Kristie and I are married. We have the certificate to prove it. The state says we are married and so I believe it. So does my church. So do my church friends. We even wear wedding rings. We also tell people we are married. We have it all. We made our vows thirteen years ago and we are husband and wife.
I have performed the marriage ceremony for dozens of couples. I know the ropes. I have performed them at churches, chapels, by lakes, in a law office, and even on my back porch (twice!). There are some key ingredients I require. 1) A man and a woman. 2) A witness. 3) Vows with specific promises. 4) A marriage certificate. Once the man and woman are present, numbers 2 and 3 are easy for me to wing. However, I can’t do the certificate. The couple has to. It is an issue of the state.
One time I married a couple and forgot to put my “book” and “page” number on the certificate. Another time, we forgot the certificate all-together and had to sign it later in the week (I think after the honeymoon). Were they married? I timidly told the excited (but very nervous) couple not to worry about it. I explained that it was their commitment to each other between God and men that made them united in marriage in God’s sight. They were free to do what married couples do. They were relieved to say the least.
But was I right? How much say does the state really have in whether a couple is married or not? Conversely, how much say do they have if a couple is divorced?
There is no place in the Bible that speaks about the rules for getting married. Believe me, I have looked. No ceremony instructions. No mention of government regulations. No suggested vows. Nothing about a ring, a church, a white dress, a tux, or even someone to preside over the ceremony. The Bible seems to give much freedom to individuals and cultures to mandate these things as they will.
But what really makes two people married?
Here are some options:
1. Living together in a symbiotic relationship (mutual dependence).
2. Sexual intimacy.
3. Making vows of commitment.
4. The state certificate.
5. Self identification as being married.
6. Pronouncement of an officiant.
7. Having children together.
Even the state has some problems with this. Most places have something called “common law” marriage. It is defined variously, but normally includes co-habitation for an undefined period of time and the couple must identify themselves publicly as being married. No ceremony is necessary. No pastor. And no vows. Again, the two things: 1) live together for an extended period, 2) say to others you are married.
My uncle, who is a Christian, is common law married. Has been for years. Though they have never had a ceremony (and don’t intend to) they live as husband and wife.
I would assume that we as Christians, seeing as how there are no specific biblical instructions here, would hold some things in much higher regard than others. I would say that it has to be between a man and a woman. There needs to be a recognition of the marriage internally. If the couple never has self-recognition of their marital status, that would be problematic. Many cultures would say that the marriage is not finalized until the act of sex. I am not sure about this, but if sex were never present (barring any physical reasons), then there would be problems as well. If they never cohabitate in mutual dependence, this would be somewhat of an issue. But I would say that the vows (often coldly defined as the “contract”) are the most essential. Without these, there would not, in my opinion, be a marriage.
There are two things that are not that important, though necessary for cultural state and church regulations.
First is the pronouncement. At the end of a wedding ceremony, I pronounce the couple to be married. This is what I say (picture me saying it!): “By the POWER vested in me by the state and as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I now pronounce you man and wife.” Exhilarating! I rarely feel such control. I often pause mid-sentence to let the anticipation rise and allow the people dwell on the phrase “the power vested in me.” I like to think my pronouncement has some magical power. In reality, it does not. Were I to forget this, no biggie.
Second is the certificate. I am not suggesting that people start getting married without a certificate from the state, but I would say that it is one of the least important items. Who really cares if the government says you are married? Do they really have that much control? Of course there are all the protections, benefits, and tax issues that go along with this, but some certificate on file downtown does not really make me married.
However, interestingly enough, it is these two things that most of us look to when we are assessing the validity of a marriage. Did the pastor make the pronouncement and did your certificate get filed at the courthouse?
This, I must say is a very shallow view of what marriage is and completely discounts the centrality of the promise the couple makes to each other. I would say everything on the list is higher than the certificate.
You are married if you are living according to your vows. This will include faithfulness, love, commitment to the spouse, mutual care and concern, physical intimacy, recognition of the marriage, and forgiveness. It is living as one. When your spouse hurts, you hurt. When your spouse succeeds, you succeed. When you spouse falls, you are there to pick them up. You are living for each other the same way you live for yourself. If a marriage lacks these things, I don’t care how many certificates and pronouncements you have made, you are not really married.
It is like Christians who believe their status before God—their marriage to Christ—is based on when they walked the isle, got baptized, or joined this or that church. They may even have a certificate to prove it. But in the end, their status in Christ is ultimately based not on something they did, but something they do. Their status in Christ must not be a past tense trust (“I trusted in Christ in 1988!”), but a present day reality that is ongoing (though imperfect).
Being married is not something that you did, it is something that you do.
Having said this, I now bring up the question of divorce. When is a couple divorced?
I know of a couple in a terrible marriage. The woman has sought so desperately to have a marriage that is full of life the way God intended. The husband, on the other hand, has grown bored with the marriage. There is no sexual intimacy, no sharing, no emotional bond, and no relationship present at all. They barely even talk. The vows are being completely ignored by the husband. When they do talk, he is mentally abusive and dismissive of the concerns of the wife. After years of living in such a way, they would be best described as roommates rather than husband and wife. Now the wife is talking about divorce. The man thinks such talk is blasphemous. He is a Christian and will not suffer a divorce. The very mention of it caused the man to look down on his wife’s spirituality and bring it before the pastor of a church. The pastor then counsels the woman on how ungodly it is for her to even mention divorce. He commends the husband for “sticking with it.”
When I think about this situation, I ask myself ,”What is a divorce?” If everything that makes a marriage a marriage is being ignored, are they even married anymore? Haven’t they already gone through an “illegal divorce”? It is “illegal” only because the state does not recognize it. Maybe its a “common-law divorce” (though not recognized that I know of). Either way, isn’t it a divorce in every other way?
The church (and all of us in the church) are often more concerned about some paper downtown at the county clerk’s office than we are about the marriage. We are terrified of a divorce paper, but are very tolerant of “illegal divorces.” Why do we give such authority and credence to the state in these matters? What is so paramount about this piece of paper? Why is it that a pastor could punish the woman who simply wants to make legal what her husband has already done long ago? He divorced her and did not tell the state. It is that simple. And at the same time, the church rewards and protects the man who is responsible for the divorce because he is so “righteous” that he won’t go sign the papers. Nevertheless, he will abuse and neglect his wife, demoting the status of their relationship below that of friendship.
Though I am speaking outside of my areas (perhaps irresponsibly), I am coming to think that the deprivation of what makes two people married is the definition of divorce. I would hope the church would come down harder on the one who is neglecting the marriage than the one who seeks to have the state recognize what has already happened.
What do you think? I truly want to hear your thoughts and shape my understanding here.
85 replies to "What Makes Two People Married or Divorced?"
Thanks, Michael, for some really good things to think about. I like your assessment of things in the case you mentioed: “He divorced her and did not tell the state.” One can certainly be effectively divorced without being legally so.
That being said, we do need to submit to the laws of the land (insofar as that does not cause us to sin) so it seems that the state’s legal definition of divorce has at least some bearing on the conversation.
I’ll have to think about it some more. I hope others chime in wth their thoughts.
You forgot two things re: marriage and divorce:
Marriage = $10,000 or more in costs.
Divorce = $10,000 or more per person in costs (and that’s just the legal fees apart from the other financial losses the divorcing couple will experience via jobs, investments, home(s), car(s), etc.).
😀
All kidding aside, you have written an excellent, thought-provoking (and provocative) post.
How often we take and give simple, straightforward, black-and-white answers instead of asking questions about the assumptions, conscious or unconscious, that lie behind the answers.
One’s accepted and tip-of-the-tongue religious and theological assumptions and beliefs are perhaps the ones that most need to being examined.
Make that:
Marriage = $5,000,000 in costs if you’re Chelsea Clinton.
Who really cares if the government says you are married? Do they really have that much control?
In the state of Michigan, it is a misdemeaner if a pastor participates in a wedding that does not have a state-approved certificate.
I know there are people who marry “in God’s eyes” that don’t get their marriages legalized by the state. There are polygamous Muslims and FLDS folks who do this from what I gather. The added benefit is they can qualify for welfare as single parents.
I enjoyed the post!
Yeah, I would suppose that for much of human history there has not been requirements of the “state” for such things. Adam and Eve certianly did not have anything!
However, I do want to reiterate that I am in no way attempting to argue that we should forgoe the state and cultural requirements and norms. I am just wordering if we have lost what marraige and divorce mean somewhere along the way.
However, I do want to reiterate that I am in no way attempting to argue that we should forgoe the state and cultural requirements and norms
I have said that if the state abandons all pretext of a God-ordained marriage (gay marriage in particular) and I am forced to have a certificate that I believe bears a non-Biblical definition, I would be very tempted to “opt out”
Good thoughts. Another angle to consider is what constituted divorce and remarriage in the 1st century Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures? A few helpful articles can be found at http://www.tyndalearchive.com/Brewer/MarriagePapyri/index.html
The author looks at all of the available Jewish and Greco-Roman divorce papyri and interprets 1 Cor. 7 in light of them. 2 well researched and fairly written articles. Hope those are helpful for someone.
Michael,
I agree with you on this, and I’ve argued very similar points when I wrote on this topic (“Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage” available on through my site).
Other than that submission to the authorities is commanded (Romans 13), probably the only other main thing (at least in Indiana) is that an official marriage certificate is required to change many legal documents, especially if the new wife is changing her last name.
As far as divorce, you’re right on. If marriage is dependent on commitment vows, divorce is simply a breaking of those vows. Strong marriages are those that fight through the occasional violations to strengthen the commitments.
Thanks!
Don’t forget that for much of history it was a state role and not a church role at all.
I loved it. I know so many people who think marriage is the “piece of paper” that they give you.
Have you thought about how this applies to gay marriage? The fight seems to be over nothing but the piece of paper and the pronouncement of the pastor.
Where’s “one flesh”? Where’s “God hates divorce” (Malachi), which, figurative though its use may have been, such use was only possible if the simple meaning were also true. Scripture doesn’t lie about God. What about no man tearing asunder what God has united? Isn’t the husband 1 of those men? Till death do us part?
Your interpretation opens Pandora’s Box for the end of families already struggling, AND for successful families. No marriage is perfect (as no person is perfect).
Therefore, every marriage flickers constantly in & out of a divorce state? Who gets to judge the flicker? Either partner, unilaterally? And while in this non-conforming window, 1 can jump out–that means it’s any time. Just make your own out by breaking a mini vow! No commitment left in this picture. It’s a complete uprooting of the marriage vows in a postmodern, relativistic manner I never thought I’d see from you.
My wife left after 15 years. We have 3 boys, ages 4, 6, and 9. I’ve read much of the forefront of the study of children of divorce, and the effects are indeed permanent. Slowly, secular society has had to back away from the Adult-Centered view that children “bounce back” from anything. Many refuse, of course–they would have to put their children before themselves. And you want to riddle the sanctity of marriage with more holes than society already has?
I’m an attorney, & this changes the vows to secular contract law. But even contracts provide that breaking 1 clause does not invalidate the whole. And marriage is not a contract, tit-for-tat, keep score relationship. It’s 100% from each, as best they can, & when 1 partner’s down, the other’s faithful, & 1 day they’ll face a rough spot & need the same support from the other.
My Wife is, to the Roman (American, what’s the difference) authorities, divorced from me. You’re right that the church should take precedence as to Christian marriage. But we have no church that does, and thus whence divorce?
Martin Bucer proposed that the one-flesh bond could be “dissolved” by any number of circumstances including spousal abuse and withholding intimacy. Therefore, legal divorce was permissible since the marriage no longer existed.
Similarly, you speculate that a divorce “in fact” may take place apart from any legal injunction.
Jesus doesn’t seem to support that premise. By assigning the marriage bond to an act of God rather than a legal proceeding, Jesus affirms its permanance regardless of human behavior, leading some to conclude, “If this is the situation… it is better not to marry.”
Let’s leave the theological and turn to the practical. Divorce will happen even amoung Christians. What should we do with these sinners. Do we hold them to the letter or offer grace and forgiveness. Jesus spared the women caught in adultery, should we? Let’s do all we can to strengthen every marriage, yet realizing some will still suffer divorce. Just as Moses protected women by recieving a certificate of divorce, let’s seek the good will of divorces victims today.
Brandon, I don’t think you can separate the theological from the practical.
What you believe about divorce will affect how they are treated within your congregation.
I believe God hates divorce. He hates all sin. Divorce is wrong, but will happen. Sin gets the best of us all sometimes. How is the sin of divorce any worse than the sins Jesus tells us to cut our hands off or gouge our eyes out for? He wants us to see the seriousness of sin and marriage. So how do we handle these situations when they happen?
I’ve come to believe marriage is sacramental. If the words “what God has joined together” mean anything, then God is actually ACTING by grace to create a new existence and covenant bond. I don’t care what anybody says, Rome’s language regarding marriage is beautiful.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#1602
Here’s a sample or two:
1638 “From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament.”
1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself. From their covenant arises “an institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of society.” The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God’s covenant with man: “Authentic married love is caught up into divine love.”
1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved.
1642 Christ is the source of this grace. “Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony.”
There’s nothing in the Scriptures that calls divorce “sin”. Yes, he hates it, because it shreds marriage which is his design.
But he permitted it regardless, as long as it was done according to his limitations (Deut 22). In fact, as shown above, God divorced Israel for her unfaithfulness (Jeremiah 3:8).
The fact is, divorce is not God’s ultimate desire, but he has allowed it and does allow it, under the authority of the local church (for Christians).
Well, yeah, but if it falls apart, you go for an annullment and Rome says the sacrament never happened.
Daniel #18, MzEllen #19
1649 Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble.
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.
I find it beneficial to consciously separate the two types of marriage.
There is R-marriage (religious marriage), where according to the particular denomination, two people are married.
and there is S-marriage (state-marriage), which is a secular contract between two people that involves tax benefits, government payments, etc.
For example, my parents were R-married and S-married a the same time in a catholic ceremony. If they walked in to a baptist church, hindu temple or muslim mosque, these organisations might say: “you are not R-married”.
I was S-married but not R-married.
In my country, Australia, defacto couples receive many of the state benefits(e.g. tax, superannuation) that S-married couples receive. Defacto couples can be straight or gay.
Good post, Michael.
Regarding your thoughts on divorce, I’ve come to much the same view over the past several years. The legal divorce is merely acknowledging that the marriage “died” some time ago, when one or both people became unwilling to keep it alive.
No marriage is beyond recovery if both people are willing to work at it, but if they are not, making the “illegal” divorce legal is not the big sin – that was the unwillingness to repent and return to living according to the marriage vows.
As for living together as though married without the certificate, the one couple I knew well in that situation was my father-in-law and his second “wife.” He had been widowed, so had she, and they both got survivor’s benefits that they would give up if they remarried. They had a “blessing ceremony” (at an Episcopal church) that strongly resembled a wedding and they referred to each other as husband and wife and celebrated their anniversary.
My husband considered it sinful for them to live together as though they were married even though they had no marriage certificate, and would never refer to the woman as his father’s wife or call her by his last name (which she used herself), although other than that he accepted her as a part of the family.
For myself, I decided that the problem was not so much that they lived together without being legally married, because as you say the certificate is the least important aspect of a marriage. What bothered me was the dishonesty implicit in wanting to both be married in terms of the relationship but not married in terms of financial benefits.
As much as I agree that doctrinally there is no loophole for remarriage other than death, I seriously struggle with the idea that a 25 year old is condemned to loneliness for the rest of his life, because his wife left him and married the man with whom she had an affair AND had children with him (true story). This guy has no chance of reconciliation AND is the victim of her unfaithfulness.
The interpretation of 1 Cor 7:9 then is that while an unmarried person can find sexual solace in marriage, the divorcee even if they ended up in divorce against their will (as in example above), they are stuck with loneliness and ‘burning’ for the rest of their lives.
And here’s another red herring. A friend of mine who does mission work in the Middle East was saying that occasionally Muslim polygamists who turn to Christ are faced with a situation of 4 wives (or more) and usually kids from all of them. Should he only keep his first wife and get rid of the other 3 and continue to support her children?
Scrambled eggs!
What do you with Matthew 19:9? – “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” That looks a lot like an exception that would explicitly apply in the case of the 25 year old you mention.
And here’s another red herring. A friend of mine who does mission work in the Middle East was saying that occasionally Muslim polygamists who turn to Christ are faced with a situation of 4 wives (or more) and usually kids from all of them. Should he only keep his first wife and get rid of the other 3 and continue to support her children?
Why? Are they going to make the men elders right away?
GAMMELL –
Somehow I think the exception clause you quoted applies to divorce not remarriage.
John,
The “and marries another” clause seems to indicate Jesus is specifically addressing divorce and remarriage together. If it was just about divorce but not remarriage, why even mention “and marries another”?
Certainly 1, 2 and 7, even all three together, do not constitute marriage. Living together, sex, and having children are things common to people who “hook up” for periods lasting anywhere from a week to a few years.
Clearly what is important is intent. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees tempt Jesus with the question, “‘Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?’
8. He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.”
They were splitting hairs with the Lord, like a bunch of lawyers, trying to maneuver him into a corner. But he made it clear. God puts up with our machinations because of our hardness of heart.
The fact that God allows us to violate his ordinance should not be seen as consent.
I think the guy in your last story cares about what others think and also wants to protect his money. He cares about his reputation and his money-not his wife.
She wants to have a better marriage. He says “no can do.”
She wants a divorce. He says “no can do.”
He gets his way both times. Plus he gets to look spiritually superior!
This is one of numerous issues that highlight the need for an interpretive authority (the church), other than the interpretations of the individual.
In this discussion, many appeal to the “Moses exception” as if similar licence applied to the new Covenant as well. “Oh well, it was messy then…it’s messy now, too.” Jesus’ words clearly negate this idea.
The other thing is that we seem morbidly inept as Protestants to allow for any category of celibacy. Someone asked about the poor fellow who is innocent and is left by an adulterous woman, why would God let him “burn”. Is it unjust for God to demand teens “burn” for 5, 6, 7, 8,10 years until marriage–hormones raging all the while? We need to have a less narcissistic view of sex. We seem more inclined to violate God’s ordinance and honor than violate our own personal satisfactions.
At the risk of muddying already unclear waters even more, as we think about these things, it also compels us to consider just what “adultery” is. Here’s a very good essay (not by me) on the whole big picture:
http://www.gracecentered.com/biblical_view_of_adultery.htm
Marriage is not going-steady. It’s a vow we give to everyone around us and our God, good laws and papers keep our society healthy. If parts of the marriage between husband and wife are broken that does not mean the couple is destined to fail the rest of society as well. “The paper” notifies the whole of society about your new status as a family. Social groups have reason to be concerned about the status of its members, and reasons to help marriages stay together. When a family falls apart the rest of society absorbs the consequences as well, usually the extended family first, then friends/church, and then the courts. We all want the protection of a police force if needed, and police use “papers” to tell them what to do.
I find Deut 24:1-4 a very difficult passage because it speaks to the finality of divorce. Once divorced – always divorced. I believe our societies have granted divorce because our God has granted divorce. And he gives us these divorce papers so that we may be able to marry again. We have papers proving that we are free.
We seem more inclined to violate God’s ordinance and honor than violate our own personal satisfactions.
MzEllen,
Matt. 19:10-12
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
1 Cor. 7:8-11
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
Celibacy is lauded by Jesus and Paul. Marriage is lauded by both as well, but clear boundaries are delineated. Separated spouses who are validly married before (by) God, are to remain unmarried (not remarry) and not divorce. This separated situation demands celibacy or reconciliation. A civil divorce does not change God’s view of their status.
You said: “It is not good for man to be alone.” That’s why he gave man the privelage of taking one wife and reflecting the beauty and glory of the mystery of Christ and the church.
P.S.
Was it “not good” for Jesus Christ to be “alone”? Though we know he himself is preparing a bride for himself as we speak.
Was it okay to have more than one wife at a time in New Testament times?
There is a lot of context not being taken into consideration in the comments. Paul lauded celibacy as a spiritual gift, one that he understood not everyone could live. He told people to marry rather than either burn with passion or live immorally.
Given the circumstances of the impending persecution (and his hope of Christ’s return), he also thought everyone should stay single and finish the mission.
Both divorce and remarriage are handled very well in 1 Corinthians 7, and both are allowed within parameters, just like in the Old Testament.
“Divorce was a divine concession to a human weakness” – John R. W. Stott (Christian Counter-Culture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978, p.95)
In Deut 24 God allowed it – “divine concession”. Jesus said it was because of the hardness of their hearts – “human weakness”.
Divorce that is done within the limitations of the Scripture is valid divorce. And a valid divorce permits a valid remarriage.
1/ God hates divorce, but he also gives us the guidelines for when it is permissible. In Ezra 10.3, divorce was REQUIRED to restore Israel. 2/ Divorce can be a sin, but it isn’t always a sin. So many evangelicals think divorce is automatically a sin for both spouses. How can something God either demands in some cases, or gives the guidelines for always be a sin?
3/ Most divorces are unilateral. The abandoned spouse gets dubbed a “sinner” when often they did all they could do to save their marriage. Yet legalistic Christians stigmatize the passively divorced person as a “sinner.” This is horrible.
4/ Marriage has always been complicated, but it is probably more complicated now than ever. The Bible doesn’t take these complications into consideration and it does not define either divorce or marriage. Theft isn’t defined either. Who defines? Each society must define what theft is and is not. Likewise with marriage and divorce. Law must evolve, though the principles behind the laws remain the same.
5/ What is needed is wisdom and good judgment in the application of laws and precepts. There are just far too many complications, mitigating factors, and different cases for a “one size fits all” pronouncement as some here have done.
6/ I’m currently counseling someone facing a unilateral divorce case that breaks all the molds and is a unique case. Can’t give all details, but the exemplary brother has bent over backward for three years to save his marriage from his wayward wife’s sin. She has unleashed horrible legal hassles to grab unfair marital assets as she grazes in “greener grass.” Is this brother a sinner in this case? And is he to remain solitary and lonely for the rest of his life in a world with no family. Paul indicates that Christians are not bound in such cases, let the unfaithful and unbelieving spouse go.
I bet people trying to match up their marriage/divorce/remarriage problems with the Bible has caused MUCH harm to people. Life is complicated enough without adding all that onto it. Trying to be a decent person and using common sense is all that’s needed in my opinion, to deal with these issues.
Casting divorce as some horrible sin to be avoided at almost all costs can mask much worse sins in my opinion. What if you are practically the devil himself, but you do not want a divorce?
And the thought of people living in total misery with no way out because they think they will disappoint God-that just makes me angry.
Was it okay to have more than one wife at a time in New Testament times?
Not if you’re an elder or deacon.
Ian said:
“Who defines? Each society must define what theft is and is not. Likewise with marriage and divorce.”
Here is where I think the protestant weakness is evident. The church was given the authority to define, by Christ. Just like the church is to define doctrine, heresy, the scriptural canon, etc. But how can she define if she is not one, holy, catholic and apostolic?
Lynn,
No one is called to remain in abusive, dangerous, degrading marriages. It appears to me that separation is not in question at all and is always an option. If a marriage is between a believer and an abusive or departing unbeliever, then I think even Rome says that the marriage was not fully sacramentally valid so if the unbeliever departs, he departs as Paul said. The point is, when God sacramentally and validly joins two believing people in holy matrimony, it is an indissolvable bond. If they have dissagreements, trouble, hate one another or whatever, they have no freedom to divorce and remarry. What I was saying earlier was that we show arrogant disregard for God’s sacramental joining of these folks if we complain that upon separation we are not simply allowed to call it quits and remarry because we are lonely and burning with lust.
I truly want to hear your thoughts
Well, ok, if you insist… 🙂
When a man believes in God, he always asks God’s blessing for everything that he does. We pray even before meals, should we then not pray also before marriage?
A blessing is given by your superior, so St. Paul tells us in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Who are our superiors? I can think of three, and these three are one (pun intended): God, parents, and pastors. — so ask them to bless your marriage, and their blessings are one.
The state-certificate is good because it confirms that the man and woman are NOT blood-related, and they’re also tested for all sorts of diseases, etc.
Canadian,
Isn’t it too easy to change the definition of words or something to make things come out the way you want? Like if you want out of a marriage, you simply decide that it wasn’t a real marriage to begin with, so it’s okay.
Or if it was between two believers, you can decide one person is not truly a believer after all, so it’s okay.
Now if a person holds their religious beliefs very strongly and decides to honor God and their children by separating and remaining celibate the rest of their days, then I can respect that and it may be very beneficial for their children.
On the other hand, they could get a divorce, marry the most wonderful person and the children could greatly benefit from a loving step-parent. That does happen.
I guess I feel like it’s quite a burden to put on a young person to pay the price forever because they entered into a bad marriage.
Here’s my own example. I married at 16 yrs. old. I had one daughter and got divorced. Then followed some rough years for both me and my ex. Then I remarried and had seven more children with my 2nd husband. It hasn’t been all roses for us, but we’re still hanging in there.
My ex-husband finally remarried and has been on “Cloud Nine” for 15 years with his new wife. They are both very dedicated Christians and much good has come from them.
Do I think it would have been better for him and me to stay separated our whole lives? NO! I wouldn’t have my seven additional children. He wouldn’t have his extreme happiness.
Lynn,
Thanks for your openness and honesty. I have not tried to be trite or without compassion etc. I only have tried to acknowledge the words of Christ and Paul that give clear warnings against illicit divorce. I have personally watched numerous “Christians” chuck their marriages due to that horrifying and unacceptable condition of “not being happy”. Also, two different people we know filed for divorce because their spouses were disabled in accidents. Classy!
Just because we suffer or lose the perfect situation, it is not grounds for divorce and remarriage. And some churches constantly accept adulterers (with their new love in tow) under the guise of compassion or whatever. I know situations vary greatly, and God is full of mercy, but I don’t think we always honor marriage to the point of giving ourselves away for the benefit of the other——kind of like Christ and the church.
Just because we suffer or lose the perfect situation, it is not grounds for divorce and remarriage.
Canadian, we all agree on that.
And some churches constantly accept adulterers (with their new love in tow) under the guise of compassion or whatever.
What should we do, lock the door when we see them coming?
MzEllen said:
“What should we do, lock the door when we see them coming?”
We can discuss our personal opinions all day, but where should we turn for an authoritative interpretation of the scriptures in these and other questionable matters? So again, I will refer to the Catholic Cathechism in answer to your question. I’m not Catholic, but in a period of discernment regarding her claims.
1650 “Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons.”
So it appears that there is discipline (no Eucharist) and a call to repentance which includes cessation from the sexual activity of an invalid marriage. So the door isn’t locked when they are coming, but they also are not lied to and told that everything is fine.
Canadian,
I appreciate your kind reply. I agree people should not leave a marriage without VERY serious thought. To bolster what you said, my mom is a good example. She left my father after 19 years. She later said, “That was my big mistake. Our problems weren’t that bad.” Plus she left him in the 1970’s, which was kind of an “in” time for divorcing people.
Canadian,
I’m not Catholic and never heard of the part about ceasing sexual activity in the 2nd marriage. Wouldn’t that most likely lead to a second divorce? And who would actually abide by such a thing?
Lynn,
Firstly, it is clear that if the first marriage was valid then the “second marriage” is not, and therefore not a marriage at all. God ACTED to create an indissolvable union at the first marriage (what GOD has joined together…)and therefore a civil divorce does not destroy it, hence the status of “adultery” referred to by Jesus when the first spouse was “put away.”
Secondly, it is not clear to me if celibacy AND separation from the “second spouse” is intended by the catechism, or as you allude to, celibacy while remaining WITH the second spouse. The latter would not seem to make sense because if “complete continence” is required as they say, it would seem like a cause for temptation and “burning” to remain together while not engaging in intimacy.
As has been said, this is messy no matter what. But what I am interested in is coming under the teaching authority of the church that Christ established no matter where I find her, regardless of my own personal opinion.
Hebrews 13:17
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account”
Firstly, it is clear that if the first marriage was valid then the “second marriage” is not, and therefore not a marriage at all.
And all that determines that is whether or not the church of Rome will grant an annulment.
Can you please point in Scripture where God makes a distinction between a “sacramental” marriage and a “civil” marriage?