I am dealing with some of the more difficult arguments possible over at Traditional Catholicism. Alte, who is catholic, argues that there should never be a divorce.
But divorce? I don’t even counsel divorce for women whose husbands have beaten them or raped them. You guys know that. No divorce. Ever. God hates divorce. If you really can’t stand it, and you have to leave their physical presence to stay sane or protect yourself or your children from harm or their ongoing sin, then I can feel compassion for that. But divorce? No way. To even bring that to the table in such a discussion is atrocious, and completely against my religion.
Marriages aren’t something you can just toss out when they no longer suit you, or your spouse disappoints or betrays you. They are until death. That is the entire point of marriage, as it is meaningless if you can just walk away from it. It only means something if it’s permanent.
This is where I part company with my Protestant friends. Where do you draw the line? You draw the line at “I do”, that’s where. If you start drawing lines anywhere else, chaos ensues.
Well. the Catholics have a point. Not many in the reformed movement know what the teaching on divorce is. The more literate may be aware that it is some confessions of faith… as this blogger nots…
What are the divorceable offenses? Sutton lists two broad categories. The first group includes sins against God including idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, divination, and spiritism.
The second group consists of sins against the spouse. This group is then divided into two subgroups: the first subgroup includes all sexual sins, and second is a subgroup he calls “murder.” Murder includes physical abuse and desertion (physical and sexual), infant sacrifice, and failure to provide economically. As you can see, the list of divorceable offenses includes far more than adultery.
However, one of the good rules is to look at the original Text. The Classic formulation of reformed (or Presbyterian Faith) is the Westminster confession. It states in Chapter 24
It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
.
Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case
The reformers were imperfect and worked within the knowledge of society that they knew. This included knowledge of periods of casual divorce (they were educated, which means they knew their Pultarch and Catiluus). What they would not have comprehended is the current fashion of seeing divorce as part of spiritual growth.
We should not remain in a marriage for fear of hurting our partner or of disappointing the other important people in our lives, or for the comfort of remaining in a safe haven. And yet, so many of us choose to stunt our growth by remaining in a marriage whose life has terminated than to move on to new spiritual paths for fear of the unknown. I truly believe that in the end we not only hurt ourselves, but those very people we were trying to spare as well.
(I have just quoted from a neopagan pseudotherapeutic site, but it gave a good example).
What is interesting is that the reformers and the Catholic divines agree on the reasons for licit separation.
- Infidelity (and sexual impurity)
- Apostasy
- Abandonment, or cruel and licentious behaviour.
And that is about it. Where Alte is correct is that there is a slope if you allow any grounds. But she can’t live in a fantasy world where there are no grounds for divorce. It is a wish to be back in the garden — when things were perfect, and we became one flesh.
Divorce was given for the hardness of our hearts, because this world is imperfect, and to minimse the pain and suffering of the abused and oppressed. It is a lesser evil.
The word says that God hates divorce. As a divorced person with intimate knowledge of the divorce court, I hate divorce. I have dealt with too many people who thinking of ending their life in the days and weeks after their spouse has left them: I have seen the ligature marks around their necks, and listened to their pain.
I have seen the cost. In my life, in my family, in my friends and in the people I help at work. But this world is fallen, and we need some rules around this. The reformers did summarize scripture reasonably well. We need to teach this, as a church,, strongly — and be gentle with each other, encouraging people to continue in their duty to glorify God and do good — because in this world, people are flawed and the covental structure is debased.
Which types of divorced people are allowed to remarry, according to your Reformed understanding? I know that certainly a wronged spouse, whose spouse was unfaithful, can certainly remarry in most Reformed churches.
I really don’t know how to apply the relevant part of the confession — which is deliberately and publically given the current secrecy around divorce. In general, both are wrong in part (but then, we all are wrong in part).
I agree the wronged spouse for adultery. By extension, if abandoned. The guilty spouse? Well, God is merciful, and this is one of the reasons I am glad I am not an elder. Those who divorced for lesser reasons (what Dalrock called frivelous divorce)? They are probably like the guilty party.
I don’t know of many serious efforts on working out how this works in today’s society. Most churches are lax on this issue. I’m certain God is not.
And that is about it. Where Alte is correct is that there is a slope if you allow any grounds. But she can’t live in a fantasy world where there are no grounds for divorce. It is a wish to be back in the garden — when things were perfect, and we became one flesh.
Her logic reminds me of the (terribly sad) John Shore book “7 Reasons Women Stay in Abusive Relationships and How To Defeat Each One of Them”.
It explores how American Christian women experiencing domestic violence are often shamed or shunned by their churches. Some women are even kicked out of their churches for leaving their abusive husbands.
There seems to be a twisted meme in American Christianity that implies abused women deserve to be abused/were asking for it/are exaggerating the abuse. A lot of the women were lead to believe God wanted them to be in a abusive marriage.
Anyway, doesn’t the Bible permit kinda Christians to divorce non-believers? [1 Corinthians 7:15] A man that is so physically abusive his wife has to go into hiding with her children to protect them from harm – he’s not a Christian. No matter how often he goes to Church, no matter how many times a day he prays – he’s not a Christian.
& another, since I am quite the cunning linguist
Divorce is also allowed if the spouse commits adultery [Matthew 5:32]. The Greek word used is porneia. It could actually be interpreted as “unfaithfulness to God” i.e. participating in pagan cultic rites. Ancient pagan cultic rites were quite violent. [Carthaginians would throw people into fire pits to honor Moloch, the Minoans would throw people into snake pits...] I’m sure spousal abuse was some crazy ancient pagan rite. So legalistically the abusive husband would be participating in a pagan rite and that would be grounds for sinless divorce.
There is a whole literature on pornea. It has a broader meaning than adultery. There as implications in this that can lead to a slippery slope.
BF. I hate divorce, and I have just had a very expensive one. In the end, I’m left with this world is fallen, and the questions about remarriage being justified are very real to me. There has to be some mercy here, but also very firm teaching. Now, I’m not Catholic, and this post was driven by my need to check out the theology of this area. Being fair to Alte, she does take rhetorical positions, and her teaching is within the bounds of the RC church. This is an area where you need to look up the formulations used by the reformers. The Anglicans have fairly firm teaching here as well. Divorce was not unknown and widowhood was common in the time of Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Knox and Henry VIII
We see Alte’s slippery slope at work already, corrupting the language to loosen the bounds of the law. Abuse has been equated above to murder and to sacrifice to Moloch. Do you think that something such as slapping a woman across the face would have been considered abuse in Old Testament times and worthy of divorce? I doubt it. As for the case of severe abuse or woman in fear for her life, this argument serves for divorce as “rape and incest” for abortion. It is the incredibly rare extreme used to justify the routine evil.
Well, the reformers would have seen a slap as less important than contempt, refusing to support a spouse, or leaving teh congregation, agreed. The current family court system does not fit, in any way, with reformed teaching.
The family court allows people to dissolve marriages at a whim, on their own choosing, and with legal arguments. This is explicitly limited.
The family court is private. The Reformers wanted this public: they were aware of the usefulness of aversion from the shame and stigma.
And the reformers did not see a marriage as allowing spiritual growth. They saw spiritual growth occuring as one did onte’s duty.
Pingback: Misanthropic commenting, or why old males suck. | Dark Brightness
We see Alte’s slippery slope at work already, corrupting the language to loosen the bounds of the law. Abuse has been equated above to murder and to sacrifice to Moloch. Do you think that something such as slapping a woman across the face would have been considered abuse in Old Testament times and worthy of divorce? I doubt it. As for the case of severe abuse or woman in fear for her life, this argument serves for divorce as “rape and incest” for abortion. It is the incredibly rare extreme used to justify the routine evil.
The example I used was specifically to allow battered women to divorce their husbands. I never meant for it to be applied to frivolous divorce. Alte said battered women shouldn’t be able to divorce their husbands, I disagree.
& honestly I think it’s a bit evil to force women being beaten to the point where they have to go into hiding to stay married to their abusers. Do devout Christians seriously think Jesus would condone such horrible circumstances? I don’t know what Christ you’re praying to, but the one I pray to sure doesn’t. [Hm, weren't the Pharisees orthodox scriptural legalists? Didn't Jesus dislike their callous hateful behavior?]
& domestic abuse isn’t incredibly rare [unfortunately]; it probably happens to people in your very Church!
The book I mentioned, by John Shore [he's one of the few Christian writers I respect] , was all about how battered Christian women are told they shouldn’t speak up about their experiences. They weren’t given any support by their Churches, or even their fellow Christians.
Anyway, I think divorce should be used like the ejection button on fighter jets. Only divorce when staying in the marriage will lead to grievous physical injury [i.e. a crash].