The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

Thanks Cindy. I’m actually working now on a book on UR. It’s slow going though. I’ll likely have several people read and critique it not just for editing purposes, but for content and clarity also. I’d greatly appreciate your help when I finish, though it might be a year or more. Thanks again.

Oh, and btw, my book was actually used as a required text for a class in Family Law in Regent University’s law school. A student told me about it being a required text so I contacted the professor asking why my little theology book would be a required text for his class. He replied that he was a Messianic Jew and very much appreciated my take on the Mosaic Law. In the book I write on how the Mosaic Law was the foundation for civil and religious authority and domestic life in Israel. And MDR was primarily under domestic/familial control, but with limited civil oversight, and NO priestly oversight. And assuming Moses was inspired by God to order it that way, I think we’d do well to follow that pattern for our cultures.

Wow! Very cool, Sherman. I’ve ordered a copy, and I can’t wait to read it. :smiley:

Blessings, Cindy

We are all suffering from heart disease to a lesser or greater extent. The question is, if we take two couples both suffering from heart disease, one couple may divorce, the other remain together: now which couple does more damage to themselves (their partner), their children, and society as a whole.How many of these couples have chilkdren who would WANT their parents to divorce?

It is not as simple as that. God has ordained governments for the welfare of citizens in all areas. That does not remove responsibilities from individuals.
Do you think God has not ordained governments to regulate speed limits on the roads? After all, I don’t see it in the Bible.

Ask yourself that question about speed limits.

It is incorrect to think that state laws in any way diminish/devalue individual responsibilities. On the contrary, far from being mutually exclusive, the one supports and encourages the other.

Many people ignore laws of theft or murder. That point proves nothing.

It is true that there are good and bad law, good and bad governments. I do not know what this proves.

I assume that one of the points of this thread is for us to amicably to discuss what laws we think may be wise and what would not be.
I for one, would be happy to see laws which encouraged couples with families to stay together.

And likewise, many stay together DESPITE hardening of the heart. But if, by “hardening of the heart” you mean a lack of (ability to) love, do you really think that it is good for these folk to move on to their next partner whilst carrying this disease of the heart? (Let alone the damage it does to the children involved).

Again, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive so pitting these two against each other is a false argument. In addition, the way to empower people to walk in love is to encourage them to stay together. True love is about learning to love the ‘unlovable’. It is about selfless giving.

And yet you seem to want to encourage more broken marriages by promoting the norm of walking in and out of marriage at will.

Civil laws can undoubtedly reduce (or increase) the divorce cohorts.
What I am getting from you is that you do not think divorce is a bad thing. If it IS a bad thing, then the answer is surely - try by all means available to avoid it.

Then we should discard the fruit whilst we try to solve the insoluble problem of the branch (or even ‘root’).

The two are not at all comparable. Laws and morays have an undoubted influence on the divorce rate, I know of no laws or cultural morays which affect the final death toll in the slightest.

I don’t know how you can say that and believe in UR. Personally, I have not yet come across one human being with whom I could not have some sort of relationship. Isn’t the usual cause for divorce a ‘dissatisfaction’ by one partner? The grass always looks greener so why shouldn’t I inflict my heart disease on a younger, better-looking soul than my present mate?

Again, no-one except yourself has used the term ‘forbidding’. Relationships evolve they don’t ‘die’ in a literal sense. Any metaphorically ‘dead’ relationship has chance of new life if the person involved has the will. UR teaches us this amongst other things.

But you seem to have focused on the polar opposite. It is yourself who seems to be promoting the killing of a relationship by walking away from it so that the heartache may be potentially repeated a second or third time. This is the sort of society you seem to be promoting.

Once again, we have hardly touched on the issue of the issue (pun intended -I mean children).

In your experience is a divorce good for the children?
How many divorces do you know of where the children were WANTING their parents to divorce?
These are the innocent helpless victims.

Let me repeat that I could care less how many childless couples choose to divorce.

Now please understand that I am not interested in supporting some churches attitude to divorce but are you really saying that your parents divorce was due in no small part to your church being against divorce? Surely it must have been almost entirely due to some dissatisfaction with the relationship?

Good morning Pilgrim,

It seems that you are completely misunderstanding me. I’ve repeatedly written that divorce is tragic, a bad thing, and usually devestating to all involved, especially to children of divorce. Our goal should be healthy, happy, lasting marriages. "‘In the beginning God created them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no one should separate.”

Do I believe that civil government can help couple’s stay together? Yes, to a small degree, through a system of rewards and penalties. But I sure don’t put much hope in my civil government (USA) doing so well. From what I see in government, the more the government tries to control people’s personal and domestic lives, the more the problems increase. Thus I do not put any effort into promoting legislation that would give the government more control over our personal or domestic lives.

It seems that you think my efforts in highlighting how fragile and breakable marriages are in some way indicates that I think marriages should be broken for any reason. But this is not what I’ve said or believe. I believe that by recognizing that marriage is fragile, breakable, far from indissoluble, such can help motivate people to protect their marriages. For example, which does one show more care for, a priceless solid gold antique statue or a priceless fragile China vase? The China vase, of course! Why? Because it is “fragile”, breakable!

The church, in teaching that marriage is indissoluble has set up people to fail in marriage because they often 1) do not focus on finding a mate with character, 2) do not realize that there are reasonable expectations within marriage, 3) do not take the necessary steps to lay a solid foundation for their marriage, feed their marriage to keep it healthy, go to the doctor when it is sick, or guard their marriage. The traditional doctrine of indissolubility sets people up to fail at marriage because they do not recognize the reality that their marriage is breakable.

Furthermore, the church in errantly teaching that MDR is under ecclesial authority has further removed itself from reality. MDR is not under church authority in any culture that I know of. It was not under ecclesial authority in NT times. And in the Mosaic Law God inspired Moses to put whatever regulations there were concerning MDR under civil authority, not ecclesial authority.

So, concerning your idea that it be made law that divorce be made impossible for couples with children until the children are 18, well, civil government is the way to go. What penalties would you impose on couples with children who do not stay together? Monetary fines? Emprisonment? And for couples bent on splitting up regardless of the needs of their children, would penalizing them in any way help the children? Would forbidding them to legally divorce help? I don’t think so.

There is a movement in the US for special legislation called Covenant Marriage where couples contracturally agree to specific restrictions on their marriage. For example, many states require a period of seperation of a year in the hopes of giving the couple time to work out their problems before a divorce if granted. In Covenant Marriages the couple agrees contracturally to lengthen that time to 2 years or more.

Debating various civil laws in regards to MDR is very similar to the Shammaite/Hillelite Any-Matter (No-Fault) divorce debate that the Pharisees (civil leaders during the time of Christ) tried to trap Jesus in as recorded in Mat. 19. The Shammaites affirmed a fault-based divorce proceeding, the Hillelites, a No-Fault system. The Pharisees tried to drag Jesus into that argument. Instead though, He pointed them back to the goal, that couples should stay together. They then asked Jesus why Moses gave the bill of divorce. Jesus replied highlighting that it was to deal with the Agunah problem, women being expelled from their family and home, and yet not freed to legally marry another man, and being able to be reclaimed by their husband later if he wills, possibly breaking up her 2nd family. The bill of divorce was meant to mitigate the oppression of women common in the cultures of the ancient Near East. And it did this through bringing a legal end to a relationship that was otherwise already broken, liberating the woman from an abusive situation/relationship.

Concerning the topic of legislatively enacting a law that forbids married couples with children to remain married until all the children are 18, well, maybe a specific thread on that would be helpful. I doubt that I would participate in that thread much except a comment or two because I don’t think that such a law is practical or would be enforceable. What do we do about the problem of couples having children out of wedlock? Do we penalize them some way? As you can tell by my questions, I do not think civil law can help much in such domestic matters.

Thank you for that clarification and blessings to you too. It’s much appreciated.

Then we are in full agreement on this one.

I think that you have indicated that divorces should be easily obtainable. Whether you believe marriages should be broken for any reason is not my concern. My concern is that if divorce has no social stigma and is readily available, then some couples will divorce for any reason whether you wish that or not. So I maintain that your stance will increase the divorce rate.

I believe that is is the healthy relationship WITHIN marriage that CAN be fragile. Marriage itself is made MORE fragile the more easily one allows divorce. I don’t think I’ve given an opinion here. I’ve made a simple statement of fact. I think it is helpful if you make distinction between ‘marriage’ and the relationship within said marriage.

Now, on this one you’ve lost me completely!
Firstly I’m unsure as to whether the “they” in your sentence refers to the church or the couple
But: a) I do not see why the church teaching that marriage is permanent means that the church does not focus on the characters of the mates
b) neither do I see why the church teaching that marriage is permanent means that the individual does not focus on the character of his/her potential mate

I understand the complete opposite. If a couple understands that a marriage is permanent, it makes absolute sense to me that they are more likely to be careful in every respect of their marriage.

I disagree and again I think you need to distinguish between the ‘marriage’ and the ‘healthy relationship’ within the marriage.
The two concepts of a marriage being permanent and the relationship of the couple being fragile are not mutually exclusive and my own experience of church emphasising the error divorce taught me to be more careful about who I should choose for my permanent mate and also to make the best of/nurture and tend the relationship within the marriage because I do not have the liberty to walk away from it.

I have not studied this so I bow to your superior knowledge. I know this: ‘For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ I also believe that is is difficult to distinguish between civil and spiritual laws in the days of Moses as they were attempting a Theocratic state.

I have not said that a law should make it impossible. I have said that I am against divorce for those with children and I have said that I believe government should introduce legislation which would reduce the divorce rate for such couples. In addition I would hope for greater social stigma to divorce as was the case in the early 20th Century (and prior to that).

I have not suggested these things and I am happy to leave the actual measures to those who are more expert than myself but one obvious approach would be tax incentives and disincentives. Also for the UK, going back to the divorce laws of the 1960’s would have an instant and dramatic effect on the thousands of men in the UK who feel they can walk away from women repeatedly after having sired some offspring.

I think you’re referring to almost ALL divorcees at this point, and YES I believe that it WOULD help the children because it would keep more couples together.

And I think it would which is what makes our exchange of views valuable. I hope to learn from this exchange.

There is a movement in the US for special legislation called Covenant Marriage where couples contracturally agree to specific restrictions on their marriage. For example, many states require a period of seperation of a year in the hopes of giving the couple time to work out their problems before a divorce if granted. In Covenant Marriages the couple agrees contracturally to lengthen that time to 2 years or more.

I cannot argue with that.

Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be–the two–for one flesh?
Mat 19:6 so that they are no more two, but one flesh; what therefore God did join together, let no man put asunder.’
Mat 19:7 They say to him, Why then did Moses command to give a roll of divorce, and to put her away?' Mat 19:8 He saith to them--Moses for your stiffness of heart did suffer you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so.

I assume that your ‘Agunah’ problem is not specifically referenced in this text? I mean, you are involved here in something more than exegesis and therefore we lay ourselves open to speculation?
Jesus clearly said that, when married, two become one and no man should separate.

And neither would I be inclined to participate because I have never suggested such a law. Neither do I think a second thread on the topic of divorce is necessary.

They should be encouraged to marry.

They should e encouraged to marry.

If the state ‘opts out’, then it has involved itself in marriage by that very act. Government has its part to play in the welfare of it’s citizens and it is equally culpable whether by its action or its inaction.
Government IS involved in MDR whether it wants to be or not, just as it IS involved in speed limits on the road -(if it opts out it is just as culpable as making a bad speed-law, it cannot escape).

What I DO infer from your questions and answers is that you are primarily, if not entirely, concerned with the happiness of the couple rather than the welfare of the children.

I don’t want to dominate this thread any further, so I thank you for your engagement and pray you God’s blessings on your endeavors to study and help all in this crucial area.

I’ll break this up into a couple of replies.

Nope, have not said or indicated “that divorces should be easily obtainable”. I haven’t made any assertions for or against that. I’ve simply pointed out that in the Mosaic Law, divorce was very easy; a man only need write out a bill of divorce and give it to his wife. What would be the best way for civil authority to mitigate divorce, I don’t know. Will making stricter rules for couples with children help? And in reality it already is because of custody and alimony issues.

Ok, I understand your distinction. Marriage is the legal union of a couple, creating a new family unity. Should marriage, the legal union, be made more difficult to obtain, even making marriage indissoluble? The Catholic Church tried to do so and I don’t think it helped much. And today, many people choose to disregard the path of getting legally married anyhow because they do not want to give control of their domestic lives over to the government.

In my experience, people enter marriage thinking that the legal union will somehow make their relationship healthier and lasting, when the legal union does little, if anything, to strengthen the relationship. My point in this is to highlight that if someone wants a lasting relationship, he/she needs to get in a relationship with a person of character. By teaching that marriage is indissoluble (unbreakable), the church isn’t teaching reality. Reality is both relationships and marriage is breakable.

But reality is that marriage is not “permanant”. Marriage ends in death and far to often in divorce. So if couples think of their marriage as being “permanant”, they are not dealing with reality.

What do you mean by “error of divorce”? Are you saying that in general divorce is wrong and will not solve anyone’s issues? If so, I agree. Or are you saying that, as some do, that marriage is indissoluble and once a couple marries they are forever married in the eyes of God and though they obtain a legal divorce they are still married under God’s judgment, and thus any subsequent marriages, though legal, are not real marriages in the eyes of God?

Moses established both religious and civil authorities for Israel. If an offense was punished by civil authority, I consider it a civil law. If something was regulated by the priesthood, I consider it a religious matter. MDR was primarily a domestic matter with minimum civil oversight. The priesthood supported the family, but did not judicate issues concerning MDR.

Being the child of a divorce, I whole-heartedly disagree with you about the “social stigma” issue. My mom and dad are both loving and caring people, generous, an asset to the community, excellent friends and neighbors, etc. etc. etc. They both wanted a lasting marriage, but things happened and both made mistakes, and our family was tore apart. Because of the “social stigma” and abandonment they both felt, exclusion from the church, and distancing of friends, both actually considered suicide, and suffered for years under relational privation. The natural ramifications of divorce are bad enough without the self-righteous among us looking down on them. And not only did my parents suffer under social stigma, but we children did to. My brother to this day is angry over the unjust and evil treatment he recieved because of my parents being divorced. People don’t need our judgment, they need our love and support. Let God do the judging, especially in such domestic personal matters, I believe.

So you want someone to make some kind of law that will effectively help solidify marriages where children are involved. Well, that’s a great wish.
Not being familiar with UK law, now or in the 60’s, I have no comment except to say what you’re dealing with there is fathers not supporting their children, not marriage. Or were there laws that penalized men for fathering children outside marriage? Or were they considered legally married if they had a child together?

I don’t think so, but I certainly could be wrong.

There is a movement in the US for special legislation called Covenant Marriage where couples contracturally agree to specific restrictions on their marriage. For example, many states require a period of seperation of a year in the hopes of giving the couple time to work out their problems before a divorce if granted. In Covenant Marriages the couple agrees contracturally to lengthen that time to 2 years or more.

It’s more than speculation. If one studies the actual wording of the Mosaic Law on the bill of divorce and the cultural issue it addressed and the text in question, it’s apparent to me that Jesus is explaining why God inspired Moses to legislatively enact the bill of divorce. Divorce was actually new to the ancient Near East. Before that marriage was acutally “indissoluble”. If a man married a woman, she was forever his. He could abuse her, expell her, abandon her, use her as he desired. And if he expelled her and she went and “married” someone else, he could actually reclaim her later if he desired to do so. King David did this with Michal, Saul’s daughter.

Why did God inspire Moses to legislatively enact the bill of divorce, to make marriage breakable?

  1. Because of the hard-heartedness, stiff-necked rebellion of people. It was not God’s ideal, what He desires for us and what we ennately desire for us and our loved ones. It brought a legal end to toxic relationships! And
  2. To stop a man from putting away his wife, causing her to commit adultery and any man that marries her to commit adultery - the Agunah problem. In exegesis, understanding the Cultural Context is as important as understanding the Literary Context, I think, as well as the Historical and Authorial context.

Yes government has a role in MDR; as I’ve shared before though, I just don’t have much faith in any human government to effectively be much help. And I find it often hurts more than helps. Thus I focus on empowering people to walk in love and grace and make wise decisions for themselves instead of looking to the government to control them.

I don’t know how you arrived at that opinion. I have not stated such or implied such. I recongnize that “happiness” is a key element of a healthy relationship, but it is not nearly the sole element or the most important. And couples that are not happy together for long periods of time are in danger of divorce. I see divorce as the fruit of the problem, not the root. And thus I seek to deal with the root problem, root problems. And I do not see weak civil legislation as a root problem, much less strong legislation as helping much with anything but the fruit.

It is true that my focus in the discussion and of my book is not on how to stop divorce or how divorce negatively effects everyone, especially children. I mention that and recognize such, and in my book try to highlight that through an interesting parable. Rather, my focus is on refuting the traditional doctrine of the church concerning MDR, and setting forth what I believe to be a much more scriptural, practical, and empowering doctrine of MDR, empowering people in righteous living.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion. And it is helpful to clarify a difference between the relationship and the marriage, and keep in mind that marriage is the legal union of the couple. Though, that is also a debatable definition itself. Are couples that choose to live together, raise children together, etc. without being legally wed married? Many states actually have legislation recognizing such relationships, common-law marriages.

One of the most interesting things I uncovered in my study of the passages concerning MDR is the amazing differences between Mat.19 and Mark 10, which likely records the same incident. Matthew 19 is very Jewish specific, dealing with the Pharisees and the Any Matter (No Fault) divorce debate, and Jesus explaining why Moses was inspired to make marriage breakable and legislatively enact divorce. Mark skips all that and sets the discussion as primarily being with the disciples. Mark likely wrote to a Gentile, Roman audience. Whereas Matthew wrote to Jews. In Jewish civil law, a woman could not divorce her husband. Under Roman law a woman could divorce her husband as easily as a man could divorce his wife, simply by leaving the relationship. That’s why Jesus addresses both men and women in Mark.

NIV 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

The above translation fails to reflect that the word translated “divorces, apoluo” and “marries, gameo” is actually in the subjunctive mood and thus can indicate intent. Peterson in The Message brings this out interpreting it as:

10-12When they were back home, the disciples brought it up again. Jesus gave it to them straight: “A man who divorces his wife **so he can marry someone else **commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery.”

Jesus seems to recognize (not necessarily endorce) the civil authority of Rome over the Romans and their lax laws concerning divorce. He does not seek to correct these laws but again deals with the heart problem which only God can rightly judge. In this case the heart problem was specifically the motivation for the divorce - “so that the person can marry another”. And if one thinks about it, even if the person doesn’t have someone specific in mind already but is divorcing their spouse in order to make themselves available for another relationship, that is considered adultery. Remarriage is not the problem. The problem is the motive behind the divorce.

You know, I wonder if the disciples were asking for more clarification on this issue, thinking beyond their culture, and Mark highlighted this because it spoke to his audience? Or could it be that Mark intepreted Jesus’ words in such a way as to apply them to his Roman context? Just wondering. Maybe we can ask Mark when we see him!

Just thought I’d share that my sister married a man with a very serious personality disorder, also likely bipolar, and had been through a difficult childhood. He was very emotionally abusive, which my sister says hurt her more than any physical scar ever could. She was terrorized just the same. She really went thru an ordeal! He was also violent at times, kicking her out of bed, trying to smother her with pillows, telling her he’d cut the unborn baby out of her stomach, and threatening to throw her out of the window of their 10 plus story apartment when they lived alone (as missioanries!) in Turkey. For years I wanted to see her get out, but she always stuck it out, partly out of fear, lack of help, and a lot because she really loved. I even helped her leave once and she went back within the mos. Help was hard to find, especially in the church and circumstances made her feel like she had to return to him. I was so sad. It seemed like there was no hope of ever getting out.

Then, last year, after seeing a Christian counselor, she began to become convinced that this relationship was devastating for her two sons. All she ever wanted to do was whatever was in their best interest. She tried to leave peacefully, but, he got violent, took her car keys, cell phone, backed her into a corner, threatened to hurt her, and threw something at her. She ran to the neighbor’s house and called me in a panic, while her 5 year old looked on. She didn’t want to call the church for help, but I convinced her it was worth a shot. The person she got, familiar with her situation having counseled them before (they’d had plenty of drama, of course), asked her if she hadn’t learned her lesson about confronting her husband and how was it all working out for her? That, when she was standing in a stranger’s home, crying out for help! Still amazes me. He was the trained person on staff at a very popular mega church to help women in these situations?! She hung up on him and called me back. I was busily calling shelters to seek advice about what she should do. They all said she needed to call the police. Finally, after much coaxing from me, not wanting to ruin her husband’s name, she got up the nerve to call. As a result, a cop, that she calls an angel to this day, encouraged her to get out, that it would be hard, but he’d seen enough of these situations to know it’d lead to much worse if she stayed.

Her husband had emptied their bank account, but, thankfully, was talked into giving her some space,not returning to their home for a few days, by the church counselor. So terrorized she spent her tax savings, kept under her bed so her husband couldn’t spend it,on a motel room for her and her two children. (None of this, btw, captures the real horror and dread of this day and many others!)She decided to write out her story, a total of 6 pages and only a fraction of what she had endured the 12 years she was married, and give it to the church counselor, figuring it might help him understand. The next day he showed up on her door step with a note about why it’s never ok to divorce. She was not even using that word.

The church made it extremely hard for her. She had to distance herself from them in order to allow herself to be safe and free. I’d never seen a better example of love than I did from her, who for all those years, and, even as she was going thru all of this, continued to desire health for her family and husband.

She was able to secure an apartment, work to support her two sons with almost no help from her husband. He plummeted into drugs - cocaine even, participated in orgies and parties he threw at his apartment (where he was suppose to be having visitation with his sons!), began dating a girl for 6 mos. and eventually moved in with her. He attempted suicide last October, almost died, but my sister showed up to take him to the hospital, where he preceded to berate her. The worst was he threatened to kill her, asked his mother (a former gang member) if she knew anyone that could take care of her.

For a while my sister thought she would just remain married, though never return. She knew going back was not a possibility as she could never trust him, the situation always turned volatile and the relationship dynamic was very unhealthy. If even he’d change it was only for a while, true reformation required years and years, if not a life-time of work. Try explaining this to the church that thought God could change her husband in an instant, if only he’d choose.

As time went on she longed for healthy companionship, someone that would really love her. Her husband was content to keep her, control her, and seek/love with other women, but she wanted a divorce. The church was very against this sort of thing. Although, after counseling her husband, they got a pretty good feel for what she’d been through and how dismal it all seemed. And they endured only a few mos.! In tears she pleaded with the church to understand that she wanted to be free!

God saw her need, heard her prayers, and answered the next day with more than she could ever imagine. She’d written a fb status that she felt like she was running life in waist deep mud. The first person to respond was an old friend, also a previous missionary to Turkey, whose wife had left him several years before. He commiserated with her about life being difficult. They corresponded for a while and very soon the friendship turned into a desire to be married. They didn’t know how. He lived in another state, had children, and neither could leave. They prayed.

Tragicly, early this year, her husband ended his life. There was a shot gun nearby, one he didn’t use on himself. It could have been much worse. While we are sad for the outcome, we know that God protected my sister and provided her and her boys with a new start and chance to break the cycle of abuse. The church may not understand, but God does and he provided a way out.

I am so thankful to know the God I know today, be convinced that God will not give up on my brother-n-law. He was sick, but God is bigger than all of his pain.

Thanks for sharing that, Amy, I know it had to be difficult to type out all those things.

And, thank you, Sherman, for starting up this thread and getting some great dialogue started (and for all the research and work you’ve done on this extremely important and poorly understood subject.) Divorce is never an easy thing to go through, especially when there are children involved. But, I’m convinced that it’s generally a better thing for all involved in a lot of situations. It’s a hard and sad change for the children that wind up having to make the transition to becoming part of a de facto single parent family, especially when the divorce comes solely from selfish desires, but I think that a lot of kids are better off being away from the dysfunctional/hostile dynamics of a lot of bad marriages.

I agree with Sherman about how the church’s attitude and behavior towards divorced people need to change dramatically, especially in the conservative churches here in the US. My experience has been that no matter what is preached or taught at a church like this, in the minds of many church members (especially leadership), divorce is seen as a sin that can never be forgiven by the people, unless the divorce’ chooses to remain single and celibate for the rest of his life. In their actions, I learned that a lot of people have made divorce a de facto blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. As a result, I’m now part of a very liberal congregation that is completely accepting of me, but is so very different from the style of worship that I grew up with and became comfortable in. (The good thing is that I’ve told the pastor that I’m now a believer in UR, with no ill reactions, and found out that they had a very well-recieved book study on Bell’s* Love Wins*, so I’m definitely in the right place.)

While I can’t discount or negate the experiences of other people, I know for me, and for many of the people I know, that divorce was the best outcome at the time, for both the adults and children involved. I think there needs to be more emphasis, in churches and the secular world, on effective pre-marital counseling and education, buildng homes on solid rock instead os sand, so to speak.

Thanks to all for your input, and may you all have a blessed day.

I don’t know how many personal testimonies I’ve heard of people, usually women, in abusive relationships that were similar to Amy’s sister. It’s very sad. But you know, frankly, that’s not what moved me in the direction of my beliefs. My beliefs changed because of study and coming to understand what Jesus said and what the apostles wrote concerning divorce In The Light of the Cultural and Historical Context. This new-to-me perspective on what Jesus said radically changed my beliefs concerning MDR.

After writing the book I gave it to several pastors and theologians to preview, almost all endorsed it though it is very non traditional. But of all the people I let preview it, there was one person whom, well, I was literally shaking inside when I gave it to her. She was 21, in an abusive relationship/marriage though only 1 or 2 years into the marriage, no children, and currently separated from her husband because of the abuse. She was my neighbor, was a Christian, and went to a different fellowship than I did. I knew what I would counsel her if I shared with her personally, but I wanted to know what she would get from my book without me prefacing it in any way. So I gave her a manuscript, asked her to read it and get back with me as to what she got out of it. She read it in two weeks and came over that Saturday to return the manuscript. She said that my book affirmed to her that:

  1. God loves her and is on her side. 2) She is free to divorce her husband and marry another IF he continues to be abusive. 3) This is one of the most important decisions she ever has to make for it effects her life and the lives of others so radically. And 4) she needs to wait on God to show her clearly what to do, and wait on Him to work things out.

And that is exactly what I would have counseled her. I almost cried with relief. I wanted her to feel empowered to make right decisions, but I also wanted her to realize the gravity of her choices. And ultimately I hoped that her establishing healthy boundaries would be good for her, her husband, and their marriage. Well, it was a year later, but they eventually worked it out and got back together.

There is an excellent series of books I recommend for people, especially people who are gentle, kind, sensitive by nature, people who struggle with saying “no”. The book(s) are Boundaries by Henry Cloud and John Townsend. In healthy relationships there are firm boundaries, things one just does not do. We treat eachother with love and respect.

Sadly, the traditional doctrine of MDR does not empower, actually hinders healthy boundaries by unrealistically affirming that divorce is not an option. Reality is, divorce is an option because the couple is actually still married in God’s eyes though they get a legal divorce. Of course, this is not what scripture affirms, nor is it reality. And even more so, God has not tasked the church with the responsibility or authority to declare who is married and who is not. MDR is NOT under ecclesial authority, but is under civil authority! (So Pilgrim, you are correct in lobbying for civil laws that you believe would help strengthen marriages and protect children.)

Here’s Stephen Jones’ take on it…

gods-kingdom-ministries.org/ … fm?CID=197

I completely agree with you, Sherman, that “the traditional doctrine of MDR does not empower, actually hinders healthy boundaries by unrealistically affirming that divorce is not an option.” Maybe if there were real consequences earlier, healthier boundaries could’ve been established and things would not have escalated to the point they did with my sister. She knew she was doing what was right, not just for herself, but also for her husband. Unfortunately, she was on her own w/ no support from the church. It’s really a sad thing when the church can’t minister to really hurting couples.

It’s so great that you see in the bible a case from Jesus for hope for these women and others. It gives me hope. However, I feel about this like I do about other topics. People will go on and on about what the bible says, even as it is unloving, and I will have nothing to do with it, whether I can make a case for it or not. Love has become, for me, the stick with which I use to measure things.

Yes, there needs to be consequences for bad attitudes and actions in relationships, with the ultimate consequence being the termination of the relationship. And one needs to realize that there are expectations in marriage. In the 1st Century Jewish culture, this was understood. Marriage even had a Contract with standard and unique expectations recorded and witnessed, with the amount of the bride-price and dowry being a significant part.

Without healthy boundaries relationships often become toxic. And if the relationship dies and hard-heartedness sets in, no amount of civil legislation or religious pressure will keep it together. The traditional doctrine tends to elevate the marriage as being more important than the people. Thus, in a marriage no matter how badly one treats the other, the marriage must be maintained, especially “Christian” marriages. This misplacement of values often results in unhealthy relationships and actually increases the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. The institution is more important than the people or the relationship it was meant to support.

Oh Amy!

How perfectly horrible. I am so sorry for what your dear sister has gone through and so glad that she is now free. Shame on the “church” for its legalism and hard-heartedness. How can such judgmental people imagine that the love of God is in them?

The problem with this sort of thing is that people who have never been in such a situation of abuse and helplessness (often if not usually men), can’t understand the sort of domination a physically more powerful and most likely more prone to violence male can exercise over his vulnerable captives, including but certainly not limited to his wife.

I had an acquaintance in one of the legacy churches I was once involved with who came to church with bruises and cuts and once even a broken arm. She didn’t bash her husband, but everyone knew what had happened when this sweet lady arrived on Sunday morning with yet another injury. She was praised for her “obedience” to the word of God, and no one ever suggested to my knowledge that perhaps she should leave this person. Had she initiated that, I suspect there would have been a minority who would have supported her decision, but I know that in so many traditional churches she would have been condemned. Thank God she had no children. I moved out of the area not long after that and I don’t know what became of her, but I pray she has found a more peaceful place in life by now.

Please give your sister my encouragement in the Lord. Thanks for sharing her story with us.

Love, Cindy

The traditional doctrine arose out of a misunderstanding of what Jesus said and another errant concept that the early Gentile church had, that being that sexual intercourse was base, fleshly activity, and that the most spiritual people would be celebate. Paul deals with this concept in 1 Cor. 7. where he seeks to affirm that some people are called to celebacy, but it should not be considered normative.

Where Jesus says that if a man puts away his wife he causes her to commit adultery and the man that marries her to commit adultery, it is mistakenly deduced that marriage must be indissoluble. Thus, though a man divorces his wife, they are still married in the eyes of God; the divorce was not recognized by God. Thus marriage is indissoluble.

I know it doesn’t make sense, and if God wanted to so radically change the Mosaic Law He’d surely have explained this a little more and would not have so strongly endorsed every aspect of the Mosaic Law. But such sensibilities often do not come into play when countering tradition.

As noted before, Jesus was actually explaining why God inspired Moses to legislatively enact the bill of divorce, to bring a legal end to the legal union of marriage, to liberate expelled women to remarry and not be committing adultery (legally or before God).

Paul in 1 Cor.7 is interesting when he quotes what Jesus said. Paul actually uses two different words, one for separation and another for divorce.
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.

Note that it is the woman separated, but not divorced, that was told to remain single or to be reconciled to her husband. Of course, in Jewish civil law, a woman who was separated but not divorced, an Agunah, had no legal means of effecting a divorce, so all she could do was remain single or be restored to her husband.

Paul then takes what Jesus said and applies it to the Gentile culture of Corinth. And Paul specifically says, 1 Cor. 7: “27 Are you bound to a wife (married)? Do not seek to be loosed (divorced). Are you loosed from a wife (divorced)? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned”.

So it is not a sin for a divorced person to marry again. Of course, lasting relationships (what God has joined together) are our goal, and the legal union of marriage is meant to help achieve that goal, but the very command to not do something means it is possible to be done, not impossible. Just like, do not murder implies that murder is possible. Do not divorce implies that divorce is possible, not impossible.

First of all let me second your post Cindy and secondly let me say that I am shocked and horrified to read how some American churches deal with people who are being abused within marriage. I have never experienced such a disgusting attitude in any churches in the UK.
There is both wife abuse and also husband abuse in the uk. There are also family victims due to chronic drug/alcohol/gambling addictions. In all such cases, I do not believe that such a toxic marriage should be condoned or continued.

That said, I am confident that the vast majority of divorces in the UK are more to do with one partner simply being dissatisfied with the other and believing that they would be happier by moving on.
I believe that both government and churches should be in the business of discouraging such divorces and the carnage they reap on innocent child victims.

Hi, Pilgrim

I have a kind of theory – well, maybe hypothesis – that nations and people groups go through developmental stages just like individuals do. Children tend to be all black and white. Things are either good or bad, and whatever a person says, that is precisely what he means. Explaining the idea of simile, let alone metaphor, is quite a challenge, and probably not even possible until they reach a certain developmental stage. So how much more difficult for a child to conceptualize the idea of following the spirit rather than the letter of the law, or yet harder, to imagine obeying a seemingly nebulous law like the “law of love.”

The USA is a young nation, in the scheme of things, and perhaps that’s at least one reason we tend to be so literal about the Bible and church doctrine and so on. It seems to me that Israel follows a similar path through the Old Testament, in which they start out quite . . . well, barbaric . . . and progress over the centuries, maturing in many ways. Maybe this pattern applies to the peoples of the world as a whole.

Anyway, that’s my excuse for our lamentable tendency towards legalism. We do seem to be getting better – slowly. :wink:

Love, Cindy