quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.

Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?

And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
You might find David Instone-Brewer's work on the Biblical grounds for divorce interesting.

Summed up in a simple presentation here

---

quote:

---

Divorce itself is not sinful, but breaking your marriage vows is sinful

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.

Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?

And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Divorce is a sin. But God forgives sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.

Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?

And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
one of his statements:

quote:

---

Divorce itself is not sinful, but breaking your marriage vows is sinful

---

does not make sense. Divorce is breaking your marriage vows! The vow that goes "till death do us part". This is not conditional, so divorce is a breaking of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Some churches (I am thinking RCC in particular, but there are hardline clergy in the CofE) make divorce the unforgivable sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Divorce is a sin. But God forgives sin.

---

Not every person who is divorced chose to be divorced. I find it hard to call it "sin" when it wasn't chosen (and all the inevitable DH places that goes...)

I'd rather say, "divorce is brokenness". We have divorce because of the brokenness of this world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not every person who is divorced chose to be divorced. I find it hard to call it "sin" when it wasn't chosen (and all the inevitable DH places that goes...)

I'd rather say, "divorce is brokenness". We have divorce because of the brokenness of this world.

---

In a later post, you also note that in many of the US states it does not take 2 to divorce. That is very much the position here, where divorce laws are federal, not state - the only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and the only evidence of that is 12 months separation. So should one party simply walk out and remain away, after 12 months that party can obtain a divorce. The only possible defence is that there has not been the 12 months of living separately and apart, and there is no discretion to refuse a decree.

But here, and in most of the jurisdictions I know of, the marriage recognised by law is a purely secular event to which parties may at their discretion add a religious component*. Divorce law only deals with the secular component** and extends to such matters as ongoing maintenance, distribution of property and custody of children. To hearken back to the Extraordinary Synod thread, it would be a good outcome of that Synod were the Catholic Church to recognise the existence of both components and the validity of the divorce at least for these secular matters.

So to be divorced pure and simple is no impediment to full participation in a church life. There may still be some Anglican churches where a second marriage would not be carried out in the church, and the remarriage treated as resulting in sinful acts. That is the position of most Catholic churches although there are some where a more liberal approach is adopted. In the last 40 years or more, I have not heard of any problems with divorce in the mainline Protestant churches.

* Both are dealt with simultaneously here, unlike the common European practice of 2 ceremonies.

** It is common here for an application for the dissolution of the marriage of a Jewish couple to include a request for an order that the other party take all steps necessary for a Get to be obtained.
 

---

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :
 
Oh goodness, sorry people, I opened the thread, then my battery died... here I am this morning, realising I should have linked to the thread which spawned this one, at least.

On the thread in DH that pointed out kids leaving the church and citing attitudes to GLBT, I pointed out that in the lifetime of the elderly in the churches, attitudes to divorce have changed completely. Methodists have been marrying divorcees for decades, and say, without a trace of irony, that it's not for them to judge, but God.

In my church I am totally acceptable. I could become a lay preacher, my children can be baptised, my husband and I are welcome as a proper couple everywhere, no raised eyebrows or veiled comments.

Interestingly, the young mum who is a lay preacher, missionary, primary school teacher and all round good egg does get some disapproval because she's not married to the baby's dad. Not much, but significantly, from the old guard.

Baby was happy accident. But even so, she was obviously living with the divorced man who is the dad, he is always prevailed upon to fix the church roof or whatever, why should having a baby and being a bloody good parent suddenly bar her from ministry?

To return to me and the DH, for my sister to be acceptable to the church she should leave her wife and be celibate for the rest of her life, apparently. What about if she agreed to be celibate but just loved her wife?

But I divorced my husband because I was terribly unhappy and I've married my current husband. I've since become a Christian. We weren't married in church. I have two girls from my first registry office marriage and two boys from my second.

None of the children are christened because my husband is starting anti church. Though he would also fix the roof because he's a sweetie.

So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.

Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?

And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?

---

I have no knowledge of your circumstances but there is always grace.

I'm a Baptist Pastor and have a few divorced folk in my church and have even officiated over one's (2nd) marriage.

So to answer your question you'd be vey welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?

---

quote:

---

According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony. The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.
The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. The Holy John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin.
............
It is important here to explain a fundamental element of the Orthodox Church’s doctrine, namely that the dissolving of a marriage relationship does not ipso facto grant the right to enter into another marriage.
........
By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness. A second or third marriage will always be a deviation from the “ideal and unique marriage”, but often a fresh opportunity to correct a mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
But I divorced my husband because I was terribly unhappy and I've married my current husband. I've since become a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahleal V:

Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life, as is Ordination. Why should it not be the case for Marriage? (At least, for the life of the couple who are so joined.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahleal V:

Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life, as is Ordination. Why should it not be the case for Marriage? (At least, for the life of the couple who are so joined.)

---

It should be the case. The issues being raised are:
- should the victim of a spouse who cheats/abuses/abandons them be consigned to a life of celibacy because of sins committed by their ex
- what is the likelihood that a cheater who abandons their spouse is capable of living a life of celibacy, and might it not be better for that person to marry rather than burn (to paraphrase Paul)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahleal V:

Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
That's precisely the wrong way of thinking

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are they?
Does being baptised as a baby and then confirmed as a teenager guarantee a life of saving grace and eternal life in the presence of Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Are they?
Does being baptised as a baby and then confirmed as a teenager guarantee a life of saving grace and eternal life in the presence of Christ?

---

A more appropriate analogy is, being baptized as an infant and then as an adult converting to Islam. I suppose those churches that hold to the view that baptism and confirmation are one-time deals, believe that the conversion to another religion is just pretend or make-believe.

Because that's certainly their view of second marriages - that they are a farce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
one of his statements:

quote:

---

Divorce itself is not sinful, but breaking your marriage vows is sinful

---

does not make sense. Divorce is breaking your marriage vows! The vow that goes "till death do us part". This is not conditional, so divorce is a breaking of it.

---

It makes sense to me. "Breaking your marriage vows" refers not to separation, which may happen for any number of reasons, but to infidelity.

So splitting up is not the issue. The issue is getting together with someone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

However, I would personally take an extremely dim view of a remarriage where the person requesting said marriage was the cause of the breakdown of the first relationship, even if if the divorce proceedings were precipitated by the innocent party. And if someone has left a marriage specifically to pursue a second relationship with a particular person, I would refuse outright.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does being baptised as a baby and then confirmed as a teenager guarantee a life of saving grace and eternal life in the presence of Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
These things are cheapened beyond measure if one beliefs that they are simply a pre-paid insurance policy against damnation. I would have thought that one should actually live up to one's baptism and confirmation. I see nothing in the Bible that suggests these two ceremonies are sufficient and have no need to living faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I am speaking from my own opinion, and not in regard to the view held by the Roman Catholic Church. The person I responded to is an Anglican. Feel free to have a problem with my thinking, but to call it wrong, within the context of the Church of England's view on divorce, is inappropriate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Why would it be inappropriate for me to call your thinking and apparently the CofE's view wrong, given that they are both at odds with reality and the truth in my opinion? If you had said something like "the CofE teaches that ...", then it might be inappropriate to call that wrong. Because your opinion about what the CofE teaches could be right, even if the CofE teaches falsehood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for people to draw lines when people are not really in a position to judge the relative "wrongness" of any marriage breakdown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for people to draw lines when people are not really in a position to judge the relative "wrongness" of any marriage breakdown.

---

What isn't a minister in a position to judge the causes of a marital breakdown?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
]In my view, no, nor is it their job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed. It's why baptismal regeneration is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
]In my view, no, nor is it their job.

---

I find it odd - that church staff do premarital courses and marriage courses, but in your view are not in suitable position to counsel on remarriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
You are picking a fight with me, based on an entirely reasonable post that doesn't say what one should or must think, but simply lists two of the issues being debated in this thread. Take it to Hell buddy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?

---

In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?

---

In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.

---

Which gets us back to where we came in. How would a minister ever know they had a full and unbiased appraisal of the facts?

In reality, only a couple of people really know who left whom for whom and why. I wouldn't want to be the judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?

---

In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.

---

Which gets us back to where we came in. How would a minister ever know they had a full and unbiased appraisal of the facts?

In reality, only a couple of people really know who left whom for whom and why. I wouldn't want to be the judge.

---

Obviously no one can ever fully know another one's heart, the hidden sins, their motives, the complex mitigating factors. And none of us perfectly knows the heart of God and how divine mercy tempers divine judgment.

But a pastor is called most of all to "the cure of souls"-- to provide life-giving counsel that requires us to enter into that fraught territory. We will do so imperfectly. We will blunder and assume wrongly. Hopefully, we do all that with a huge dose of humility and compassion-- and a tremendous amount of prayer. But asking a pastor now to weigh in on a matter of such spiritual significance is like asking a fire-fighter not to venture near fire. That's our job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
There's a distinction, isn't there, between counselling on remarriage and determining whether remarriage is actually *possible*?

---

In many churches, remarriage is considered possible, and it is in that context mudfrog, being a Salvation Army officer, speaks. And as he says, in such a church the minister may use his discretion to determine whether or not he is willing to perform a remarriage under the circumstances presented.

---

Which gets us back to where we came in. How would a minister ever know they had a full and unbiased appraisal of the facts?

In reality, only a couple of people really know who left whom for whom and why. I wouldn't want to be the judge.

---

Obviously no one can ever fully know another one's heart, the hidden sins, their motives, the complex mitigating factors. And none of us perfectly knows the heart of God and how divine mercy tempers divine judgment.

But a pastor is called most of all to "the cure of souls"-- to provide life-giving counsel that requires us to enter into that fraught territory. We will do so imperfectly. We will blunder and assume wrongly. Hopefully, we do all that with a huge dose of humility and compassion-- and a tremendous amount of prayer. But asking a pastor now to weigh in on a matter of such spiritual significance is like asking a fire-fighter not to venture near fire. That's our job.

---

My view is that it is a minister's job to have a view in the context of the confessional (or private counsel, for those who don't practice auricular confession). But it seems to me that by permitting or refusing a second marriage, a minister effectively makes a public statement about how "guilty" or "innocent" someone was in the break-down of a previous marriage. That seems like a huge responsibility and one that I would have thought it was difficult to exercise fairly in most communities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahleal V:
I'm honestly curious as to why so many posters presume that divorce allows for a re-marriage as opposed to separation?

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." [Luke 16:18 ESV]

Baptism is for life, Confirmation is for life, as is Ordination. Why should it not be the case for Marriage? (At least, for the life of the couple who are so joined.)

These are hard words, indeed. But the NT is full of hard words, some of them considerably harder then these.

I never thought I was a particularly extreme Anglican, but I seem to be quite out of pace with the thinking on this one.

x

AV

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?

---

No, you are not in trouble with God, how should you be? "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)

The point to the divorce sayings, whatever you make of them, is guidance in the future. It is not to make forgiven, washed-clean Christians worry about the past.

As Paul puts it, after naming off a bunch of sins, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)

That's it. Finished. End of story. Forgiven. Over.

At this point, if you go back to God on it and start fussing about shades of possible guilt and what-should-I-do-now, you're likely to get a pair of raised eyebrows and "What? Whatever are you talking about?"

Because "I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
(Hebrews 8:12)

He really meant it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... But it seems to me that by permitting or refusing a second marriage, a minister effectively makes a public statement about how "guilty" or "innocent" someone was in the break-down of a previous marriage. That seems like a huge responsibility and one that I would have thought it was difficult to exercise fairly in most communities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?

---

No, you are not in trouble with God, how should you be? "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)

The point to the divorce sayings, whatever you make of them, is guidance in the future. It is not to make forgiven, washed-clean Christians worry about the past.

As Paul puts it, after naming off a bunch of sins, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)

That's it. Finished. End of story. Forgiven. Over.

At this point, if you go back to God on it and start fussing about shades of possible guilt and what-should-I-do-now, you're likely to get a pair of raised eyebrows and "What? Whatever are you talking about?"

Because "I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
(Hebrews 8:12)

He really meant it.

---

Thank you for this loving and generous response. I believe it. So it is understood that I shouldn't attempt to leave my current husband and return to the first one? Because it would hurt all the children involved, even if it were possible?

So for my sister, who is in a loving long term relationship with another woman, is it equally understood that to break this relationship would cause nothing but pain, to their ability to function in the world, as well as to all the children who call them mum, auntie, grandma?

I do want her to go back to the church, but it feels a place of impossible contradiction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Enoch -- Are you advocating that the Church of England shouldn't perform any weddings, even heterosexual first marriages and only perform blessings after a civil marriage? That seems very French.

---

And what a great system it is. Marriage isn't just for Christians you know. I find the approach here sidesteps a whole host of problems.

To me it seems very odd that a vicar or other non-civil servant should be able to perform the duties of an officer of the state.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Sorry Taliesin, I've come back after supper and realise I've cross posted with your posts. I was replying to one by Erroneous Monk.

My view, for what it's worth, is that you're married to the person you're married to at the moment. Your commitment is to be the best possible wife to him in every sense and mother to all your children, irrespective of which marriage they come from.

Your first marriage is dead. Gone. Irrespective of how or why, you must not and should not be looking over your shoulder and asking yourself questions about this. All that could do is undermine your commitment to the life you are now living.

The law of Moses is wise in that where people have divorced and married other people, it forbade them from marrying the original spouse again, ever, even if both of them become free.

As for your sister, I really can't answer and am not going to. She isn't asking the question and it's for her and her partner to answer for how they live, not you or me. It's not news to anyone to say that people have widely divergent views on same sex relationships. There's a whole board on the ship where people spend days arguing about them. All I would say, is that irrespective of anyone's view on same sex relationships, if she has entered into a civil partnership, the commitments it creates take priority over those arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Enoch -- Are you advocating that the Church of England shouldn't perform any weddings, even heterosexual first marriages and only perform blessings after a civil marriage? That seems very French.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd say logic demands that CofE clergy in the diocese of Europe in countries like France where all church weddings follow civil ceremonies, should do all weddings as blessings of weddings that have already happened rather than perform a second illusory wedding ceremony. I've no idea whether that's actually the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
So here is my question to bible believing Christians, am I in trouble with God, and what do I actually do about it?

---

No, you are not in trouble with God, how should you be? "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)

The point to the divorce sayings, whatever you make of them, is guidance in the future. It is not to make forgiven, washed-clean Christians worry about the past.

As Paul puts it, after naming off a bunch of sins, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)

That's it. Finished. End of story. Forgiven. Over.

At this point, if you go back to God on it and start fussing about shades of possible guilt and what-should-I-do-now, you're likely to get a pair of raised eyebrows and "What? Whatever are you talking about?"

Because "I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
(Hebrews 8:12)

He really meant it.

---

Thank you for this loving and generous response. I believe it.
Snip.

---

I am grateful for Lamb Chopped words of grace, which really are our Lord's.

And it is in that spirit that I hope you, and they, might be able to come back to church. Because there is no entrance exam, no prerequisite. Just come.

It is understood that when people come to Christ, the Holy Spirit lives inside them, and that changes stuff. That may mean changes down the road-- for you, for your sister and her partner. For me. For all of us. It's impossible at this point to predict what those changes might be, because God's agenda is so seldom our agenda. But it all begins simply by coming, and being open to the Spirit.

---

I wanted the thread to end here. Beautiful, both of you. And Enoch, later, oddly enough.

Many thanks, all, that's me done here.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
God bless you! And all of us.
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I wanted to address this verse

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." [Luke 16:18 ESV]

I think we should look at the sociological context of the verse in order to understand it. In Jesus' day it was the man that had all the rights when it came to marriage. All a man had to do was to say. "I divorce you" three times and it was a done deed. Women had no rights. They were to do the husband's bidding. If she could not satisfy him it was very easy for him to break it off. He did not worry about having to satisfy her at all.

What would happen to women if they got divorced? It was pretty ugly. They became castaways. They usually were not accepted back into their family of origin. They would lose their children. They had to come up with a way of supporting themselves; and, more often than not it met they became prostitutes. Needless to say most women would want to avoid that at all costs.

Consequently, when Jesus tells his listeners that if a man divorces his wife to marry another he is the one committing adultery. The man is violating the trust of his wife.

Don't forget that when a person (usually the woman) was accused of adultery, rabbinical law would say the person should be stoned to death. So Jesus is saying "You better think hard about divorcing your wife, because if you do you should be stoned to death."

Conversely women who had been divorced were easy marks. They would likely do anything to avoid the life that would be in store for them. Often they were forced to accept marriages which were worse than what they originally had. Think, sexual slavery.

Yes, Jesus was using strong words. But he was addressing a terrible situation, especially for women.

It is not the act of divorce that is sinful, but the actions that lead up to that divorce. But I have to ask, which is worse: staying in a loveless relationship which leaves everyone hurting or recognizing the relationship has died and moving on? There are necessary evils, especially if it gives the parties a chance to have a fulfilling life.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Aye Gramps49. Context. Luke 16:18 has none around that text.

Luke 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Remarriage after divorce (only a man's prerogative) is a sin.

Paralleled with an exception in Matthew (the net of context widens):

Matthew 5:31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Remarriage by a man after divorce EXCEPT for his wife's adultery is a sin. Marrying a divorced woman under any circumstances is adultery of course therefore. Why isn't that canon law?

Which abrogates which?

Paul wasn't concerned with such legalism and obviously understood Jesus' teachings as hyperbole, not timeless, universal, narrow absolutes. Ethics are more important than rules.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

... and widens ...

The trajectory of the law as deconstructed and amplified by Jesus is humane, six times in the Beatitudes alone. Never inhumane. Everybody knows what that means.

... and widens ...
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Full disclosure: I am planning to marry a person with a living previous spouse (I don’t have a ring on my finger yet, but it is very, very obviously on its way). So this is kind of personal to me (and I reserve the right to back out if it gets heated, although for the moment I’m pleased to be finding this discussion remarkably civilised).

People’s reactions to divorce and remarriage are kind of interesting IME and show a lot about the way they understand grace. Example: my pastor recently went for coffee and Serious Discussion™ with my boyfriend.

He (my boyfriend) didn’t relate the whole conversation to me, but the salient bit was this: “I don’t care about your past. It’s your future that I’m interested in. I don’t need or indeed want to know what happened between you and your ex so long as you’re sure you’ve dealt with the fallout. OTOH, la vie en rouge does need to know. Have you talked to her about it?” (FTR, yes he has and while he certainly didn’t do everything right in his first marriage, he was more sinned against than sinning AFAICT.) Anyway, "I care about your future, not your past" is the reason I know I’m in the right church. That is what grace is about.

Other people (basically all GLEs) can’t handle it all. One person (her parents are divorced, and I think she still has a lot of hurt about it) started off with “do you know what happened in the marriage” to which my answer was pretty much “yes, but you don’t need to know and I’m not telling you.” She then asked me if I know my boyfriend’s ex to get her side of the story. Because that would be the perfect way to build trust . This person cannot believe that a person would ever really change. It’s inconceivable to her that I don’t need to dig around all the gory details of the marriage from every angle because I actually trust my boyfriend to tell me what I need to know. In her head he’s a divorcee and ergo untrustworthy for life.

Then you get the “but I always hope they could get back together, and haven’t you watched Fireproof?” Sweetheart, Fireproof is a movie (and quite frankly not a very good one ), and real life isn’t always quite so neat. Also my boyfriend and his ex have been divorced for over ten years, so it’s probably a bit late for that question now. (Actually, at the time, my boyfriend wanted to try to save the marriage. His ex didn’t. Sometimes it really does only take one to divorce.)

And yes, I do think some people look at divorce as the great unforgiveable. One really weird incident – one of the very few people who came up to me directly to give me a speech. “Maybe I’m religious (why yes, yes you are) but you know… marriage is an image of Christ and the church and bla bla bla…” I find out a few weeks later that the guy’s own son is going through a divorce. Figure that one out, if you will.

There are definitely a small number of people who are ticked off because they figure that the Divorced Sinner™ boyfriend en rouge doesn’t deserve to be with someone as fabulous as me, but again, I don’t think they have an awesome handle on grace. That’s what grace is – getting what you don’t deserve because God is nice like that. Also he agrees with them that he doesn’t deserve it and consequently is doing his best to conduct himself in a suitably grateful manner. As a result he treats me like the Queen He spoils me rotten and I couldn’t ask to be treated with more respect. (Besides which he knows from hard experience that divorce bloody hurts and he has no interest in ever suffering like that again so he is pretty determined to marry the right person and make it work this time.)

Another thought that I heard recently from a lady who teaches a lot on relationships: the Bible says that God brings beauty out of the ashes. In the case of divorce, yes there is devastation, but God can bring something beautiful out of it, which might be a future with a different person. However, what God doesn’t do is bring beauty out of the embers. Until the fire has completely gone out and you’ve made your peace with the failed marriage (on the inside of yourself at least – you can’t always do much about the other’s person’s feelings), you aren’t ready to be with someone else.

And now the bit where I think the heat might arise – that thing about remarriage being adultery. I gave this some very serious thought, and when I did, I realised how odd Jesus’ statement is. Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of grace, makes a statement that is harsher than the law. What is that all about? Looking at the context in Matthew, I realised that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees – and it comes right next to a load of “you have heard it said, but I say to you” statements. The point of all these (don’t murder? Forget that, don’t insult your brother) is to say that if you want to keep the law, you need to keep it all, and to its pristine standard. So never mind giving your wife a certificate of divorce, you must never get divorced ever. Too hard? Can’t be done? Then in that case, you might just be better off under grace. In which case ISTM that remarriage is still up for grabs if you’ve truly understood what grace is about.

(I feel like that was a bit muddled, but hopefully someone will be able to figure out what I’m rambling on about )
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
And now the bit where I think the heat might arise – that thing about remarriage being adultery. I gave this some very serious thought, and when I did, I realised how odd Jesus’ statement is. Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of grace, makes a statement that is harsher than the law. What is that all about? Looking at the context in Matthew, I realised that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees – and it comes right next to a load of “you have heard it said, but I say to you” statements. The point of all these (don’t murder? Forget that, don’t insult your brother) is to say that if you want to keep the law, you need to keep it all, and to its pristine standard. So never mind giving your wife a certificate of divorce, you must never get divorced ever. Too hard? Can’t be done? Then in that case, you might just be better off under grace. In which case ISTM that remarriage is still up for grabs if you’ve truly understood what grace is about.

---

Well said!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think there is some misreading going on. Or missing the point. The "certificate of divorce", that is the get, is the man giving his ex-wife permission to remarry. It is not a legal separation, they had those as well. So there is no notion here of divorce without remarriage - that's a false reading added later in a different context.


In the law as they had it at the time a man could do that but a woman couldn't. So insofar as it was wrong for a once-married woman to remarry, her ex-husband caused her (and her new husband) to commit adultery by granting the certificate.

In our system either the husband or the wife (or both together) go to a court to seek permission to remarry. In their system the husband was in effect the "court" the wife had to apply to. It was up to him.

The legal point Jesus is addressing is whether or not he can grant that permission for any reason he fancies (whether or not his wife actually wants it) or if he needs a serious reason to. Jesus's opinion is that he needs a serious reason, such as adultery or other infidelity.

But it is explicitly about permission to remarry - not about separation.
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
LVER (and anyone else this subject impacts on) - I can really recommend David Instone-Brewer's book on all this. I think Ken recommended it (?) - I bought it a while back. I don't think it'll change your mind on anything (and personally, I don't suppose your mind needs changing) - but it will give you a solid feel for why some other opinions you have heard which feel wrong, probably are wrong. I think you'd enjoy it, and it would be really sensible reading as part of a Christian preparation for marriage in these circumstances.

cheers
Mark
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
la vie en rouge - your final para says it all. Why would Jesus be a narrow minded reactionary ... fascist in only ONE regard only?
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
LVER (and anyone else this subject impacts on) - I can really recommend David Instone-Brewer's book on all this. I think Ken recommended it (?) - I bought it a while back.

---

Thanks - I just downloaded it. If this conversation hasn't died a death by then, I'll come back later and let you know what I think.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It's perfick. I've been going on about it here for a couple of years. It must be good, IngoB dismisses it out of hand.

The main tenet is that if a slave wife had the right to walk away free from a loveless non-marriage, Jesus abrogated that for a desert empty of intimacy?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Hate to rain on the party, the more so because I agree with much of the philosophy--but you can't use the slave wife example to support it. A (former) slave wife could never be sold again into slavery once she had been married to the master or master's son. Also, if he did any of a certain list of things (including refusing conjugal rights) she could walk out free and he couldn't do a darn thing about it. However, the text says nothing about love etc. Moses' law tends to deal with the concrete and provable.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I think there is some misreading going on. Or missing the point. The "certificate of divorce", that is the get, is the man giving his ex-wife permission to remarry. It is not a legal separation, they had those as well. So there is no notion here of divorce without remarriage - that's a false reading added later in a different context.


In the law as they had it at the time a man could do that but a woman couldn't. So insofar as it was wrong for a once-married woman to remarry, her ex-husband caused her (and her new husband) to commit adultery by granting the certificate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
This is not rhetorical.

Divorce is a sin, I am divorced. Can anyone tell me what the churches response to me, is? What am I actually supposed to do?

And if you're a trendy liberal who can't see why people fuss about marriage in general and same sex marriage in particular, then obviously I'm not talking to you, savvy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
TubaMirum, if anything could convince me to throw all the Ship's Commandments out the window now, your post would do it. HTH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
divorce is NOT a sin.

Lovelessness is.

TubaMirum's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
TubaMirum, if anything could convince me to throw all the Ship's Commandments out the window now, your post would do it. HTH.


[Duplicate post deleted - Eliab]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because the manner in which you state it appears to be contrary to Jesus message and manner. It appears quite rude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Apologies to all for my wrong-doing here; I didn't mean to screw this up, but I did.

Sorry folks.

---

Handsomely done. Apologizing isn't easy.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And I'm sorry first to the Hosts, as I must be, AGAIN. I am without excuse, there isn't any to be had (only temptation and compulsion), but I really am and repent of the ad hominem to you TubaMirum.
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
]In my view, no, nor is it their job.

---

I find it odd - that church staff do premarital courses and marriage courses, but in your view are not in suitable position to counsel on remarriage.

---

I think the point here is that no outsider is in a position to judge the proportion, responsibility or guilt involved in each individual's contribution to the breakdown of a marriage. Often the couple themselves would be pushed to divvy up the responsibility. Making such a judgement is quite a different matter from counselling before marriage or re-marriage.

@ Ingob - sorry, couldn't find the correct letter on Charactermap.

Re the permanence of ordination. There is such a thing as laicisation, in effect "unpriesting". It can also apply to members of religious orders.
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Whoops - I was way behind the fair there. It had all been said before.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0