit of sexism. We allow people to stop their marriages before that happens with no-fault divorce. This doesn't mean that some people don't do Bad Things. Just that it is not required to prove this. Further, we have promoted self actualization, and maximization of personal potential and happiness. There is another edge to this, where some might reject and ditch a spouse because the spouse hasn't helped them on their personal journey sufficiently, but I've not heard that one either. I have heard about the emotional climate being oppressive, the spouse being insensitive over the long term, and there being little change despite efforts.
Thus, I don't fault people who are divorced or contemplating same. People in pain deserve support, sensitivity and kindness, not preachifying, judgementalism, and not projection of personal ideals, ideas or interpretations of the 'way things are supposed to be' or 'what God wants'. God just wants our best efforts and has the capacity to forgive all and accept all (and I am a hypocrite myself, because I don't follow the model of Jesus well at all, including on these boards.)
[ 31. May 2012, 01:56: Message edited by: no_prophet ]
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think it a sadness rather than a condemnation when someone faces divorce. As others have said, it has a painful ripple effect and an emotional grieving process for its loss, for all concerned including children, which lasts a lifetime but lessens in effect.
What do the words 'What God has joined together...' actually mean? Someone I know thinks that there's a spiritual connection which can't be severed, as the sacrament of marriage is a permanent fixture. Someone I used to know thought that sexual intercourse forged a permanent spiritual connection between the people concerned, and that it was enough to be considered married.
When I see the way old people who have been married for a very long time look after each other as they deteriorate in health, I'm humbled by their staying power and patience. They're heroes and heroines imv.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?
Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.
[ 31. May 2012, 13:12: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What about where one spouse is abusive, then?
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.
Well, at least one of them, usually (see example above).
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?
Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.
divorce in NT times had some pretty serious negative consequences for women, and was done purely at the whim of the husband. the injunction in this case can be seen as preventing men from dumping no longer desired wives.
However, I think the stronger injunction is not so much about divorces (which does have an "escape clause" in it) bur rather re-marriage after divorce. Jesus appears to think of divorce as purely a legal concept, that the true joining of the two is irreversible, and therefore re-marriage after divorce is adultery, because the person is still married.
I have not personally experienced any tut-tutting re: divorce in my church, other than the fact that it's sad a marriage ended, or, perhaps, some criticism of one spouse or the other if there is some "guilt" involved. but the fact of dirvorce itself is not seen (in my experience) as a problem (it's a solution to a problem.. perhaps not the best one, certainly not the only one, but a solution).
In my own mind both marriage and divorce are really not about the legality. they are about commitment. one can be committed to each other and not married (in law or church), and a couple can become un-commited wihtout going through the legality of a divorce.
My own first marriage ended long before I was legally divorced. I actually had no particular interest in the legal aspects of divorce until I wanted to re-marry. For that matter, I would not have bothered with the legality of re-marriage, were it not for immigration and some other issues that were just easier with all the right legal paperwork in place.
My own church does not require any form of "divorce", however a previously married person does have to request permission from one's Bishop in order to re-marry (in the church). and there is a limit of three church marriages (including after death of a spouse). and of ocurse, priests can't be re-married (but they CAN divorce, since that is purely a legal thing and not a church thing, and I know several divorced priests).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I'm amazed at this discussion.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Well, it makes a change from some complaining that (conservative) churches are lax when it comes to divorce when compared to same-sex marriage, I suppose...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Maybe it's because divorce is generally due to the personal moral failing of both spouses.
Yes, I know a woman who morally failed in her duty to stay with her physically abusive husband for the sake of the children.
I put the word 'generally' in that sentence for a very good reason. The situation you describe is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind. However, we are living in the days of 'no-fault' divorces and easy-in, easy-out relationships so the 'generally' still stands, I'm sorry to say.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
I would urge all of you to read the excellent link posted by Martin PC Not.
There is emerging on this thread the usual false dichotomy, brought to its pinnacle by orfeo's post. That is, in the discovery of sin on a partner's part, or in orfeo's example, ongoing abuse, either staying in the home or divorcing are the only two options. They aren't.
When the creeping effects of my many sins finally exploded in my family, we separated. We both entered counseling and pastoral care, separately, and though at the time my wife thought we would certainly be divorced, as time went on, she saw changes in me and we eventually reconciled. Before we did, she spoke with the people who had been working with me, and all assured her they'd be there for us and that as afar as anyone could tell, the change was real and the repentance genuine.
She told me she never had peace about divorcing me. As for me, I knew I still had vows to fulfill come hellfire or high water, and so continued to financially support her to the best of my ability; a court order would have provided her substantially less than I was providing, she'd found early on.
We have gone on to a better marriage than we ever had before, though consequences still rock us from time to time.
And to underscore something: In the case of abuse, if you can't get to the authorities and have the abuser removed, then you (and the children) must GET OUT. You have to establish the boundary that you will not allow this to occur. It is clearly allowed in the Scriptures, as Martin's link points out. You can remain committed to the marriage, but the abuser has to know that without genuine change and accountability, they are not coming back into the home. Further, YOU need counseling and pastoral support for this as well, and it won't happen overnight, if at all - you must be prepared to accept that divorce is highly likely, and you must be prepared and strengthened to stand your ground.
My 2 cents.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?
Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.
Not sure. Abandonment gets a look in I think, as does abuse (i.e. a health or life threatening absence of peace).
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Why do most churches fail to see divorce as anything but a personal moral failing of both spouses?
Because divorce is condemned by the scriptures?
Adultery is the only valid cause for divorce in the NT.
Not sure. Abandonment gets a look in I think, as does abuse (i.e. a health or life threatening absence of peace).
Precisely. See Martin's link, it's worth the read, solid Biblical analysis.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
When the creeping effects of my many sins finally exploded in my family, we separated. We both entered counseling and pastoral care, separately, and though at the time my wife thought we would certainly be divorced, as time went on, she saw changes in me and we eventually reconciled.
...
We have gone on to a better marriage than we ever had before, though consequences still rock us from time to time.
Bully for you. Over time, nearly all marriages encounter solvable problems.
A goodly share of them encounter problems that are not solvable. Many of these involve physical abuse, substance abuse, or mental illness. Some involve a realization by one spouse that they are not heterosexual. Some reach the point where, due to one spouse's infidelity, gambling, or whatever, there is a loss of trust so profound that it cannot be reversed.
There is a widespread belief that, absent physical abuse, all broken marriages can be fixed. That belief is extremely damaging.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Martin's link makes great sense.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I know a woman who morally failed in her duty to stay with her physically abusive husband for the sake of the children.
Yes,me too. My promises at the time (1958) were made with no reservations, but I should have taken myself and children away from it sooner than I did, but you just didn't do that then.
I stayed for a total of 8 years by which time I was strong enough to make the move and have never regretted it for one moment.
That was, of course, a very long time ago!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Tom of Tarsus
As you say, there has to be a genuine willingness to change ....
I am so pleased that both my sons have good, stable relationships.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Tom of Tarsus
As you say, there has to be a genuine willingness to change ....
I am so pleased that both my sons have good, stable relationships.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well, indeed (and perhaps I should not have made a personal story out of it - there was no intention to brag, but just to show that it is possible). And oftentimes, in cases of abuse, separation and firm boundary setting are enough to wake the abuser up. If not, on with the divorce and your life; Scripture and common sense both allow this.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now they may well have a good answer to that question (e.g. LC cites the possibility that they were the innocent party when their partner committed adultery and therefore they didn't break their marriage promises) but I do think the question has to be faced.
ISTM, if more people faced these questions prior to marriage, there would be fewer divorces. This is not, not, NOT, judging anyone, save perhaps myself. Simply that I believe honest examination of why we want a particular relationship would help guide us towards better relationships. Would have saved me problems. Fortunately there were no legal papers involved.
To the OP, I like MPC's link. The principals therein make sense even from a non-Christian perspective.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Life expectancy in 1900 was about 50, 1800 about 35, and before that, less.
Even if that was true it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Liife expectancy is a sort of average, and is brought down by high infant mortality, so even in places with life expectancies of 30 or so that doesn't mean that lots of 20-40 year-olds are dropping dead in the street. Yes there was higher young adult mortality in the middle ages and early modern times, especialy of women in childbirth, but not that much.
Also over a longish period of time life expectancy is brought down by high death rates in wars, famines, plagues and so on. So its not so much that lots of people are dying of disease or startvation all the time, more that everyone does quite well for years or decades, then a whole load die at once. There are bad times and good times. The late 13th century and especially the 14th century were pretty shit... but the 12th century was on thew whole quite a healthy one to be in.
IN the mid-19th century in the USA the life expectancy at birth was less than 40. But life expectancy at age 20 was about 60 - if you stayed alive you still had about 40 years left on average.
Its just not true that long-lived marriages were rare. They were not. Maybe rarer than now, but there were a great many of them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Martin's link makes great sense.
No, it doesn't. Instone-Brewer is trying to have his cake and eat it to. First he is trying to convince us that Jesus is speaking some specific legalese that deals with a conflict between the Hillelites and Shammaites. For this he relies on assuming that the audience would be aware of that legalese, because both camps had so many followers. And then, when in Instone-Brewer's interpretation Jesus simply adopts one of these well-known and popular positions (namely Shammai over Hillel), suddenly everybody is shocked to the point of rejecting marriage altogether. That simply makes no psychological sense whatsoever. Whereas a straightforward "no legalese" reading makes perfect sense: Jesus goes even further than Shammai, and even the disciples wonder if then anybody would dare to marry at all. And that is the straightforward reading, for Jesus had been bringing in the heavy guns: he had told his audience that Moses had allowed divorce only because of their hardness of heart, and he had made explicit reference to Genesis to overcome one part of Moses with another. There is just no way all this could be in preparation for simply repeating the standard Shammaite position. Whatever you make of the unchastity clause, this has to be kept in mind.
You can also read John Piper's refutation, if you prefer.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
On the other side of the coin, I've been playing Devil's advocate on another board with some ConEvos who insist that Marriage™ is a life-long partnership between man and woman, end of (in the context of that particular Dead Horse).
A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not. You get one shot at it. If you screw up, that door is forever after closed.
And yet there is some considerable and liberal interpretation that permits remarriage after divorce, and remarriage after that: as someone pointed out here, it smacks of special pleading by the majority to get out a hard teaching that applies to them.
For the record, I think that Martin's link shows a generous and compassionate view, and the comments below it certainly indicate that such exegesis isn't universally shared.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not.
Contradiction in terms. The "certificate of divorce", the get, is a man giving his wife permission to remarry. (He didn't need it himself because polygyny was legal)
That's David Instone-Brewer's main point. The idea that there could be a divorce forbidding remarriage is reading a later meaning back into the text. (Which is why what IngoB just said is irrelevant)
The literal, plain, obvious meaning of what Jesus is recorded as sang in the Gospels is that a man can give his wife permission to marry another man only of there has been some (unspecified) sexual misdemeanour. If he does it in any other circumstance he causes her to commit adultery - because the whole point of the thing is that she is going to marry someone else. He then only commits adultery himself if he marries another after getting rid of her for no reason.
[ 31. May 2012, 16:06: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not. You get one shot at it. If you screw up, that door is forever after closed.
This 'plain reading of scripture' is of course precisely the RC position. The only sophistication is that a "divorce with no remarriage" is called "separation", because the separated spouses do not need to formally remarry if they are reconciled (because the bond established by the "union of one flesh" can after Jesus not be broken any longer). And that is what I think is primarily happening in the NT, Jesus is going beyond Shammai (to the shock of the disciples) by disallowing remarriage and thereby turning divorce into separation. Though the separation into distinct "legal" categories ("divorce" vs. "separation") came only later.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A 'plain reading of scripture' seems to indicate the following: divorce is permitted in limited circumstances. Remarriage is not.
Contradiction in terms. The "certificate of divorce", the get, is a man giving his wife permission to remarry.
Yes, but. Jesus was saying that the get was wrong on this very point.
Ingo, just above, reiterates the historic Christian position on marriage and divorce. I have a great deal of attraction to that position for myself. I wouldn't inflict it on others.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Well (referring to IngoB's post), as usual some really educated person comes along and finds something better!
But to your point, sir, I agree: Divorce is a last, last resort. The Piper article seems to feel that the article Martin posted gives partners an easier "out". But they will only take it if that is what they are looking for, maybe that's why I didn't see it from Piper's viewpoint.
IMHO, and as I recall, when I recited my wedding vows to love, honor, cherish, etc, there was no add-on that says, "As long as you do, too." It was two people taking life-long vows unconditionally. That's deadly-freakin'-serious in today's colloquialisms. As young, as sensless, as sinful, as messed up as I was, I knew when I said those words (and actually for some time before that) that I would die beside this woman, or she beside me. As Piper rightly points out, Christ always calls us higher.
Today many people think marriage is supposed to bring them pleasure. They think that if they are having differences with spouse, or their spouse isn't making them happy, they are in a "Bad relationship" or some such. But look at your vows. VOWS. Your word and bond to your spouse, your community, your future children, and above all, to the Almighty. It is NOT conditional on what your spouse does. YOU have vowed to love, honor, cherish, forsake, and you have vowed to do so until death. So as LilBudda said, consider wisely, get the input of others, do your church's premarital thing, before you make that commitment.
There will be times when you will be miserable. I've said it here before, I forget who I got it from, but the guy said "There are no easy answers to the problem of two sinners living in intimate companionship." Marriage is not supposed to make you happy, it is, like all things, a sanctifying and very trying course of life.
And sometimes you may have to separate in order to overcome a serious problem, such as adultery or abuse; and sometimes the other spouse won't be willing to do what it takes. And sometimes divorce will happen. But IMHO it ought to be a lot more rare than it is today.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This 'plain reading of scripture' is of course precisely the RC position.
That is not true
quote:
The only sophistication is that a "divorce with no remarriage" is called "separation", because the separated spouses do not need to formally remarry if they are reconciled (because the bond established by the "union of one flesh" can after Jesus not be broken any longer).
True, but its clearly not what Jesus is talking about in this passage.
quote:
And that is what I think is primarily happening in the NT, Jesus is going beyond Shammai (to the shock of the disciples) by disallowing remarriage and thereby turning divorce into separation.
That is written nowhere in the Bible. I must have read this passage hundreds of times, in many translations and in my admittedly very poor Greek, and trust me, its not there.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[Yes, but. Jesus was saying that the get was wrong on this very point.
Apart from porneia. That's what it actually says.
Which, whatver exactly is meant by it, seems to be a much stronger position than legally obtained in those days - so the disciples can react as they do - but isn't, quite, the RC doctrine.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
IMHO, and as I recall, when I recited my wedding vows to love, honor, cherish, etc, there was no add-on that says, "As long as you do, too." It was two people taking life-long vows unconditionally. That's deadly-freakin'-serious in today's colloquialisms. As young, as sensless, as sinful, as messed up as I was, I knew when I said those words (and actually for some time before that) that I would die beside this woman, or she beside me. As Piper rightly points out, Christ always calls us higher.
Tom, just so I can understand your view better, is it your view that you would still be bound by your marriage vows if your wife were to leave your household and refuse any contact from you?
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
ken, the only way that you can insist on your reading as "plain" is by ignoring the rest of the NT, which is clear (in particular 1 Cor 7:10-11), by ignoring the context of the verse, in which Jesus is definitely gearing up to deliver a major change of teaching (explicitly contradicting Moses!), and finally by ignoring the historical context and the psychological reaction of the audience, by claiming that an audience of Pharisees and the disciples would be shocked by a reiteration of standard Pharisaic teaching.
In fact, the simplest thing one can say is just that your position is somewhere on the spectrum between Hillel and Shammai. What you think about divorce and remarriage would not have been in the slightest challenging to them. (OK, except for the total equality of men and women in this matter perhaps. But that very much was not under discussion in scripture.) You have exactly returned to the standard of the Pharisees in the audience Jesus was addressing. This cannot be it. You may be sceptical about whether my position is right, but it is certain that yours is flawed here.
I see as only way out the Orthodox way, which "accommodates" remarriages as "second rate". Basically, there one is taking the same interpretation approach to all this as for the "over the top" revisions in the Sermon of the Mount ("You have heard that it was said to the men of old ... But I say to you ..."), and does not consider such ideals as entirely binding. I do no think that this works, because this one just gets too much confirmation elsewhere in scripture, is too explicitly dismissed by Jesus (with God it is possible) and is too contrary to the witness of the early church. But at least their position can be sustained in argument. Yours really can't. The reading you propose is not plain, but plainly wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
No, I would not; I believe that Scripture allows that. But I could still choose to stay committed, praying for my spouse, seeking support for myself (and kids, if need be) and who knows what tomorrow may bring?
How long do I wait? A week? A month? In my view, the seriousness of it requires a considerable amount of time, I'm not going to say a year and a day or anything like that, but time nonetheless.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think it a sadness rather than a condemnation when someone faces divorce. As others have said, it has a painful ripple effect and an emotional grieving process for its loss, for all concerned including children, which lasts a lifetime but lessens in effect.
I can think of a few married then divorced couples I have known where the marriage ended in divorce mainly on lifestyle grounds, that is, where one of the people involved decided to "trade up" to a more desirable spouse. I suppose that sadness and outrage are probably the appropriate responses to the respective spouses in this situation.
But such situations are rare.
More common is the situation where the marriage has been failing for a long time, with several attempts at counseling and resolution of any substance abuse or mental health problems that are present.
Better, in those cases, to be supportive of the affected spouse, and even happy for them that they have made a decision that allows them to move on from whatever special form of living hell they were in.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would think there is a position between "Divorce should never be allowed EVER," and "Divorce is perfectly fine" along the lines of "Divorce is bad, but occasionally necessary for pastoral reasons."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
imho....
It's amazing how often those outside the situation can be 'so very certain' of what happens in a failed marriage.
Or rather what should have happened in order for it not to have failed.
Or maybe what other people 'should' do, when their marriage is crumbling apart around their ears.
Walk a mile and all that...
The answers are not nearly as straightforward as i am reading here.
[ 31. May 2012, 18:14: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Tom of Tarsus
I admire the thought and sincerity which
appear evident in your posts here.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
imho....
It's amazing how often those outside the situation can be 'so very certain' of what happens in a failed marriage.
Or rather what should have happened in order for it not to have failed.
Or maybe what other people 'should' do, when their marriage is crumbling apart around their ears.
Walk a mile and all that...
The answers are not nearly as straightforward as i am reading here.
I find it's often useful to mentally replace "God wants . . . " with "I want . . . " whenever I come across that phrase. Resorting to "God said so" is pretty much a tacit admission that whatever's being argued is either arbitrary or unsupportable strictly on its own merits.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Thank you, SusanDoris. My screen name should telegraph that I am a miserable bastard arrested by the Lord; some people have to learn the hard way, and I'm one of them.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
