![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Unfortunately, Christianity as a whole doesn't pay much attention to these old fashioned ideas anymore.
The result, in my opinion, is an overall increase in the amount of loneliness and pain.
This is the time meant in Matthew 24.12: "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
I assume that you would have people stay in broken and loveless marriages or in marriages shattered by adultery and that in those marriages they would neither be lonely or hurt.
You say; “This is the time meant in Matthew 24.12: "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
Are you absolutely sure that Jesus was referring to this issue (divorce)? And how do you figure that this is the time?
Really you have gone to far, Please consider the harmful nature of your comments in regard the real lives of people who will read them and substantiate your points or retract.
P
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Really you have gone to far, Please consider the harmful nature of your comments in regard the real lives of people who will read them and substantiate your points or retract.
Sorry Pyx. I'm just affirming Jesus' words. Are you saying He was wrong?
As for substantiating my points, I work in schools and the pain that I observe every day emanating from broken homes is pretty sad to see. My opinion is that in most cases the parents would have been better off "suffering through" a "loveless" marriage. That is what Jesus seemed to think as well.
But read Matthew 19.9 if you think that Jesus asks people to remain married to an adulterer.
I'm not saying that I really know that this is the time that Jesus was speaking about in Matthew 24. I only mean that this kind of lawlessness is abounding. That is, that Christians routinely ignore Jesus' words about divorce. The result is that the love of many has grown cold - at least that is what I observe.
While there are many positive indicators regarding life in these times, it is no secret that people are more isolated and that relationships are more difficult to sustain than ever. The divorce rate is very high, births out of wedlock are very common, many people are not marrying, and it is difficult to find someone to love. There is a good deal of anxiety about this in the Christian world.
Jesus said what He did for the purpose of reducing pain. I don't see how anyone could argue that the increase in divorces over the past century in Christian countries has led to an overall increase in marital happiness.
This is not to say that in an individual case, where a fine person is married to a complete jerk, I don't have great sympathy for the fine person. Maybe the real problem is that there are just too many jerks. But isn't that what Christianity is meant to deal with?
Okay - how?
I agree with you in a way. Going through divorce is painful and difficult, and has taken far more thought even than going into marriage did, for me anyway. And I am now Doomed to be Second Class in certain folk's eyes, because I'm tainted, any relationship I ever enter into now will not be My First, and I have failde the test of lifetime fidelity.
Granted, all the above.
However you do perhaps need to leave room for the fact that a lot of us have neither gone into marriage lightly nor left it lightly. The paradox for me is that I felt called out of this one. To remain would have meant utter hypocrisy and a lifetime of lies - and I don't see that that is God's call either.
Perhaps it's one of those issues which you really can't be too black and white about - especially if you haven't gone through it? Iknow for me the immediate result is thinking of all the churches where I wouldn't fit now, and therefore can't get pastoral care. For one thing, my life experience has led me to believe (sadly, but utterly) that some of the 'Bible Truths' we uphold aren't always tenable - which I recognize, coupled with my relative intelligence and leadership qualities, would make me a liabiliy in an Evangelical church -I'd do a lot of damage. So I'll be keeping away.
That's the best some of us can do - marginalize ourselves to save others from having to do it for us!
But full marks for your commitment to Jesus' words (even though they were spoken to Jews not Christians! 
) I sincerely hope you never go through anything which forces you to recant - it's a humbling experience.
my in-laws never forgave us for not having a church wedding (even though they lived in saudi arabia at the time). ironically, the other favored siblings who had "church" weddings have had nasty divorces. their marriages are still more valid in my in-laws eyes. too bad having a church wedding isn't like swallowing a magic potion. a marrige, like all relationships, takes work.
i can't say i've ever worried about what God thinks as far as who i should love. love is love. try it on everyone. (i don't mean sex.)
freddy, i agree that there is brokenness all over the place. but i have to disagree when you say people should stay in bad marriages. some are intolerable. somewhere on another thread (?) was mentioned the concepts of a marriage based on friendship and a marriage based on sex.
if there is not friendship, or there is outright abuse, i think it should be ended. if, however, you have a great friend in a marriage, but are sexually dysfunctional or incompatible, i would rather see the marriage stay intact and allow for the development of a relationship outside the marriage. yes, i'm talking adultery. (oh my, what will happen to the Family? well, what's happening to it now?)
admittedly, there are many dangers here. many of these dangers stem from fear and the ability for abuse inherent in "secrecy." also, there are no acceptble models for this type of relationship. it seems easier to weigh the acceptability of war and killing people than to weigh the acceptability of "adultery" and making love. but then, what do i know, not having been married in the church.
lastly, not being RC, if i were faced with re-marriage, divorce would be one of the least of my criteria for judging a suitable partner. though i would want to know as much as possible about what caused it, since history has a way of repeating itself.
there's anonther view for you, gunner .
I am not at all pro-divorce, having experienced it from the child's point of view, and do think that some people go through it far too easily, labelling boredom or a bad patch as "growing apart" or "irreconcilable differences". But I have also seen some people for whom, after much struggle, it was really the only option.
And the "for the good of the children" argument, if it's a pragmatic, justify-the-ends argument, does not wash with the evidence in many cases.
Before I set off down the road of discussing your overly legalistic position, your ignoring of Jesus’ actions towards the women caught in adultery and the Samaritan women by the well (you know the one with 7 husbands) and your adherence to rules not principles would you please make clear whether divorce is a no no or it is acceptable when adultery is involved.
P
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Freddy : are you saying you thinks its OK to divorce because of adultery? I am confused, you seem very set on the “no divorce” thing but then you agree with one of my points and quote the Lord back at me!
Sorry to be unclear. Jesus said, "whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery." Matthew 19.9
So, yes, it is OK to divorce for adultery. Apparently the reasoning is that the partner has dissolved the marriage by his or her actions. Anyone who has gone through this will tell you that it is pure hell.
quote:
Before I set off down the road of discussing your overly legalistic position, your ignoring of Jesus’ actions towards the women caught in adultery and the Samaritan women by the well (you know the one with 7 husbands) and your adherence to rules not principles would you please make clear whether divorce is a no no or it is acceptable when adultery is involved.P
Yes, I think I've done that. It is acceptable when adultery in involved.
As for being legalistic, my comment was that this causes a lot of pain in our part of the world. I don't think this is legalistic. I know a lot of people who suffer a great deal because of divorce. I'm not advocating stoning or shunning or anything. We can accept and understand and forgive all we want, but it still hurts when mommy and daddy don't love each other anymore. Jesus was very forgiving of the woman in adultery and the other one as well, and we should be also. My point is that these things are painful anyway.
This morning I sat in church, and the person across from me was an old friend who recently left his very wonderful wife in favor of a new one. Their two teen-age daughters sat beside them. Without in any way suggesting that he made a mistake in leaving the one wife in favor of the other, the pain on the faces of the girls was unmistakable. The pain on the part of the forsaken wife is also, I know, very great. I know these people pretty well, and am very sorry that this has happened.
My point is that in my experience divorce is very sad and painful. I am not thinking that this is news to anyone. When you have good reasons, such as Jesus suggested, you may have to do it. It is still sad and painful, and the pain affects many people. When many people find it necessary to divorce, society as a whole suffers. That is my only comment. I'm not condemning anyone. I'm only saying that it is a sad and painful thing, and that Jesus was right in teaching us that we should limit this kind of thing.
In short I agree with Gunner in the OP. But I understand that many will see it differently.
The fact is that we all sin and fall short of God's glory. I look for His forgiveness in my violation of our Lord's teaching on divorce. I would like to add to those who think that a divorce will affect children less than a bad relationship between parents. Wrong. Every study done support the view that stability is more important than happiness in the life of a child. The generation of rootless children who habitate our streets are the results of selfish parents of whom I was once, one who lost sight of the fact that personal fulfillment is much less important than duty to our children, our families, and most importantly to our God.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
I would like to add to those who think that a divorce will affect children less than a bad relationship between parents. Wrong. Every study done support the view that stability is more important than happiness in the life of a child. The generation of rootless children who habitate our streets are the results of selfish parents of whom I was once, one who lost sight of the fact that personal fulfillment is much less important than duty to our children, our families, and most importantly to our God.
No, actually, not every study shows this. The majority, as I said and can show you the literature, show that conflict in the home is worse than divorce for long-term outcomes for children. Where the parents can make an effort and get along, that's better than divorce. Where they simply cannot and the only way to prevent conflict is to divorce, the children's outcomes are better than if the parents had stayed together.
As I said, if you want me to show you the studies, I'm happy to do so.
my closest friend just filed for divorce 2 weeks ago after 25 years of marriage. she's RC and has 3 daughters. her husband has punished her emotionally for years. he hasn't spoken to her for 4 months (the straw that broke the camel's back.) and won't even tell her why. yet he still wanted sex. obviously she refused. he has refused counselling for 10 years...claims she has problems, he doesn't. she's been on tranquilizers for 3 years. not to belabor her details, but what can a person do in this situation except get out of it? she's a generous, beautiful woman. why should she have to stay in a horrid situation like this? i don't believe Jesus would expect her to.
adultery makes things cut and dry...what about if your life is just a living hell?
(my friend's name is Terry, if you could please pray for her and her husband and daughters.)
They have two teenage children who are devastated by this. As I said I am a divorcee and would never stand in judgement of anyone who hadn't made their marriage work, but many of us who got married too young and for the wrong reasons, have failed to take seriously the commitment a marriage requires to make it work. It isn't all happiness. Some divorces are inevitable, but the US and the UK have about the highest divorce rates in the world. Something must be wrong with our understanding of the meaning of marriage.
However, couples do also need to take responsibility for their children's welfare. how to do that?
quote:
daisymay said:
I think that the church /vicar/priest does not marry people - the couple marry each other.
Yep, agree totally. And that's the teaching of the church as I understand it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
quote:
1623 In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by
expressing their consent before the Church
But... it certainly does not follow on that:
quote:
God does not join them together; they join themselves.
No - the text of the wedding ceremony specifically states "What God has joined together let no man put asunder". Again, from the Catechism:
quote:
1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.
So God is very much the "third party" in the joining and sealing.
Kirsti
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
I wonder what the 'divorce is ok only in cases of adultery'poster would say about this situation, and whether it would be fair to condemn someone who did not want divorce from ever marrying again?
I'm with you. It seems to me that a "victim" of a divorce, that is, someone who did not want the divorce and did not agree to it, but was divorced anyway, is in a similar position to one whose spouse has committed adultery. They are heartbroken and miserable, in my experience.
Even if the one leaving you does not actually commit adultery before the divorce is final, the intent is the same. They want out of the marriage so that they can be free to pursue others. That should make you free to remarry, in my opinion, without going against what the Lord taught us.
But again, this still doesn't make it fun, or any easier for the children.
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
It always strikes me as unfair to treat both partners the same in the divorce/remarriage/adultery debate when one partner did not want a divorce, but the other was determined to go ahead. To say both have done wrong in getting divorced is very upsetting for the person who didn't want that situation in the first place.
I wonder what the 'divorce is ok only in cases of adultery'poster would say about this situation, and whether it would be fair to condemn someone who did not want divorce from ever marrying again? Demanding enforced lifelong celibacy on another person is rather a tall order, I think, especially when they would rather have stayed married.
So, are you saying that someone who divorces a partner who abuses them is at fault, or the abuser? - it seems me that you are suggesting the former, in which case your view is beneath dispising.
Sure, if there being no fair grounds, I'd suggest the respondent isn't to be treated as a second-class citizen, but I'd argue that in the case of fair grounds, surely the "victim" is the other party?
Also, those who focus on "beneath the waistline betrayal" seem to me clearly irrational, as it is known that the psychological consequences of other things such as physical assault are much deeper. To label, as some folks are clearly doing, divorce as a serious misdemeanour, doesn't at all start to recognise the emotional difficulties of the 20%+ of marriages in which at least one partner has been assaulted by the other. We don't, I trust, uphold the concept of a spouse as chattel, so reasonable limits of behaviour need to be understood.
Labelling the victim of abuse as a wrongdoer seems completely inconsistent with my conviction of what it is to be a Christian , indeed to be siding clearly and to salve one's conscience on the other side. Pharisees may love one, but I'm not so convinced about the Lord. When you remove from such people the legitimacy of their getting married after a divorce from such circumstances, you are reinforcing a message (and, sorry, your words of comfort are simply hypocritical) that the victim is the sin, and sinner, which is the only logical outcome of such a viewpoint. Indeed, worse than that you are clearly upholding the legitimacy of a marriage which involved degradation and harm, as were such a marriage null and void, then no blame or guilt should apply to a person who left it.
Treating divorce as always a "lifestyle choice" leaves much out of the picture. It sometimes is more of what seems like the only route out of a hell. Sanctifying a second marriage which hopes to resurrect the possibility of appropriate love seems more consistent with a resurrection faith than defending the integrity of the defiled.
However, to return to the OP, the original text I take to be rhetorical, the response to which requires the use of our (sadly fallible) judgement. Whilst we should be careful that repeated divorce and remarriage is not simply seen as a personal freedome, but that the sanctity of marriage (in deed rather than of contract) is to be defended against both human fickleness and human selfishness on both fronts, and thus in extreme cases, remarriage is both appropriate and consistent with a faith that hopes for life.
P.S. sadly much of the strong feelings above comes out of experience.
P.P.S. also, considering the number of people (including Christians) who have sexual relations before marriage, seeing divorce as different (i.e. worse) than any number of "committed relationships" not involving marriage, seems perverse in the extreme. I know of people who have had several failed relationships who are free to marry, whereas some folks with just one who are not?! 'Highly illogical, captain'.
what about the person locked in a marriage where the other partner doesn't want sex or a divorce?
i must have misunderstood chorister's post, because i thought she was commenting on the unfairness of expecting someone to endure involuntary celibacy rather than allowing them a divorce.
paul, i agree. something is wrong with our understanding of marriage. i think your colleague is symptomatic of a great problem of our age. that of having to do something exciting every blessed minute of the day. add another person to that formula and it's no wonder someone, or both, get blamed for causing the boredom. couples should have to do lamaze(sp?) training (breathing excersises for birthing) for marriage, too. learn how to spend time together just breathing...no excitement. sometimes it will be that way.
inanna...does that mean that it's okay if the woman sunders it?
If most of the divorces that happened were because someone was beating the hell out of the other, or because sex was being refused for no good reason (I consider regular beatings or being drug addicted a good reason) then I wouldn't be so worried about the divorce rate. I would be worried about the rate of violence and the lack of tenderness in marriage.
But I don't think that's the way it is. While violence in marriage is nothing to minimize, it does not explain anything like the majority of divorces. I know many people who have been divorced. I only know of one case where violence was involved (although I admit that you don't always know).
I don't think that we want to base societal norms on these extreme cases. On the other hand if marriages are really that bad, then what do we have to lose?
No one would expect a person to live with a violent spouse.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If most of the divorces that happened were because someone was beating the hell out of the other, or because sex was being refused for no good reason (I consider regular beatings or being drug addicted a good reason) then I wouldn't be so worried about the divorce rate. I would be worried about the rate of violence and the lack of tenderness in marriage.
The background population data is that about 30% of marriages will include a physical assault at some point, with about 20 to 25% of all marriages having multiple assaults. (i.e. the behaviour tends to be repetitive if it occurs at all).
Though such events do not explain the majority of divorces (and I suspect the 48% figure is baloney, personally) they do represent a substantial proportion of divorces. Scarier again is the 5% of marriages which include multiple and mutual assault.
We are a frightening species at times.
What I suppose I'm suggesting is a "twin track" approach - that I think that it is important for the church to place clear and equal emphasis on the permanence and quality of marriage.
Sieg
I can only speak for myself, and our circumstances are rather exceptional. But we have tried as far as possible to have a Christian separation. We've prayed about it together. Our kids support our decision. We are leaving church for new places in two weeks, and half the people at the farewell parties haven't realised we're splitting up yet.
It is POSSIBLE to be amicable. But I would say, not in every circumstance. My Gran stayed in an emotionally abusive marriage for over fifty years 'because God wanted it' - even though she had a way out... and I have drawn on that to find the courage to go through this. It ISN'T always better to stay.
However, I did see a statistic which suggests that over 90% of ADHD kids are fatherless at home. But then a huge proportion of ANY kids are ADHD now - so it might as well be environmental or (my pet theory) too much loud music over two generations!
Another aspect is the vows made to each other; a promise is a promise. A promise made before God is a VERY serious promise. Yet we seem to think we can walk away from it and get remarried.
Let's be clear - the issue here is remarriage; there is often a case for a marriage to be closed down by a legal seperation, but I am sceptical that there is often an excuse for remarriage given this argument. Yes life is tough - but given that that is the covenant you enter when you marry, then you don't have the right to renegotiate later. Of course this isn't a very popular belief these days....
quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
So God is very much the "third party" in the joining and sealing.Kirsti
But I don't think the wedding ceremony is right; I think that people can be married in a civil ceremony, or by making a public statement of commitment to each other. I don't think God joins them. This is words made up by people in the past.
If a marriage is a living hell for the partners, the children too are in that hell. So free them. Let them all go free.
Ender's Shadow, that idea of making it impossible to marry again, that has been a chain of torture for many people in the past. And anyway, how can you guarantee they will remain celibate?
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Let's be clear - the issue here is remarriage; there is often a case for a marriage to be closed down by a legal seperation, but I am sceptical that there is often an excuse for remarriage given this argument. Yes life is tough - but given that that is the covenant you enter when you marry, then you don't have the right to renegotiate later. Of course this isn't a very popular belief these days....
So again thinking about the innocent parties here - the children - in many, many divorces the children lose contact with one or other parent. I am sure you would agree that it is better for children to be raised by two parents than only one.
If the partner who left were dead I am sure there would be no qualms about suggesting the remaining partner remarry. Surely it's better - even if just for the children - if they can have a second parent? Which means remarriage.
And she hasn't even SEEN Ender's Shadow's posts! lol
No but seriously folks...
This Just Won't Do.
Are we saying 'Christian' (i.e. CHURCH) marriage is the only way?
Am I now genuinely doomed to being a Second Class Christian cos I still would like to meet the Right Person - or even have several shots at it??
Well... POO. I can live with it! 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
This Just Won't Do.Are we saying 'Christian' (i.e. CHURCH) marriage is the only way?
Am I now genuinely doomed to being a Second Class Christian cos I still would like to meet the Right Person - or even have several shots at it??
though you can now remarry in many churches.
quote:
- in effect to punish the failure of both sides to deter them from failing
Since when was it our job (as Christians) to punish people.
Enders Shadow - haven't you ever made a mistake in your life? Or found an ideal you couldn't or didn't know how to live up to?
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
My duaghter (14) wanted to start a thread called, "The church is a load of crap and bollocks."
And she hasn't even SEEN Ender's Shadow's posts! lol
This would logically follow, since Ender was merely affirming what the church routinely teaches. So our churches have doctrines, and we feel free to reject them, and vilify those who agree with them.
What kind of system is that?
Gill, it really seems as though you and your daughter should find a church that you actually like and agree with. Or maybe you do agree with your church and only disagree with Ender and others on this list who take Jesus' words literally.
But I don't agree that this makes you a second class church member. This is what churches were created to deal with.
What I hear is that you and others are aware of just how painful this issue is. I'm afraid that the hurt is just a reality of the situation, and nothing that we can do will make it disappear. Even if we all agreed, it still wouldn't be any fun to share the children on holidays. When they are little they cry every time you say good-bye. It stinks to high heaven.
It seems very sad that a church should believe that it's corporate role is to punish it's members.
I got married once, with lots of words from an Anglican prayer book. i was very disappointed to find, when reconsidering that decision, how abstracted and distant most of it's words are from anything in the bible. Inanna tells us that the Latin church says that people join themselves, and god gives consent. I hope that when i granted R her freedom, and absolved her of her promises, so did god.
People join themselves. people tear themselves apart. god loves them all anyway.
andrew
BUT which church do I decide I'm not in agreement with? For goodness' sake, I'm beyond the pale in some already for having preached whilst under the influence of oestrogen. This is why it's such a nonsense - denominations, shnominations.
My daughter, BTW, bases her view of the church on
a) how her gay father has been emotionally abused by some of those in authority
b) how we have been left to struggle with that as a family
c) the fact that we've brought them up not to keep 'Bad Secrets' whilst being forced to keep some ourselves so as not to rock the Ecclesiatical Ship.
She's 14. The age I was when I rebelled INTO Christianity. I'm not too worried about her! The 16 yr old is doing Theology 'A' level. And has some interesting insights.
Back to the OP - I really feel more and more that there are plenty of people who remain married, even having the prescribed amount of sex (hatever that is) who - let me say it clearly - DON'T REPRESENT GOD'S LOVE TO PEOPLE IN THE WAY THEY SHOULD.
Just a mad hunch here - might we ALL be flawed in some way? And as the last poster said, might God love us anyway? Just cod He's like that?
Of course I've made mistakes that I bitterly regret - but that doesn't mean that other people have the right to ignore the clear commands of God.
Marriage can't be likened to chewing gum - when the flavour has gone we spit it out and get another! Real love is tough love, loving when life is hard as well as when it is joyful. Our example is God who loves us - his bride- even when we are unfaithful, selfish etc.. we are to be more like Christ.
a) the church needs to do more to help Christians take marriage more seriously, and perhaps, enter into it more thoughtfully.
b) the church needs to help Christians learn how to build good, health marriages
c) create an atmosphere where people are able to be honest about what goes on behind closed doors and seek help and support when they need it
d) remember Christ's treatment of the Samaritian woman (the one with many husbands) and the woman taken in adultry - when he just showed love and acceptance to them first and then, challenged their lifestyle.
It's probably easier to change after you've been accepted and shown love than before. There's too much judgement here and not enough compassion. However glib people are about the whys and wherefores of their marriage breakup, it usually hides a world of pain and suffering ....
Tubbs
Some marriages fail because the people can't be bothered to sort their problems - true.
A lot fail because they simple do not know how to make it work.
We can address the last category with good marriage preparation (thankfully now being offered to registry office weddings here in Exeter) and support. Common Worship, at least, offers the following to be included in the marriage ceremony - we had it in ours and I'm very glad we did -
"Will you, the families and friends of N and N, support and uphold them in their marriage
now and in the years to come?
All We will."
Surly we are in the business of helping and healing, not punishing.
quote:
Some marriages fail through no fault of at least one of the parties (eg the other partner is abusive).Some fail because the two people were never really compatible in the first place - a mistake was made before the marriage even began.
...Some marriages fail because the people can't be bothered to sort their problems - true.
A lot fail because they simple do not know how to make it work.
Thank you Sean 
One of the things I really disliked about some of the posts here is the central assumption that alot of marriages fail because people simply can't be arsed to work things through ... And in all the cases I've seen, this isn't the case.
If all we have to offer people is judgement (You should do this ... You should do that ... Fancey being a divorcee ... What a failure you are ... ) and not help or healing then we have completely misunderstood the central message of the gospel
Tubbs
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In referring to punishment, I am only extending the logic of the criminal law to another equally sin filled area. If you think about the purpose of the criminal punishments in terms of detering a person's behaviour, then the same logic really does apply; we are seeking to prevent behaviour that tends towards the breakdown of the marriage by making the outcome very negative. Or rather that is the way that God requires for Christians - I am only trying to provide a rationale for the unambiguous teaching of Paul, reporting the words of Jesus, that divorcees should not marry someone else (1 Cor 7 v 10,11). Given that instruction from God, we are on very dangerous ground if we feel free to disregard it and go and marry again.
Okay, so it is better to punish those who find that their spouses are gay, or whose spouses have abused them or their children, etc. than to be just.
Fine.
Well in my view that those who would punish the innocent for the sins visited upon them, as you suggest, would be wise to take the views of Jesus on those who come between the children of God and the gospel - take a millstone around their neck and jump in the water.
Quote all the scripture you want, but before God and this board I have to say that in regard to such as these, your views are blasphemous, idolatorous and at odds with the resurrection of Christ Jesus, and that is my total and unwavering conviction. Punishment of the victim is, in my view, the joy of Satan, not of the Lord.
I don't think children are better off in a desperately bad marriage - its harmful for them then, and is provably bad for them in their later life, particularly where they are also at risk. Giving children an experience of marriage which is twisted and warped seems to be a bad lesson of "love".
I have a friend whose husband was so violent, my family had to fend him off his wife and children with guns, and I kid you not. What sort of corruption of marriage is it to uphold such ties as valid? What 'love' do children get from being bound into such a contract? What holiness is to be found in such barbarity?
P.S. and arguing that those whose spouses turn out to be profoundly incompatible with a proper marriage are not "second class citizens" when you refuse to honour their right to finding a proper relationship is a clear dishonour to them on top of the difficulty of their experiences. In arguing such, one is clearly stating that they are less than when they first married, which is just rubbing salt in their wounds.
Simply stating this not to be the case is patently dishonest and either shows no conception of their circumstances whatsoever or simple bigotry. If your Christianity requires victims, I suggest you know not the proper redeeming power of Christ's sacrifice.
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
Punishment of the victim is, in my view, the joy of Satan, not of the Lord.
This talk of punishment leaves me a little queasy. Whoever gets punished for divorce? The worst I've observed is the disapproval of certain people, and the occasional unwillingness on the part of a priest to do a wedding. It's not exactly stoning.
Few people on this board are opposed to the expression of disapproval as a punishment, if what I've seen here is any indication. If Ender is talking abut anything more serious than that I would be surprised.
When Jesus spoke out about issues such as this He made people so angry that they wanted to stone Him, and eventually crucify Him. It is interesting that if you look at the kind of things that He advocated, you will never find Him recommending that people overthrow the government, or even the hirarchy of the chief priests and Pharisees. He never advocated anything that would amount to a punishment - except for prophecying eternal punishment for certain kinds of people.
People reacted to His words, however, as if He was holding their children hostage.
I know that it is only in fun, but I'm seeing suggestions here that people advocating certain positions ought to be drowned, or drown themselves.
My own feeling is that we need to be very forgiving in these cases, and very unwilling to make judgments about the private lives of others. I can't see doling our punishments other than the inevitable disapproval of our peers when we break commonly held moral standards. We especially shouldn't do things that approach blaming or punishing the victim(s).
But we also need to be willing to hear what our faith considers to be the Word of God, and to try to understand what it is about without wanting to punish those who advocate it.
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
So, are you saying that someone who divorces a partner who abuses them is at fault, or the abuser? - it seems me that you are suggesting the former, in which case your view is beneath dispising..
Hey! who said anything about in cases of abuse??? it certainly wasn't me! I'm talking about someone walking off if they get bored, want a change, think the grass is greener, etc. Talk about cases of abuse if you like, but don't blame me for it!
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
Hey! who said anything about in cases of abuse??? it certainly wasn't me! I'm talking about someone walking off if they get bored, want a change, think the grass is greener, etc. Talk about cases of abuse if you like, but don't blame me for it!
You made no such distinction at all in your post - perhaps you should have done so then?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This talk of punishment leaves me a little queasy. Whoever gets punished for divorce? The worst I've observed is the disapproval of certain people, and the occasional unwillingness on the part of a priest to do a wedding. It's not exactly stoning.
quote:
Few people on this board are opposed to the expression of disapproval as a punishment, if what I've seen here is any indication. If Ender is talking abut anything more serious than that I would be surprised.
quote:
When Jesus spoke out about issues such as this He made people so angry that they wanted to stone Him, and eventually crucify Him. It is interesting that if you look at the kind of things that He advocated, you will never find Him recommending that people overthrow the government, or even the hirarchy of the chief priests and Pharisees. He never advocated anything that would amount to a punishment - except for prophecying eternal punishment for certain kinds of people.
Perhaps you could actually address the situation of those whom you would exclude from marriage due to them having been unfortunate enough to have had a hellish excuse of one before?
I meant the millstone comment in all seriousness - I seem to remember Jesus making the same.
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
I meant the millstone comment in all seriousness - I seem to remember Jesus making the same.
Well sort of; I think that such views stink so badly, and so clearly obstruct some people's experience of God that Jesus' original comment is appropriate with its original force, if in a different context. I'm not suggesting a literal lynching!
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
You clearly stated that remarriage is never allowed - that is a punishment, as I have made clear.
Well it's not much of one. Few people are actually denied remarriage. Besides, this is simply what Jesus said. Would you care to comment on what you think of His views? What would you say to Him if you had heard His little proclamations on this subject?
To be clear, my own view is that remarriage is appropriate and according to Jesus' teaching when the former spouse has committed adultery.
This would include a number of things that amount to the same thing - such as being married to a practicing homosexual spouse, or having been divorced by your spouse against your will, or having a spouse who is obsessed with pornography and similar things.
In cases of abuse I would advocate getting the hell out of there as quickly as possible. But there is often no happy solution if you are married to a truly vicious or dangerous person. People do go to prison for spousal abuse, but I know that the victim is often treated as badly by the courts as by the spouse.
Strictly speaking I would advocate separation but not divorce if the abusive spouse remained faithful and was trying to reform. But practically speaking I know that the ramifications usually make divorce the only realistic option. I don't know of a priest who would refuse remarriage in that case if they knew the facts.
Most people I know who have divorced, however, fit none of these categories. They just didn't love each other anymore. They wanted to try again with someone new. They were sure that it would somehow be better for their children that way. My observation is that their actions are cruel to their children, and that they themselves don't end up any happier than before.
This is an area, however, where it is extremely difficult to generalize. Every case is different. We shouldn't make judgments. Still, we have to acknowledge that divorce causes a great deal of pain in our world.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Well it's not much of one. Few people are actually denied remarriage. Besides, this is simply what Jesus said. Would you care to comment on what you think of His views? What would you say to Him if you had heard His little proclamations on this subject?
quote:
To be clear, my own view is that remarriage is appropriate and according to Jesus' teaching when the former spouse has committed adultery.
quote:
This would include a number of things that amount to the same thing - such as being married to a practicing homosexual spouse, or having been divorced by your spouse against your will, or having a spouse who is obsessed with pornography and similar things.
quote:
In cases of abuse I would advocate getting the hell out of there as quickly as possible. But there is often no happy solution if you are married to a truly vicious or dangerous person. People do go to prison for spousal abuse, but I know that the victim is often treated as badly by the courts as by the spouse.
quote:
Strictly speaking I would advocate separation but not divorce if the abusive spouse remained faithful and was trying to reform. But practically speaking I know that the ramifications usually make divorce the only realistic option. I don't know of a priest who would refuse remarriage in that case if they knew the facts.
quote:
Most people I know who have divorced, however, fit none of these categories. They just didn't love each other anymore. They wanted to try again with someone new. They were sure that it would somehow be better for their children that way. My observation is that their actions are cruel to their children, and that they themselves don't end up any happier than before.
quote:
This is an area, however, where it is extremely difficult to generalize. Every case is different. We shouldn't make judgments. Still, we have to acknowledge that divorce causes a great deal of pain in our world.
I don't know why but evanglical (and particularly charismatic) churches seem to be much more open to the remarriage of devorced persons than other churches.
quote:
Most people I know who have divorced, however, fit none of these categories. They just didn't love each other anymore. They wanted to try again with someone new. They
You might find Rob Parson's marriage books extremely helpful on this issue.
Rob talks about the loss of love very well, and with great common sense. One of the points he makes is that the "loss of love" is usually caused by years of neglect etc. And that for most people it isn't one big thing that makes you think "enough is enough", it's years of little things
Tubbs
I belonged to a baptist church where there was an abusive husband -I know about the physical violence, but no more details - and the pastor helped the wife and children to leave. One day he came to the church building, acting all violent, and after her to kill her and grab the children. The church people were instructed to keep him talking while she and the kids were whisked out the back way. There was no question of blaming her or saying she should not be able to remarry. The man had broken the marriage. It no longer existed.
Maybe protestant churches are easier on remarriage because they don't regard marriage as a sacrament? more as a contract between the couple?
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
And that for most people it isn't one big thing that makes you think "enough is enough", it's years of little things
Yes, that's it exactly. This is what has to change. This is where we should focus our energy. The prescription of attending church, reading God's Word, praying together, and living a moral life is extremely helpful here.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
I belonged to a baptist church where there was an abusive husband -I know about the physical violence, but no more details - and the pastor helped the wife and children to leave. One day he came to the church building, acting all violent, and after her to kill her and grab the children.
Wow, what a story. But I would hope that virtually any church on earth would have reacted similarly. I really doubt that any minister in that circumstance would refuse to remarry her if she was able to pick up the pieces and move on. What a horror that must have been.
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:I don't know why but evanglical (and particularly charismatic) churches seem to be much more open to the remarriage of devorced persons than other churches.
In my experience it is the other way round. So I suppose all the churches vary - maybe according to the view of the priest or minister in charge.
I am getting rather fed up of the aggressive responses by gbuchanan who repeatedly says certain posters' views "stink" or "are beneath despising". He or she may be very hurt by past events (which is understandable) but we are trying to have a fair and reasonable discussion here and those extreme outbursts really belong in hell. Why not start a thread there about the hellishness of divorce and leave purgatory threads for more reasoned debates? (Hostly suggestions, please?)
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
I am getting rather fed up of the aggressive responses by gbuchanan who repeatedly says certain posters' views "stink" or "are beneath despising"...(Hostly suggestions, please?)
So, I would recommend that those who are upset by the arguments presented here pause to calm down before responding. I would also ask that those who are want a reasonable discussion recognise that there are certainly people reading this thread who have been hurt by a divorce or abusive marriage for whom such a debate can never be a purely academic exercise.
I would also add that speculation about whether, or how, people have been personally affected by the subjects discussed here is not acceptable.
Alan
Purgatory host
WE DO NOT KNOW
and we certainly do not have enough information to jump to the conclusion that she has the right to get remarried - if physical but not verbal abuse is grounds for divorce AMD remarriage - which I personally doubt. It is not hard to construct a possible scenario that is the run up to this incident that at least evens the blame. Let's not be so judgemental (an ironic comment from me I know....)
My fundamental point is that in practice the breakdown of a marriage is almost never only one partner's fault. And if we take a wide understanding of mental illness, then sole responsibility becomes even less common. Given that, the case for remarriage of the 'innocent' party becomes a vanishing small occurrence.
I think that Jesus made his comments because the men in those days tended to divorce their wives for trivial stuff - like burning the dinner. So he was trying to get them to not abuse their wives.
You know, even with Biblical stuff, there are times when, if you haven't been there, you simply aren't able to pronounce on something with any authority.
I'm not saying I WILL ever have another relationship - indeed, it's more than possible that I won't. But on the ohter hand, I have beaten myself up for years about failing - and I happen to interpret Scripture as saying that God loves me and might even give me a second chance!
That's a valid reading of Scripture.... isn't it?
quote:
I don't know why but evanglical (and particularly charismatic) churches seem to be much more open to the remarriage of devorced persons than other churches.
Not here they're not!!! They are also very anti sex-before-marriage and so force many situations where young people marry so they can have sex. No wonder people have just left the church! Double standards.
Of course, the simple answer to all of this ridiculous hoo haa is to do away with marriage altogether. What a useless institution. It is the cause of grief to so many within and without, and who have been through horrid marriages.
Even in marriages which stick together people find it hard to raise children. Just because mummy and daddy stay together doesn't mean the children will be either happy or grow up to have good marriages themselves. I think of my own parents' marriage and am simply disgusted, and dismayed at the effect my Dad's continual and prolonged absence has had and has on my brother. It's now at the point where my brother verbally abuses my mum - because my dad does NOTHING about it. He should defend her. He promised to uphold her and respect her. Bollocks. He does nothing of the sort in so far as my brother is concerned. (Sometimes I want to kill him (my brother) because my mum doesn't deserve the crap she gets from both my brother and my dad.)
So I think the world would be better off without marriage as an institution. And DONT throw all the Bible passages at me. As far as they're concerned, you can flush them down the toilet, or stick them in a personal bodily orifice that never gets the sunlight. (In fact flush the whole damned book down there. It's just a load of promises that have not been delivered on.)
As for divorce:
There are many cases where divorce is the best option. No one should judge another about this. By all means hold your own opinions. But don't then make people feel like they are disobeying by getting out of a nightmare. OK so the divorce rate is growing. But lets face it; human beings are the same as they always have been, and in the past the stigma associated with divorce was a major deterrent. But I'll bet abuse of all sorts and adultery and dishonesty are no more today than they were in the past. It's just that now societal norms have changed.
The only totally inexcusable reason for divorce is boredom with ones partner - and admittedly women are the victims of this more often than men. It's so easy to find a nice young attract lissome woman to replace the middle-aged frump your first wife has become. Faugh!
Oh. And the suggestion of punishing both parties for marrying by not letting them divorce and remarry, forcing them into supposed celibacy is a misnomer. Most would probably go out and find some sort of satisfaction anyway. Afterall, once the commitment is gone, what reason do they have to remain faithful? It's not like they are going to sleep together again, so why not go out and horse around?
Me bitter about the whole thing? Never! 
If that means I'm roasting on a spit for all eternity, so be it. I have to tell those of you who are adamantly against remarriage (including advocating punishing people who do it) that your responses demonstrate an appalling lack of grace.
And grace, my friends, is the only thing that sets Christianity apart from every other religion on the planet.
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
As far as they're concerned, you can flush them down the toilet, or stick them in a personal bodily orifice that never gets the sunlight. (In fact flush the whole damned book down there. It's just a load of promises that have not been delivered on.)
Well I guess that just about says it all. 
The lingering question in my mind is about the origin of all the pain that we feel about this topic.
Is it caused by the overzealous judging attitudes of self-righteous church institutions and individuals?
Is it caused by people's failure to obey Jesus' words?
I guess that it is more complicated than either of these. The only certain thing is that there really is a lot of unhappiness in the arena of intimate relationships.
Fortunately, God is in charge and He will lead us to find ways to improve this situation that are both compassionate and effective. At least, that is my belief.
Some good points there Freddy.
BTW I am amazed (and relieved) if it's getting easier to be accepted in Evangelical circles. When we arrived here seven years ago and I started a Sunday School, women would sidle up to me outside the Primary and whisper, "Can X come to Sunday School? Only - we're divorced..." This village at least had had a very clear message that not only were they not welcome in church, their kids weren't either.
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
And that for most people it isn't one big thing that makes you think "enough is enough", it's years of little things
Yes, that's it exactly. This is what has to change. This is where we should focus our energy. The prescription of attending church, reading God's Word, praying together, and living a moral life is extremely helpful here."
Whilst I agree with this in principle, it doesn’t help if one partner has come to faith after marriage and the other thinks its ‘just a phase’ and won’t entertain Christianity at all. In cases like this, the concept o praying together, reading the bible together et all are merely more fuel to the fire of discontent
quote:
Yes, that's it exactly. This is what has to change. This is where we should focus our energy. The prescription of attending church, reading God's Word, praying together, and living a moral life is extremely helpful here.
Actually, I think the changes necessary go deeper than that. What’s needed is a change of attitude towards the other person and a desire to put them first; a shift in priorities so the home / family is considered more important than say work or church. (The Scripture model is “Leave, cleave and belong” which suggests a completely different set of values)
Tubbs
Nunc - *hugs*
An evangelical CoE minister told me how he used to ask his Bishop for permission to conduct a marriage where at least one partner was divorced (as he was supposed to do) but the Bishop always replied "If you think that it is right to marry them do it" that he stopped asking unless he thought that there might be some publicity.
The main attitude amoung evangelicals seems to be that even if divorce and remarraige is a sin it is not the unforgivable sin!
i hope my daughters never feel they need to be an "absolute paragon of virtue." i know i don't. and i've also got a really hard time w/the notion that divorcees should be punished. haven't they already been?
mrs. tubbs...i find myself agreeing with many of your posts these days...hope that doesn't scare you.
and, nunc, reading your post was very satisfying (in a subversive way ).
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I'm one of the few people on this board who's actually been through it.
How do you know? Divorce can affect many people: partners, parents, children, second wives, step-parents...... Just because I and other posters don't want to explain our situation in great, tedious detail, it doesn't mean we haven't been through it. I should imagine most posters on this thread know only too well what it is like and have to cope with others' attitudes to their situation now and in the future. Otherwise we would not be posting......
quote:
How do you know? Divorce can affect many people: partners, parents, children, second wives, step-parents...... Just because I and other posters don't want to explain our situation in great, tedious detail, it doesn't mean we haven't been through it. I should imagine most posters on this thread know only too well what it is like and have to cope with others' attitudes to their situation now and in the future. Otherwise we would not be posting......
You missed out friends who've sat with a bottle of wine in one hand and a box of Kleenex in the other and just listened .... And then tried to stay neutral
Divorce doesn't just affect the immediate family but everyone in that particlar group
Tubbs
Then it happened. Having married right out of university, the marriage was a complete mess by the time I was 25. In my case, we were too young to have gotten married. Having been raised to believe that divorce was unacceptable, I continued in the marriage. There were no children. I even had many discussions with a minister who was a friend and whom I trusted. This was a big step for me, because I do not discuss my feelings easily – I usually take the attitude “get over it”.
After much praying and soul searching, I realized that I could not continue in that relationship for another 50 years. I had come to the point where I decided that being rejected by my family and my church would be the easier of the two outcomes.
So, then I had to tell my parents. As background, my father was a Baptist minister who had performed the wedding ceremony. Our family was one where drinking, smoking, playing cards and dancing were not allowed. The only family member who was divorced was one of my mother’s sisters, and she was the black sheep of the family (although not just because of the divorce). However, I had come to the point where it was necessary to risk being shunned by my family.
When I talked to my parents, they were very supportive, realizing, as I had, that the marriage was not going to work, and that divorce was an acceptable alternative. The rest of my family was also supportive, except my brother who wrote me a “sermon” about the trials of Job. Incidentally, I have only spoken to him a few times in the last 20 years. The thing I learned is that sometimes, second best is the best you can manage.
In time, I met someone else. We have now been married for 12 years and have 2 lovely children (my father assisted in that wedding ceremony as well). My position on divorce and remarriage has certainly changed due to my own experience. I hope that some of you, who have not had to go through it, can learn to be a little easier on the rest of us.
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
How do you know? Divorce can affect many people: partners, parents, children, second wives, step-parents...... Just because I and other posters don't want to explain our situation in great, tedious detail, it doesn't mean we haven't been through it. I should imagine most posters on this thread know only too well what it is like and have to cope with others' attitudes to their situation now and in the future. Otherwise we would not be posting......
Really. So why don't all of the stepchildren, children, second spouses, friends, etc., tell me what it's like to come to the realization that a marriage is irretrievably broken. While you're at it, tell me what it's like to know that sense of complete and utter FAILURE that this brings with it.
You can know some of the pain, I am not denying that. But for people who have not been divorced to speak so glibly about it is just WRONG.
quote:
However, I did see a statistic which suggests that over 90% of ADHD kids are fatherless at home. But then a huge proportion of ANY kids are ADHD now - so it might as well be environmental or (my pet theory) too much loud music over two generations!
My pet theory is its an alliance between psychiatrists & drug companies to make money out of hassled parents.
Some US surveys report 15% of boys as ADHD - that isn;t a mental disorder, that is opne end of normal variation.
The behaviour of children hasn't changed, but society is becoming less able to tolerate it as we demand more from them and restrict their freedom more and more. 
Ken
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But for people who have not been divorced to speak so glibly about it is just WRONG.
My strong suspicion would be that there is virtually no one participating here who has not been divorced, or been closely affected by it.
We seem to be forgetting that many who have been through this often shattering experience emerge from it with a passionate opposition to the societal forces that allowed/encouraged their beloved to desert them.
When your wife decides that your marriage is not a good one, and that she would be better off on her own, and then follows through on her ideas - well it is no fun at all. And then maybe you watch her life deteriorate over the ensuing years, maybe for the same reasons that made her feel "trapped" in a "loveless" marriage. It doesn't make you a "believer" in the healing power of divorce.
Wives whose husbands have taken up with the younger woman, and filed for divorce, might also not be great fans of the idea that churches should permit divorce. You watch your former husband, with the little tramp he married, sitting as a respected deacon in your church, and you just wonder what you did wrong...
I'm not saying that the deserting spouses are necessarily wrong in these situations, because we don't know the real situations. My point is simply that many divorced people are more convinced that divorce is straight from hell than anyone who has never been through it. They are aware of the pain associated with it, and, right or wrong, speak from experience not naivete.
So please don't jump to conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
My fundamental point is that in practice the breakdown of a marriage is almost never only one partner's fault. And if we take a wide understanding of mental illness, then sole responsibility becomes even less common. Given that, the case for remarriage of the 'innocent' party becomes a vanishing small occurrence.
That, Enders Shadow, is seeming to suggest that the spouse thus must be in part responsible for what is done to them - that is not justifiable in the bald terms in which you put it. Furthermore, many forms of abuse are not the result of mental illness, nor is mental illness more than very rarely the outcome of a single other person's action.
I do not see how the simple rules of proof can be applied, and you rightly suggest many of the problems involved. However, I think it is possible to place this in a more inclusive framework for those who are abandoned by a spouse, and ditto for those who leave a spouse.
You say that hard cases make bad law, well hard laws are flawed also. I am utterly unable to find any Christian virtue in a policy which adds to the suffering which surrounds divorce. From my understanding, only Christ and Christ only stands in propitiation of sins, and we are not required to demand the sacrifice of others lives (though we, of course, offer our own) to satisfy a picture of God which emphasises law above grace, which seems to me to be exactly what Jesus came to do.
In the case of the women with many husbands, Jesus doesn't call her to return to her first husband, but rather simply to leave her life of sin. If we can deduce that whatever role a person played in the failure of their previous marriage, they are healed from that experience, and if the language is appropriate, repented of it, then it seems to me that if Jesus was able to acknowledge, however tacitly, that one should go on from where one is, this seems more consistent with the Gospel as a whole.
What I would like you both to do, and what was upsetting me so much, was your apparent refusal to consider altering your wording in such a manner as still suffices to communicate your common point - which as I understand it is to engage with those who find themselves "traded in" (dreadful term) by their partner.
I know more people in the circumstances you rightly identify as hellish personally than in any other position regarding divorce. However, it is not the only experience, and I think language which isn't carefully crafted gives the impression that the one who leaves is always wrong.
I used to help in research on this topic, and I am still involved in endeavouring to support people who have suffered the circumstances I described. They are not a trivially small proportion, as I have pointed out. Let me give some further figures to, I hope, give you some insight into the degree of emotional difficulties that they face. Many divorcees do remarry, and indeed the average time between the breakdown of the relationship and the forming of a further one is around three years (again, in the UK). In many circumstances which you describe, the leaver will infact be in a relationship in a very short time, and those have an extremely high, and indeed unsurprising, rate of failure.
Conversely, those who have been sexually assaulted, including exhibitionistic types of assault, rarely establish a new relationship until around 10 years, and often that is about the time they get to the "going out" phase, nothing more, as it were. Often, it takes 6 or 7 years to get over post-traumatic effects such as flashbacks, panic attacks etc.
In common with those who suffer any type of sexual attack, there is a significant and nearly universal sense of guilt and shame. Even secular social standards are far from supportive, and for Christian victims in particular, there are extreme difficulties in regaining self-respect and self-confidence.
This is not helped at all by sweeping statements about leavers. Most of the victims of these attacks will be the ones who leave, not vice-versa. Most divorces will be contested, and the promise of the spouse to "be better" is unsurprising (and not to be dismissed off-hand). However, it is very rarely the case that the victim ever feels able to trust their spouse intimately, and this clearly affects future relationships too.
It is my experience that the church's teaching on divorce is profoundly spritually damaging to this group. The language of guilt and sin, felt as I've said by the victim in any case, is compounded by an inability of the Church to discuss their circumstances and experiences directly and supportively. Many feel that the church is asking them to sacrifice their sexuality for their salvation, either by staying in union with their partner, or not being allowed to have another. For most, regaining the point where they emotionally want another relationship is a very significant part of identifying themselves as healing. For those who are Christians, particularly from a more conservative background, the feeling that they are not allowed that damages their morale and their progress.
I don't think that our rightful concern over the ridiculously high divorce rate generally should stop us being able to craft language which encapsulates both the need for commitment in marriage and has sensitivity to the extreme circumstances experienced by a few. I am also strongly convinced that through the normal framework of Christian ethics, people in such circumstances are unusually vulnerable. It is by our treatment of the weakest that I believe our truest values can be understood, and I think thus it is behoven to us all to do be sensitive to this issue.
If our teaching on marriage were to not have an explicit place to include this, then we would without doubt be deliberately and inexcusably sacrificing the hopes of these for the benefit of others - and I find that utterly unconscionable. We cannot be perfect, but I think we can do better.
The usual approach, which I think you've alluded to Freddy, is to use informal casuistry (I use casuistry in it's proper rather than pejorative sense) in individual cases. This is, I'm afraid, not really good enough. It lacks the explicit support which I find is needed, and because it's sort-of-unofficial, it isn't saying as a community that "we are with you", which is the broad and open inclusion which doesn't require private wounds of a very private nature to be made known.
Apologies to all for a v. long post - I hope it generates more light than heat.
quote:
My point is simply that many divorced people are more convinced that divorce is straight from hell than anyone who has never been through it.
And some are more convinced that MARRIAGE is straight from hell than anyone who's never been through it. I will not do that again. Ever. And if I hadn't been allowed a divorce, I would have ended up physically dead. There's a comforting prospect: stay married and eventually be murdered/commit suicide, otherwise you're a bad and selfish person.
So no, I will not speak out against divorce, neither will I even hint at condemning anyone for seeking one. I will fight, to the bitter end, anyone who thinks that the church should backtrack and forbid divorce and remarriage.
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
Chorister and Freddy (and others taken in the Cross-fire), many apologies for my excessively strong language earlier in this thread.
Thank you. I also apologise for my cavalier and glib comments in my earlier posts.
quote:
What I would like you both to do, and what was upsetting me so much, was your apparent refusal to consider altering your wording in such a manner as still suffices to communicate your common point - which as I understand it is to engage with those who find themselves "traded in" (dreadful term) by their partner.
I know more people in the circumstances you rightly identify as hellish personally than in any other position regarding divorce. However, it is not the only experience, and I think language which isn't carefully crafted gives the impression that the one who leaves is always wrong..
I hear you. I certainly understand that the one who leaves is not always wrong.
I especially agree with regard to those who have suffered attacks, especially sexual ones.
quote:
I don't think that our rightful concern over the ridiculously high divorce rate generally should stop us being able to craft language which encapsulates both the need for commitment in marriage and has sensitivity to the extreme circumstances experienced by a few.
Again, I agree. Of course it depends on how you define extreme circumstances.
quote:
The usual approach, which I think you've alluded to Freddy, is to use informal casuistry (I use casuistry in it's proper rather than pejorative sense) in individual cases. This is, I'm afraid, not really good enough. It lacks the explicit support which I find is needed, and because it's sort-of-unofficial, it isn't saying as a community that "we are with you", which is the broad and open inclusion which doesn't require private wounds of a very private nature to be made known.
I understand what you are saying. In my church the explicit support of our doctrine is given to those who divorce for adultery, and also for a number of other reasons that amount to adultery - such as desertion, openly obscene behavior, addiction to pornography, and similar things.
The explicit support of doctrine is also given for being separated from a spouse for a large number of reasons ranging from abusive behavior to alcoholism to insanity. But the explicit freedom to divorce and remarry depends on the behavior of the offending partner. If they remain faithful and reform, then the marriage may continue.
I realize that this is not good enough in yours and in many people's eyes. But these detailed Swedenborgian tenets are considered to be divine revelation in our church, and we are not free to change them. They seem good to me.
I understand from your, and from other, posts that the harsh doctrines of the church are reasonably seen to be hurtful to many people who have found it necessary or desirable to divorce their partners. This may actually be the foundation of much of the pain that is common in our culture with regard to this issue.
However, I see no acknowledgment on your part that it may also be possible that a society that permits and fosters divorce without just cause is itself a cause of this increasing unhappiness. This is obviously my position. When society does not sanction divorces, they increase, along with the pain that accompanies them.
I realize that people differ on this issue. I believe strongly that the, as you put it, "ridiculously high divorce rate generally" is caused largely by the decreasing allegiance of our culture to the morals of Christianity - and that there is a correspondingly unfortunate increase of depression, despair, anti-social behavior, unhappiness, and simple loneliness.
People are free to differ on this. But it would be nice to see an acknowledgment of the possibility that Christ's words on the subject are true as He spoke them, and that they were spoken to reduce, not increase, pain. It is also possible that He was wrong, or that He was speaking rhetorically or allegorically.
I appreciate the experience and the research that you have done on this issue. The statistics are especially helpful. Please understand that I also have quite a bit of experience and professional knowledge of these things. I expect that all of us in this discussion do - either professionally or personally. I would not discount anything that any of our posters have said.
The bottom line is how to end the pain. I admit that the answer is an open question.
On a separate issue, is it possible that infidelity can mean more than what a spouse does with his/her private parts? I say that being abusive emotionally, being absent to your family is a form of infidelity as serious as physical adultery.
Although I do take Erin's point that there are marriages that are worse than divorce; I can only say I sympathise for what she's had to deal with. For me, the divorce was far worse than the marriage (although the marriage was pretty bad, I was not subject to physical or sexual abuse, only the psychological kind).
The Orthodox Church's position on the whole divorce/remarriage thing is that remarriages are at the discretion of your bishop, and you only get 3 tries max (and 3rd marriages are granted very rarely even at that).
I am very grateful for this "second chance" for I am now very happily married to a wonderful woman who is everything my first wife wasn't -- supportive, forgiving, and PLEASABLE. (Ever heard that song, I think it's from the 70s, by one of those four-black-guys-in-silk-jackets groups, that goes, "But I could never make you happy; I just wish I didn't love you so, it makes it so very hard to go"? That was my first marriage.)
So I have plenty of patience and sympathy with people who get divorced and wish to remarry. Or wish never to remarry, as Erin has stated. The message of the Cross is one of forgiveness and healing, not rigid rules and finger-pointing.
There's my .02 worth.
Reader Alexis
quote:
I am utterly unable to find any Christian virtue in a policy which adds to the suffering which surrounds divorce.
Huh - what happened to the virtue of obedience?
Consider:
Philippians 2
6Who, being in very nature[] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Hebrews 5
6And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."[]
7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Matthew 7
The Wise and Foolish Builders
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
Matthew 21
The Parable of the Two Sons
28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.
32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
In this season of Lent, when we remember the outstanding wisdom of the disciples in applying human logic to the suggestion that Jesus should be willing to die on the cross, we need to be a EXTREMELY careful when we interpret the bible. And when we end up doing something that 'The Lord' unambiguously commands us not to (i.e. remarry after divorce) we are really inviting trouble.
Of course being single is painful - especially in our modern society. And note that this isn't about divorce - which is sometimes necessary - but about remarriage afterwards. I wish that the bible didn't say this (as I wish that the bible didn't rule out gay relationships - another vulnerable, hurting group). But I am not prepared to blatantly ignore the clear instructions of the one who gave his life for us in painful obedience to his Father.
quote:
And when we end up doing something that 'The Lord' unambiguously commands us not to (i.e. remarry after divorce) we are really inviting trouble.
I have so far stayed off this thread, which itself has been a bit of a penance, but I really cannot refrain any longer.
Let me declare an interest: for more than 20 years I have been married to a divorcee. So I am sure than ES will simply ignore everything that follows.
What Jesus actually says is that even to look on a woman lustfully is equivalent to adultery. And elsewhere, he stops the stoning of a woman by demonstrating to the crowd that they are all equally guilty.
Now there are two ways to react to the Sermon on the Mount. One is to take it absolutely literally. In which case, ES, I guess you are obeying the entire Torah without omitting a yod or a vav, so long as Heaven and earth endure. Of course, you may have a bit of a problem taking your skin diseases to the Temple for examination, but there are plenty of Kosher butchers and grocers up there in Manchester. And I'm sure you enthusiastically join with your fellows in dispensing Torah justice, which even Orthodox Jews are too namby pamby to do nowadays.
Alternatively, you can read those awkward passages about love being the first commandment, and not judging. You can relate to the Jesus who tells us to be grown-ups, acting responsibly out of love rather than behaving like cruel children who use laws to hurt and destroy. You can choose to go with Brian Paddick who tried to bring real community policing to Lambeth, rather than the editor of the Daily Snarl who has tried to destroy his career. And perhaps if we all choose to do this, we will create a world in which people, who are loved and valued rather than prohibited and diminished, will make fewer mistakes. Some old stuff about the Kingdom of Heaven.
In fact, Jesus said that anyone who set aside the Law would be the lowest in the Kingdom of Heaven. He also said that it was better to be the lowest in the Kingdom of Heaven than to be John the Baptist.
Get this, ES (since I looked at your profile): I have a shelf or three full of programming and systems manuals, and a shelf or two of Bibles and theology. And I can tell the difference. I don't think you can.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I understand from your, and from other, posts that the harsh doctrines of the church are reasonably seen to be hurtful to many people who have found it necessary or desirable to divorce their partners. This may actually be the foundation of much of the pain that is common in our culture with regard to this issue.
quote:
However, I see no acknowledgment on your part that it may also be possible that a society that permits and fosters divorce without just cause is itself a cause of this increasing unhappiness. This is obviously my position. When society does not sanction divorces, they increase, along with the pain that accompanies them.
quote:
People are free to differ on this. But it would be nice to see an acknowledgment of the possibility that Christ's words on the subject are true as He spoke them, and that they were spoken to reduce, not increase, pain. It is also possible that He was wrong, or that He was speaking rhetorically or allegorically.
quote:
The bottom line is how to end the pain. I admit that the answer is an open question.
quote:
In the case of the physically abusive husband turning up at the Baptist church we really don't know whether the wife has been an absolute paragon of virtue - or an emotionally abusive harridan who having the ability to achieve her abuse verbally, is not perceived as part of the problem.
Please tell me you are NOT saying that someone who is abused is any way responsible for causing the behaviour of the abuser. That's what this reads like and it is a LIE.
It's a LIE used by abusers to justify their behaviour ... It's a LIE that too many victims end up believing - which helps keep the cycle going. And it's a LIE that too many people believe when dealing with victims of abuse. [He seems like such a nice man ... she must have done something terrible to make him hit her with that hammer ...] 
Tubbs
Alan
Purgatory host
quote:
Perhaps the solution is a combintion of the ancient and modern. That is, we should make divorce more difficult. From a legal and social perspective, in the US, it is no-fault divorce, originally supposed to free women, that is responsible for the impoverishment of many women, and the children for whom they are still overwhelmingly responsible. The statistics on this are overwhelming.
But "no-fault divorce" is overwhelmingly used by women to divorce men.
quote:
One close relative had nothing but a small inheritance and a small alimony for a short time after thirty years of marriage and four children which she raised, when her husband traded up for a new model. I say, bring on fault-based divorce and make it complicated again. Then those who are just bored can't say "bored", they have to give a better reason.
This misses the point which is the breakdown of the marriage and the separation. The piece of paper is just that - a piece of paper from the government which says that they recognise that your marriage is over.
If it is harder to get the piece of paper, people will still split up. And that will probably make it harder for many women if it is more common for women to have to go to court to get money from their husband than the other way round.
Increasingly large numbers of people don't go through the formalities of a State-recognised marriage ceremony - but from a moral point of view (which is I think what started this topic) they can be just as married as someone with all the right certifcates. Neither the government nor the church makes a marriage, the couple do.
And someone who is abandoned by their partner because the partner wants to go off with someone else is just as "divorced" as someone who bothers to go to a court about it.
Divorce is hell, it is hateful. The worst part is what we were doing to our daughter, who suffered tremendously, through no fault of her own. Ten years later I am still angry about it - not what was done to me, what was done to her.
If you are sitting on a bed with a little child and she says:
quote:
do you remember, do you remember, you and me and Mummy used to lie in the bed together when I was little and cuddle each other? That was nice. Are we going to do that again soon?
Or if you are with the kid, 3 or 4 years old, and her Mum left on Friday night to go somewhere with her new boyfriend and you know perfectly well that she won't be back till Monday afternoon, just as she has done almost every weekend for a year, how do you explain that to a three-year old?
And if you are walking home from school with a slightly older child and you pass the street where you used to live, and her Mum still lives, but today it is your turn, and she cries and screams "I want to go to my Mummy's house" what can you say?
I don't really care a dam if couples without kids want to split up, that's their business. But the hurt and the pain and the abuse that divorce causes to children is terrible.
quote:
And when we end up doing something that 'The Lord' unambiguously commands us not to (i.e. remarry after divorce) we are really inviting trouble.
That is not true. That is not what the Lord says. If you are going to be a Biblical literalist you might as well quote it properly.
If we believe the Gospel of Matthew (& if we don't why are we even having the argument?)
Jesus, explicitly and bluntly said that divorce is not permissible for "any cause".
But he also said that divorce is permissible for certain causes. NB these causes are not (or not just) "adultery". The Greek word used is "porneia". The word for adultery is quite different, "moichao" - it occurs twice in the same verse!
I don't know exactly what "porneia" meant in 1st century Palestine. I imagine it included adultery, but possibly a lot more. Traditionally English Bibles render that word as "fornication" which isn't a translation but a transliteration - they are just leaving the Greek word in (Latinised) and not defining it. 700 years earlier hundreds of miles away in Greece it might have meant visiting prostitutes, or "doing the sort of things that prostitutes do". Whatever they are. Modern Bibles usually just say "sexual immorality".
Secondly, there is no concept either in the ancient Jewish society that gave us the OT, or the Greek/Roman/Syrian society that Jesus lived in; of partial divorce that didn't allow remarriage. That was something invented much more recently.
The thing Jesus is talking about, which our Bibles translate (perhaps mistranslate) as "divorce" is what they called the "get" which was a certificate given by a man to his wife which gives her permission to remarry. (As polygyny was allowed, men did not need such permission for them to remarry).
The literal, plain, meaning of Matthew 5:32 is that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than "porneia" causes her to commit adultery (it is assumed that she will remarry - that is what the "divorce" means in this context) and that the man who marries such a women (i.e. the one divorced for "any cause") commits adultery.
It does not say that a divorced man who remarries commits adultery - the New Testament never mentions that circumstance because it couldn't arise in Jewish Law which permitted a man to have more than one wife (though it was deprecated).
It does not say that a woman divorced by her husband for a just cause may not remarry.
NB in the law of the time the just cause doesn't have to be the woman's fault. One of the most common legal problems they had was when a man abandoned or mistreated his wife & she had to go to him to get the certificate. Sometimes he would refuse, leaving her unable to remarry although he could. (This is still a problem in Orthodox Jewish communities - rabbis have come up with all sorts of inventive and persuasive ways round it).
Jesus was not talking about our more recent ideas of a judicial separation that didn't allow remarriage. The "divorce" in this passage is something that comes after the separation and explicitly gives permission to remarry. He would no more talk about divorce without permission to remarry that he would talk about motor cars. It hadn't been invented yet.
And as for saying that Matthew doesn't count because Mark left out part of the quote - well Mark left out the Resurrection as well.
Sorry to go on about this but my fundamentalist hackles rise when people misquote the Bible, and even more when the misquotes become ingrained into tradition (I bet you thought there were two of each kind of animal taken onto the Ark... read it again!)
There is no concept here of divorce without remarriage, the sort of compulsory celibacy some churches try to force onto abandoned spouses. Jesus is saying that someone divorced without cause isn't validly divorced. But he never says that someone who is validly divorced is not allowed to remarry. In fact he assumes that they will - which is why a man who divorces a woman without cause makes her commit adultery. And presumably therefore it is his sin, not hers.
The whole thing is in the context of an ongoing argument amongst rabbis as to whether divorce was allowed for any cause or just for sexual crimes. Jesus is taking one side.
The literal meaning of Jesus's words is that remarriage is allowed only in certain situations, but those situations are not defined.
The implication is that Jesus would almost certainly have condemned our culture's easy use of divorce, and condemned the idea of no-fault divorce. But Jesus's literal words do not rule out all divorce for Christians.
For some background on all this you could look at the website of theologian
David Instone-Brewer (who was in my class in school back in the 1970s & was one of the 2 people most involved in my conversion - though I didn't get these ideas from him, I never even knew he had written about this subject till a year ago )
quote:
But "no-fault divorce" is overwhelmingly used by women to divorce men.
This is actually how it was imagined, that is, that women not be stuck in bad marriages and have to prove that the husband was sleeping around or was cruel. It was part of the 70s free-to-be-me stuff that has still left lots of people thinking that marriage is about individual happiness more than anything else. Nonetheless, no-fault divorce rebounded against the very folks the original legislation was supposed to protect, interestingly enough, and many attribute the increasing feminization of poverty to no-fault divorce laws.
Sure, people are going to get divorced even if there are legal obstacles. The point is, legal obstacles build in an incentive to make things work in a situation that is only boring, rather than intolerable. In Pennsylvania, a no-fault divorce takes 90 days - three months! This is so whether the marriage lasted 2 years or 40. A regular fault-based divorce takes two years.
In Pennsylvania, fault grounds are:
- willful and malicious desertion or absence without reasonable cause for one or more years
- adultery
- cruel and barbarous treatment
- bigamy
- conviction of serious crime
- indignities rendering condition intolerable and life burdensome
I would think this would cover most intolerable situations, and for just being bored, it doesn't seem unreasonable to make people wait a while and not get out of it instantly.
Amusingly, in Virginia, sodomy or buggery is listed as a separate ground! (Wouldn't that also constitute adultery?) State laws (in 1997, anyway) can be found here:
Divorce Laws in the United States and ABA - Grounds for Divorce in the United States
However, I don't mean to sidetrack a religious discussion into a legal one.
quote:
I don't know exactly what "porneia" meant in 1st century Palestine.
I imagine it included adultery, but possibly a lot more.
According to my lectionary of koine Greek, the most common meaning was 'sex in exchange for something'.
Moo
My Gran stayed in a hellish marriage because of societal conventions. We can't say that people were happier then - we don't know. Women especially had almost no voice.
1 Corinthians 7
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
which gives far less wriggle space than that surrounding the gospel passages.
As far as the shot across the bows from Alan is concerned; yes I did hear it - and yet the discussion was drifting away from obeying what appears to be the clear command of scripture by means of a drip, drip, drip application of hard cases to undermine the conservative interpretation. There is no simple answer to this - it is always harder to defend the 'hard' line than to succumb to the emotional logic of those who suffer as a result of that policy. Therefore the appeal to the emotionally highly charged material that I quoted is a response to the emotionally highly charged material that has been presented on the other side.
To repeat; the verse quoted above rules out remarriage of divorcees - it does NOT rule out divorce.
Divorce is always painful. Those caught up in it deserve as much support as widows.
But the issue is whether the 'solution' of remarriage is ever a Christian option. I don't believe it is, and that the biblical evidence really won't allow it except for adultery....
Thing is, why SHOULDN'T hard cases 'drip drip drip' at conservatism? Are you beyond changing your opinion on the grounds of compassion? I feel as though I'm anti-transplants - anything which needs a death for another to live, anyway - but if one of my family needed one, I suspect I would change my mind. (Nor would I assume I had the right to dictate others' decisions).
Do you follow EVERY prescription in the Bible? Do you avoid meat with blood in? Never touch a menstruating woman? Eat shellfish?
Come on - THINK a little (this was what finished me with fundamentalism in the end - no pun intended Latin scholars - I HAVE A BRAIN which God wants me to use. And compassion, likewise. (((Erin))) - Be Happy.)
There is a fundamental difference between the Old Testament laws that are explicitly rejected in the New Testament, and a COMMAND of Jesus, as reported by St Paul in writing to Christians facing many of the same issues as we are today.....
I've opened a new thread in Hell to try to unpack some of the wider issues:
'Who do you serve? Who do you trust?'
See you there?!
quote:
There is a fundamental difference between the Old Testament laws that are explicitly rejected in the New Testament, and a COMMAND of Jesus, as reported by St Paul in writing to Christians facing many of the same issues as we are today.....
As usual, ES, you don't bother to read other people's posts, or if you do you simply ignore the bits that don't meet your needs. You are once again ignoring the apparently direct statement in the Gospels that not a yod or a vav will be removed from the Law while Heaven and Earth endure. If you persist in your Biblical literalism, uninformed as it is by any background in theology, then you cannot dismiss the Torah, and you need to explain the shellfish.
In any case, what ground have you for regarding St. Paul as having authority equivalent to that of Jesus? The status of St. Paul is exactly the same as Mohammed or Joseph Smith: self-proclaimed prophets. And why do the kind of anal retentive Christians who spend their time wanting to forbid people from doing things always quote Paul rather than Jesus? Is it because St. Paul, with his Pharisaic background that he never loses, spends his time apparently preaching love while actually trying to obtain power over people by making up rules?
quote:
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
And St Paul's understanding of divorce would be what exactly? I suspect that Paul's understanding of divorce would be closer to Ken's description than ours.
Ever heard the expression,
"A text without a context is a pre-text?"
If you want to discuss the Bible and quote bits from it, then you need to consider such matters as the intended audience, the culture it was written, how it fits in with other bits .... And here we are back to proof texting again
Tubbs
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
And St Paul's understanding of divorce would be what exactly? I suspect that Paul's understanding of divorce would be closer to Ken's description than ours.Ever heard the expression,
"A text without a context is a pre-text?"
If you want to discuss the Bible and quote bits from it, then you need to consider such matters as the intended audience, the culture it was written, how it fits in with other bits .... And here we are back to proof texting again
Tubbs
Furthermore, ES is ignoring other relevant parts of Paul's teaching. e.g. the usual interpretation of Paul's teaching that I've ever heard re. non-believing spouses is that if a non-believing spouse divorces a Christian, then the Christian is free to remarry. There may be an element of assuming that in this case adultery by the other will de facto have occurred, but it is not explicit, nor is any reference to that principle made, so I see little scope for arguing that there is any such connection.
I have to say I don't think ES has responded in any degree to ameliorate their views in light of the sensitivities of others - which includes a broad spectrum of individual circumstances which we all, whatever direction we're coming from, are, I think, trying to engage with. Nor does any element of contrition occur to me to be present in regard to the hurt which their postings may have caused.
Ken's notes are I think indeed relevant, and there are a number of social factors which he didn't mention which are also relevant, but which I don't think add to the fundament of his contribution, so I don't see any need to expand on it at this time.
[CS footnote]Dare I guess ES works with imperative programming languages rather than declarative ones?[/CS footnote]
quote:
And why do the kind of anal retentive Christians who spend their time wanting to forbid people from doing things always quote Paul rather than Jesus? Is it because St. Paul, with his Pharisaic background that he never loses, spends his time apparently preaching love while actually trying to obtain power over people by making up rules?
I think that may be unfair to St. Paul. I think that the reason St. Paul may be more popular with literalists is that he is much more 'conservative' on ethical matters than Jesus. St. Paul declared the Law redundant but when the Church at Corinth decided that the ethical teachings of the law could be dispensed with he responded angrily. Corinthians and Romans are both, in their ways, attempts to rehabilitate the ethical teachings of Judaism without unsaying what St. Paul said about grace in Galatians.
That aside, gbuchanan is quite right, that St. Paul is evidently watering down the rigour of Jesus' ethical teaching for pastoral reasons. So the drip, drip, drip of hard cases was eroding the conservative stance in the 1st Century CE. The idea that those of us who don't take a hard line on divorce are unscriptural is therefore incorrect!
Of course, as any fule kno, the teaching of Jesus in Mark is an absolute demand for holiness, whereas the teaching of Jesus in Matthew is much closer to the 'conservative' Jewish teaching of the time. So given that the Evangelists couldn't agree what Jesus believed why should we expect to do any better?
(As the Bishop said to the actress...)
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
It may be that my experience is unusual, but the churches I know are generally a lot more understanding about the need for people to get divorced (for many reasons) and subsequently (in some cases) to get remarried, than they were several years ago.
That is definitely true in my experience.
In my own church it is the same, but there has definitely been a reactionary movement against this of late - as would be expected, knowing how people and institutions operate.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Nice quote! It would actually make a pretty interesting thread to note the number of OT laws that Jesus abrogated or modified.
He certainly affirmed many laws, and the Law in general. But this is something that I find Christians are often a little shaky about.
quote:
I have a shelf or three full of programming and systems manuals, and a shelf or two of Bibles and theology. And I can tell the difference.
Over the past three months or so everyone I have been truly impressed with has been a Friend. Think the Lord is trying to tell me something?
I recentlywas talking to my sister about the burnt-dinner-vs-adultery debate to which daisymay referred.(she is a divorced mother, who was fretting about Jesus's words on divorce and where she stood spiritually in light of them.) I referred her to the above debate expressed my belief that Jesus was making a statement about the cavalier manner in which the women of his time were treated, and that since then his words have been converted into a dogmatic tool to control people.That's pretty much where I left it.Thanks to all for giving me more insight, which I can pass on to her.
quote:
I have a shelf or three full of programming and systems manuals, and a shelf or two of Bibles and theology. And I can tell the difference.
Over the past three months or so everyone I have been truly impressed with has been a Friend. Think the Lord is trying to tell me something?
Thanks, Panurge
-------------------
Just thinking out loud
[fixed UBB code]
[ 24 March 2002: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
The stricutres about divorce have to be understood in hte light that women could be badly treated and possesions were often only the mans.
Society is different ie women have possesions and greater Freedom.
Divorce I believe is not God's best for people yet we are sinful and God forgives our mistakes. God is a god of new starts new begginning so re-marriage is fine it is not ideal and we should not make a hobby of it
(sorry if this has been written some where else on the thread but I am very busy at the moment)
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
- does anybody know of any concrete cases of people being cast out of a church because they either got divorced or remarried,
Unfortunately, I do know of one recent case, in a fairly conservative church. A man was deserted by his wife, who took the kids and absconded back to her country of origin. She later had an affair. The man, several years later, has got married again, to another divorcee, also several years out of a hard marriage. Their church doesn't now accept them, tho' the man grew up there; they are asking for some kind of evidence about the wife's adultery.....
Several members have left in disgust at the cruel treatment. There have been stormy members' meetings. When the couple have turned up in church (some family still attend) some other members have walked out of the service.
Only allowed 8 sad smileys.
I once said at staff meeting at the church where I worked, "If you're going to behave like that, take the What Would Jesus Do bracelet OFF your arm!"
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
does anybody know of any concrete cases of people being cast out of a church because they either got divorced or remarried, or is the resentment against church teaching based on experiences of years ago?
I'm aware of one case where this happened - indeed the priest preached a sermon about the evils of divorce and the illegitimacy of the children of a second marriage whilst looking directly at one individual and their family throughout before the casting out happened.
The person concerned had been remarried for many years, so this was hardly "news", though the vicar was new to the parish. Most of the congregation asked for the minister to be thrown out, and the story goes on from there, but the effect for the individual was ousted by the sole will of the minister.
I find some of the contributions deeply depressing, though in which way varies...
I divorced my wife three years ago on the grounds of her admitted adultery, although the marriage had broken down about a year before that. As a GLE, I had to be sure in my own mind that what I was doing was 'right' (whatever that means) before instituting proceedings for divorce. I agonised for weeks over the decision until I came across the bit in Matt 19 which has been quoted - to me, that gave me the 'let-out' and I felt able to press ahead with proceedings. Please don't misunderstand - this was the standard I applied to myself then; I would have been easier on others. I was aware at that time of the apparent conflict between the rather legalistic 'theological' standard I had set for myself on the one hand and the 'pastoral' requirement to care for the person concerned on the other - a case of law v. love I suppose. I have to say that my charismatic evangelical church were wonderful to me - no-one condemned me, i had a lot of support and a lot of love, and they saw me through the pretty tough times I had. I am now engaged to be married and again there have been no negative comments ( and not just because it was a 'clear-cut' issue divorce - there are others within the church who are divorced & remarried where it is not so 'clear cut' and they are equally accepted and loved)
Nowadays I take a more relaxed theological stance - not particularly because of my experience (as that can be dangerous - tail wagging the dog etc) but because of the way I now approach Scripture, much more contextualised, exegesis'n' hermeneutics etc. I agree for example that Matt 19 is addressed to a cultural context whereby women could be divorced and then made destitute at a husband's whim. So, knowing what I know now, I would have been far less hard on myself then.(Having said that, the wonderful lady I am marrying has Exclusive Brethren parents, so in asking for their permission, I had to fall back on Matt 19!)
I think the overriding principle has to be 'love/ grace/ mercy over law/judgment' and wherever there is a conflict/ doubt, err on the side of the former. BUT also, for me there had to be an admission of fault on my part too - I was far from a perfect husband and had to acknowledge my part in the breakdown of the marriage; that's what I meant when I put 'clear cut' in quotes. It often takes two to break a marriage as it takes two to make it and, IMHO, as long as there is acknowlegdment of fault where it lies, repentance and a seeking of God's forgiveness, there is no reason why divorcees cannot remarry with the love and blessing of their church, whatever the reason for the divorce.
Yours in Christ
Matt
thus Ender's Shadow:
quote:Apologies for causing confusion - the passage I was basing my comments on is
1 Corinthians 7
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
which gives far less wriggle space than that surrounding the gospel passages.
is in complete agreement with the words of Jesus in Matthew. It is instructions to Christians on how to behave. It says that a wife should not leave her husband and a husband not divorce a separated wife. (2 different concepts still the wife is enjoined against separation, the man against the legal termination of the marriage)
Which is no surprise - we know the Apostles, and the Lord, disapproved of divorce.
What it doesn't say is that divorce can;t happen, If the man does leave his wife and does divorce (i.e. issue the certificate, the "get") she is, presumably, able to marry.
Paul says divorce is [almost always] wrong but I don't think he says it is impossible.
Which is exactly the sticking point, Most traditional Christian teaching in the West from early times to the 16th century held that divorce, & therefore remarriage, was impossible (though St. Augustine seems to allow it). So an abandoned spouse could never remarry, because they hadn't really been divorced (remember the only point of the "get", the divorce certificate, is to legitimise future marriage).
I don't think Paul is saying that. I think he is saying that divorce is (usually) a sin, but is possible. (And sometimes it may be permissible as well - he certainly allows it in verse 15)
Paul disapproved of murder, but that doesn't mean that the church has to teach that all murdered people are still really alive.
The literal meaning of the NT scriptures on divorce seems to be more or less like this:
1) Divorce is almost always a sin, and Christians should avoid it.
2) Divorce can be sought by Christians when their partner is guilty of "porneia" (undefined, but almost certainly includes adultery and may include some other sexual misbehaviours).
3) A Christian who is abandoned by their partner without "porneia" should not seek divorce, but reconciliation.
4) Paul adds to this (he is more permissive than Jesus) that a Christian who is abandoned by a non-believing spouse can, if they wish, seek divorce.
5) In any case, someone who has been divorced by their spouse is free to marry someone else, (even if that divorce was sinful and without just cause).
That being said, this is particularly to those who are, very appropriately, sorrowing with and for the children of divorce. Once someone's marriage has deteriorated past a certain point, the children are going to suffer. You can't save them from having problems. You can, to some extent, choose their problems by choosing whether to stay in a bad marriage or break up the household. Speaking as one of the children they stayed together for the sake of, it sucks. I know I would have grieved if my parents had split, but, looking back, I am convinced I would have been vastly better off with one reliable, stable parent than the craziness I grew up in. I can remember being 8 and wondering which of them I would live with; they divorced when I was 23. So I spent 15 years waiting for the other shoe to drop.
If you love them, and if you can refrain from using them as a bargaining chip (it helps if your ex can as well, but you can't control that) they'll hurt, but they'll be okay.
My prayers for all here.
Bene
Hmmm - I like it...
Well it's true that we're straining at gnats here - but the fact is, I and many others simply have to live with it!
You see, lots of sins are fine, because once they're done, they're over. As long as a man REALLY repents of going to a prostitute, that's fine isn't it! The fact that she has added to her list of men who've used her (however willing she's been) and he might revisit the experience countless times - even during sermons!! - doesn't count because there is no visible reminder of the sin. It's over. Whereas with SEX (STDs, Babies...) the results are so much more... noticeable. And the same with divorce. So it's MUCH easier to create a group of sinners who are Worse Than Me.
Every time I wake on my own or take the girls away on our own, or even pay a bill on my own, I am reminded of my change of status. It isn't something that changes or disappears. I imagine even if I were to remarry, part of me would still feel divorced. (Others will know the answer to that one). It is like an amputation - a deep sadness at one's own silly choices and failure to follow through.
BUT...
... it has happened.
So there isn't a lot I can do about my label now!! Yup, I Failed. And you know what? I can't help suspecting this will turn out not to have been the worst thing that ever happened to my ego. In the longer term, a bit of failure never did any Christian Pilgrim's soul too much harm.
Luckily I can forgive myself, you see. (A trick which has taken some 25 years to learn!)
BTW Our daughters were the key movers in getting us to face our differences and move on. They love us both and 'want us to get Lives we enjoy'. Families are all different. I pray afor people withtiny children cos it must be truly dreadful. Hugs to you all.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Really. So why don't all of the stepchildren, children, second spouses, friends, etc., tell me what it's like to come to the realization that a marriage is irretrievably broken. While you're at it, tell me what it's like to know that sense of complete and utter FAILURE that this brings with it.You can know some of the pain, I am not denying that. But for people who have not been divorced to speak so glibly about it is just WRONG.
This is going to sound a little polemic, and I have been holding off on posting it for a while to try and be a bit calmer about it. I'm not being glib.
Children whose parents divorce have an extremely similar experience to the partners. For younger ones, they often actually believe consciously that they are the ones who have caused their parents to split up. In other words, that they have failed to keep the family together. Exactly what divorcing couples feel; and the spouses often have just as little justification - it is an extremely similar situation to an abused spouse feeling, if only I had been a better person, we could have stayed together.
Older children often feel the same thing subconsciously, even if they don't logically believe it. If children are of an age where they might be forming relationships of their own, they feel the same hopelessness, that there is no point in trying to form relationships because they are all doomed, I have obviously never been in a situation where I learned how to have a good relationship, so why bother. Exactly what many divorcees go through.
Alternatively they may feel, well I can have a fun relationship but there's no point in trying to go for anything longlasting as that's obviously not going to work - look at my parents - and marriage? pah, tried and failed. Again similar to many divorcees.
Another possibility for this set of older children of divorce is seeking a partner very quickly and getting serious, getting married very quickly, just to prove they can do it, and find some stability. Also a pattern, and for similar reasons, to some divorcees.
Though younger children of divorce don't go through these sets of behaviours immediately, for obvious reasons, they can surface later.
Grief - a prime feature of divorce for the couple - is also almost universal in children of divorce. Even if they don't lose contact with one parent, sadly all too common, they grieve for the relationship, for the happy family life they may have thought they had (again something that many divorcees go through - but I thought it was happy! what happened? am I mad? can't I tell happy when I see it?).
In a final irony, many children of divorce have their own selves wished into nonexistence. When you hear your parent say, I wish I'd never met my spouse and never married them, what does that do to you? Where do you stand? It's bad enough realising that your happy childhood wasn't happy. Realising that someone wishes you didn't exist, and that someone is a loving parent, pretty much has to be the end.
I realise from this I may sound like I'm completely anti-divorce. I'm not, as I hope some of my previous posts explain. Where there is unresolvable conflict, even if there are children involved, it is the best thing.
However divorce is not really about just a couple, and I think I'm saying this really for pastoral reasons. My description also focuses on families that cope badly with the divorce - sadly a very large number - and in many cases the children as well as the adults feel a huge relief once the separation is final, to be out of the line of fire.
But with the focus on children's experience of divorce, I haven't seen anyone address the question of whether following divorces involving young children, remarriage shouldn't be allowed for the sake of the children? A question I posed on the first page and which hasn't been answered by any of the anti-remarriage faction.
Thank you for your time...
I was also married to a divorced man who had a daughter with his first wife.
Both experiences, while extremely painful, do not compare to having to make the decision yourself. I am by no means trying to negate anyone's pain, but living with the consequences of someone else's divorce is nothing like living with your own.
in order to stay together, my parents eventually did a re-write of history. if we wanted to stay in their good graces, we had to never refer to the past. unfortunately, this resulted in my parents divorcing several of their own children instead of each other.
i don't know that kids ever get out of their parent's bad relationship unscathed, but i wish my mother hadn't had to annhilate so much of herself. they certainly remained married, though, so i guess to some they did the right thing.
Anyway this is a longwinded way of saying a very simple thing: sometimes divorce is necessary and the lesser of evils. This doesn't make it good simpliciter; just relatively good.
(egads! Relativism!)
Reader Alexis
ken, i definitely didn't mean to imply that it's always better to get divorced. just that in some cases, it would be a more humane option for everyone. all of our kids will be on a couch complaining about something some day, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Mousethief/Fr Gregory or any other Orthodox shipmates. I was once told that divorce and remarriage were possible within the Orthodox church because it recognised that a marriage can die, just as one of the partners can. However, I can't remember who told me, or if they were a reliable source. Is this a fair summary of the Orthodox position on this topic?
Obviously this is a metaphor (marriages aren't trees or dogs that they can physically die), and as with any metaphor, it has its good and its bad points. I don't think there is an official metaphor for understanding the divorce/remarriage thing in Orthodoxy.
It is a matter of what we call "oikonomia" --where pastors (in this case, bishops) have the option of tempering the "rules" to fit the needs of a particular case, out of pastoral love and in pursuit of what appears to be "best" for the people involved (always a judgment call, of course!) If our pastors sometimes err on the side of leniency, it is because they are aware that we are under grace and not law, and realize that they are making judgment calls. When they err on the side of strictness, it is because they are afraid of damaging a person's theosis (literally, "godification" --i.e. growth in grace) by indulging the person's wants at the expense of their needs.
Taken all together, I am very happy not to have to be making those kinds of decisions! And God grant strength and peace to those who have that burden.
Reader Alexis
