Commenter Drew was kind enough to propose that his church measure divorce, and reported back when he found himself at an impasse (emphasis mine):
I suggested tracking the divorce rate for our church to one of the elders. He encouraged me to gather the data and share it…
The problem I am running into is that each local church is autonomous. The result is that finances and attendance rates are all local, with no central database. Marriages are not recorded at all, because the church doesn’t technically marry anyone (not considered the job or authority of the church). For my current local church, I am not aware of any divorce (maybe the sample size is too small?).
Any suggestions on how to deal with this roadblock?
I’m afraid the response he received is what I expected, and fits closely with what I predicted in my original post on the topic. The nature of corruption is that those who are corrupt are extremely unlikely to tell you they are corrupt. In fact, they typically say all of the right things. Find a third world police force rampant with corruption, and with almost no effort you will find all sorts of public and internal statements regarding their adherence to the “highest ethical standards”. It is very likely they also require all officers to attend annual training on the importance of not tolerating corruption. The police chief most likely can give lengthy, passionate, and eloquent speeches on the importance of police integrity and his department’s strict ethical standards.
Yet they are still corrupt.
The churches Drew was working with no doubt have compelling statements both in the form of periodic sermons and perhaps even a plaque or statement on the church website regarding their unwavering support for Christian (lifelong) marriage, perhaps even using the word “covenant”. However, their actions show that marriage is something they see as defined by the state, not the bible. They still pretend that the church is involved in marriage, and even pretend to perform marriage ceremonies. These ceremonies quite literally aren’t worth noting however, because the important part of the arrangement occurs at the local courthouse. Edit: Drew has clarified that the churches in question do not perform marriage ceremonies.
Yet sometimes the corrupt become so casual about it that they forget to hide their corruption altogether. Many Christians no longer even pretend to believe that marriage is the core of Christian sexual morality, and not a legally sanctioned version of boyfriend and girlfriend, a more formal stepping stone on the path of serial monogamy. I thought of this when I noticed the definition of marriage used by Christianforums.com in their married couples section (emphasis mine):
Married Couples Married Area – Available for those who are married, which is defined as a legal union between one man and one woman.
There it is. Marriage is simply a legally sanctioned form of boyfriend and girlfriend. It is serial monogamy plus cash and prizes.
Some members evidently didn’t get the hint, prompting the latest sticky in the married couples section titled Additional change to the SoP by moderator redheadedstepchild, a self described Child of God (final emphasis mine):
We have added the following to the SoP:
Divorce is not to be promoted in this forum except in cases where individuals are in physical danger. Those who are contemplating divorce due to extenuating circumstances may be able to find support in the recovery forums.This forum needs to be supportive of maintaining marriage. That said we recognize that there are circumstances which may lead one to consider divorce. The recovery forums are better suited for dealing with these issues.
Please remember that when someone shares a personal experience it is not up for judgement. Divorce is always a last resort, but we will not allow judgement of those who do make that choice.
Related posts:
- The women at Christianforums are outraged!
- From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage.
- Why so many wives wish their husbands would cheat.
- Pathological Denial
- Shattering the forcefield of denial
- Marriage lite: mistaking “No sex before monogamy” for a moral statement
“Divorce is always a last resort, but we will not allow judgement of those who do make that choice.”
Isn’t it a judgment to say that divorce is always the last resort? And a blanket judgment to boot.
Welcome back, Dalrock, glad you enjoyed your break 🙂
I would just like to point out that the marriages being performed in churches today are not only purely ceremonial but in a very real sense they are fraudulent as well since the verbal vows do not reflect the actual contract being signed.
I actually tried to get married in my home church without a license. I told my pastor that I wanted to be married in the sight of God but without the legal document because I felt that the state had no business in my marriage. I told him that I was willing to be considered single as far as the state was concerned to do this and that I would deal with the legal pitfalls of not being legally married as a sign of protest.
He said that without the license that my marriage would be fake, even if we were married before our families in a church, and that he would not perform the ceremony nor allow the service to be performed in the church.
I know for sure that the “Marriage” that Paul dealt with 2000 years ago was a completely different product than this thing we call “marriage” today. Not the same thing at all.
It is to the point that they very well should stop calling it that, and just go with “boyfriend and girlfriend with health insurance”. Might as well go a step further and establish that this new category BAGWHI establishes absolute female authority and ownership.
that would expedite the female cash n prizes at the end, streamlining the social disaster to be even more efficient.
At its core marriage is NOT a pledge by the couple to the government. Nor is it a pledge to the church. Nor is it a pledge to the congregation. It isn’t even a pledge to GOD. It is simply vows between two people, husband and wife. Yet off the top of my head I can think of at least 100 types of people who have vested interest in seeing those vows exchanged. Marriage isn’t vows anymore; its a giant fundraiser.
Dalrock, I’d like to get your opinion on a post I wrote, “Free Market Marriage”
http://gritartisan.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/free-market-marriage/
Nice to see you writing again, Dalrock, and again you hit home!
That’s pretty much a perfect example of “Christians” NOT calling out their own when they’re (morally) corrupt.
I must agree that the women (?) on Christian Forums married couples threads are not the most logical. At least one is a divorce lawyer. Another calls her husband “butt head”. Their views might well reflect mainstrean pew fodder, but their views are most certainly not logically thought out views based on Scripture, like those of, for example, John Piper. I got the impression they thought Sheila Gregoire (that pointy-fingered woman) was a bit too hard line.
But it is not just the churches in North America that are like that. I attend a churchin the UK which is part of a local grouping of around 30 churches. The one I attend is one of the larger ones in the grouping with some 80 attendees most weeks at Sunday moring services. In the last year we have had two marriages break up and at least one other in intensive care where both parties to the marriage are members of the church. I do not know about the other churches in the grouping, but I would suspect that some will have no marriage break ups because the folks in them are all in their 60’s, 70’s, or older. With approximately 1200 mebers in the grouping, there was ‘no demand’, according to the leadership, for a one-day marriage enrichment conference. One of the break-ups has resulted in one person going to another denomination and little view of the other partner while the other has resulted in the higher earner ceasing to come to church altogether (because he has shacked up with a new partner) and the lower earner still attending, but in rather straightened circumstances . The loss of offering income to the church in the first year, if either marriage had been saved would have repaid the cost of the seminar if it had been given free to members.
I have to agree with Dalrock’s thesis. The church is apathetic about divorce.
Christianity in America is dead. How sad. At least, in Europe, people are honest to admit that they are not Christians. In America, they claim being Christians and then, they do whatever they want.
No protestant church considers marriage a sacrament. Martin Luther expressly wrote marriage is a matter for the state. And most protestant churches have no central data collection, marriage information would only be kept in the local church. This has been true for hundreds of years. If Christianity is soft on marriage because of these issues, then it has been so for the past five hundred years.
The problem in Christianity is that its become customer focused, women are more often the decisionmakers, and naturally they choose the nonthreatening lite rock service with the metrosexual pastor preaching feelgood self esteem nonjudgmental platitudes. Plus, they have touchy feely emasculating, huggy small group time. No minor key hundred year old hymns or male, well trained law and gospel preaching pastors for these families.
“Christianity in America is dead. How sad. At least, in Europe, people are honest to admit that they are not Christians. In America, they claim being Christians and then, they do whatever they want.”
Bingo, imnobody.
What I find amusing is the churches decrying the youth’s lack of interest in church.
Why waste time going to church when no one lives their lives like their soul is in peril? and that is the exact reason why young people don’t like church. they know at some level that the people playing at it don’t act like they believe any of it.
Ya’ll are mean….and if you keep it up, they will ban me from CF
wait
The did that, they told me I hurt men and women there.
Its a very heavily visited forum, top to bottom, and its a slice of the American church diaspora. They reflect back your comments about divorce with “you are mean and this isn’t love”….meanwhile what they refer to as love is so far from Gods admonishment to love its laughable.
This condemnation of those who are divorced thing is a tool. When divorce is preached, what the heck good is that for those who already did it? It requires a mental midget to take that on board as condemnation. I wrote about that recently. Its a trick, and its easy because women are notoriously insecure and an emotional wreck.
No other behavior raises up those who are guilty of it in the past the way divorce does.
Do those who have cheated get pissed when adultery is taught?
Do those who have stolen, murdered, used porn, whatever, get worked up when those are mentioned?
NOPE
Why divorce?
Women file them, and women feel convicted. They dont want to feel conviction, few like it, so they have manufactured a way to shut everyone up about their RIGHTS to divorce.
Women in all churches, you are guilty of being pro divorce, until you prove otherwise
“We will not allow judgement.”
Happy clappy Christianity at its best.
Isn’t it funny that with the advent of social media, the proliferation of nefarious summer activities has declined, could it be that teens fear ‘judgement’.
The 11th commandment: Thou shalt be true to thyself.
The 12th commandment: Thou shalt man up and marry the sluts.
The 13th commandment; Thou shalt not judge.
Welcome back.
Marriage now has government regulating, defining and meddling in it. It should be less surprising that most christians, who also worship at the footstall of leviathan, fail to grasp the implications.
Government defines marriage. Government creates dependancy and adults that never grow up to experience consequences. With no fault divorce, christians have bought the lies and behave much like their secular brethren, whom they are meant to be an example to. Sexual morality has become just another little indiscretion, another social experiment in behaviour control. Christian conscience unshackled has led to widespread fornication before wedlock, and adultery afterwards.
Some example.
to enforce the “we will not allow judgment”… that will require judgment.
Sam…..gasp!…..Oh My….they will explode like Michael Ironside in Scanners
I must agree that the women (?) on Christian Forums married couples threads are not the most logical. At least one is a divorce lawyer. Another calls her husband “butt head”.
she sounds like such a treasure. I feel so sorry for her husband, he’s got the sword of damocles hanging over him all the time and on top of that she gets to rake him over the coals every moment before he dies. his only hope is to choke down his pride and his bile non stop until prostate cancer or heart disease finally get him. with luck he will spend his final decade in a vegetative state.
gee, who wouldn’t want to get married to that?
They’re (CF that is) not as popular as they used to be after banning every male that ever had anything “judgmental” to say about divorce. *Yawn. Will the last guy out of the “church” please grab the last pew Bible, they’re not being used anyway….
To clear up a few things:
The church does not perform marriage ceremonies. The only ceremony she performs is baptism and the Lord’s supper. (Records aren’t kept of those either).
No, the church does not “wash its hands of sexual morality” or is corrupt just because actual scriptural purpose and authority is different from what Dalrock requires.
My experience and Dalrock’s interpretation can’t be further apart. According to the original goal posts:
“Does your church measure divorce?”
Measure the data- check
Calculate the rate- check
Present to the leadership- check
Get their reaction- check
By that original goal post, this church is pretty serious about marriage and divorce. When I figured out the divorce rate was so low that my current local congregation has none, my ego swelled a little and I wanted to share the good news. Now you are raining on my parade. lol oh well.
I am really not seeing the big deal in not recording marriages. Isn’t it the outcome that matters? Isn’t it the backbone to exercise church discipline (judgement) what matters?
Isn’t it the backbone to prevent divorce with every tool possible what matters?
Data collection is the sometimes useful means, not the ends. This is coming from an engineer who loves to collect data, request more data, run more tests, and analyze it one more way.
To say that a church, which is quasi-successful in fighting divorce, is corrupt because its doesn’t keep records of marriages seems a little over the top. Its like saying a 3rd world police force is corrupt despite all other data because they don’t track marijuana use in a country that is legal tokers. (engineers: good with data, bad with jokes)
But maybe I’m taking the whole post too personal…
The lack of obedience the will of god. Is one of the factors contributing to the decline of the western churches.
Well Dalrock, I am actually going to petition my Archdiocese for an annulment, as a guy, as a friend of mine with a doctorate in theology believes I have a very good case for one, based on his understanding of theology and cannon law, which is pretty deep. And he’s no feel-good churchian. He’s not a priest either, he recently married a hot girl of Russian extraction some ten years his junior, and he was a big-time beta and no playa; she was his first when he was in his mid-thirties.
Be interesting to see how it goes, I’m filling out the paperwork now. Apparently it’s a lengthy process, I’ll let you know how things turn out.
“The church does not perform marriage ceremonies. The only ceremony she performs is baptism and the Lord’s supper. (Records aren’t kept of those either).”
You Protestants are weird. In my Catholic country, records are kept about baptism and marriage ceremonies. These records are being kept for centuries so I can track my ancestors of the XVII century only accessing these parish records.
“I am really not seeing the big deal in not recording marriages. Isn’t it the outcome that matters? ”
How do you know the outcome if you don’t have data about the outcome? Without data, every assessment degenerates into gossip or anecdotes.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: On Guard For Thee Edition « Patriactionary
Being a modern Christian must be wonderful. As an atheist, I have to say it must be nice to sin with a clear conscience.
…based on his understanding of theology and cannon law…
I guess the impact of cannon law depends on how close one gets to it…
@IMnobody
Prots have a different idea of what a sacrament is from the Romans. For Prots, Sacraments are but those things that we are commanded to to (which is two: baptism and communion). Att the other things are ordinances.
Historically, Prots and Caths were equally clear about the rules of marraige. It was one of the issues where there was no dispute. Divorce was rate (and licit) if Prots: Annulment was rare (and licit) for Caths.
But you amde your bead and you had to live in it.
I think that churches saying that they don’t know how many marraiges is rubbish. They make bookings. The ministers get fees. What worries the leadership is the number of divorces.
“You Protestants are weird. In my Catholic country, records are kept about baptism and marriage ceremonies. These records are being kept for centuries so I can track my ancestors of the XVII century only accessing these parish records.”
The oldest conserved parrish registries in Scandinavia are 350 years old.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrkbok
About Sweden, Church Records, 1500-1937
The Sweden Church Records collection contains over 19 million images scanned from microfilm/microfiche of the original church records. The collection features various records from the 16th through the 20th century, including birth/baptismal, confirmation, marriage, and death/burial records; church ledgers; moving-in and moving-out registers; and household examination rolls. These are the main sources of genealogical information for Swedish family history research.
Scanning Microfilm is wimminz werk
I think there was some miscommunication. Just because I don’t have direct records of marriage, I do have other attendance and membership records. From these I am able to reconstruct the marriage history and divorce.
Drew
Whats your point? Dalrock has an over arching point, and its 100% valid, while you are dwelling in minutia. I’m also an engineer by degree, I love statistics and what not, but even there you are a bit off in the manner you’ve chosen for questioning him.
Here:
“”The church does not perform marriage ceremonies. The only ceremony she performs is baptism and the Lord’s supper. (Records aren’t kept of those either).””
————————
Thats a denominational game of semantics. The reasoned response is you KNOW what he means.
Here:
“”No, the church does not “wash its hands of sexual morality” or is corrupt just because actual scriptural purpose and authority is different from what Dalrock requires.””
———————————————————–
There is a Latin name for this but Ive no desire to look it up. You are foisting this on the individual as if they *just wanna be right about it*, then rebutting with *just because you think its right doesnt mean everyone else does*
That’s a distraction and irrelevant. He makes no assertion that draws this response. He doesnt personally express a requirement of anything. he speaks in VALID generalities about the church, if you want to play *there is only one true church* or whatever it is, fine, at least say so instead of burying it in the posts as something assumed.
Not really sure what your anecdotal experience has to do with this. You as an engineer should be able to understand that when someone claims a generality, that is in effect a representation of a statistic. Your exception is already allowed for by the very statistical nature of a generality.
Your whole argument or whatever it is (and I mean that not as a cheap insult but because I sincerely cannot figure out what you are on about) is confusing and at the very best tangentially relevant.
Can you state what EXACTLY you are saying, and juxtapose that to what you think Dalrock is saying? Please
A comment about the marriage def – my church also started to define marriage using similar terms – but I took that as a political position against the same-sex marriage c#@p that we were seeing in the news, not so much as a BAGWHI def. Doesn’t change the main point of the post, but I can understand if CF doesn’t want to discuss M-M and F-F couples.
In response to Drew:
Protestant churches have the ability to track pretty much everything – how many people came to Sunday School, who brought their Bibles, who was baptized and when, and so forth. If they are really not tracking marriages – despite the fact that marriages have to be booked in advance, and fees have to be paid to the church for them – then it can only be because they don’t care about them. I think that it is a very big deal because it shows a total lack of seriousness. If the church really believed that the modern sky-high divorce rate was a problem, they would begin tracking the problem locally, see where the local congregation stood, attempt to address the problem, and then continue to monitor the divorce rate over time to see if they were having any impact. Saying “Yeah, we care, but not enough to actually measure anything” is a cop-out. Either you care or you don’t. If you don’t care enough to attack the problem then you don’t actually care at all.
As a Protestant minister, I do agree that marriage is not a sacrament. Marriage is actually much older than that, and was given to mankind before any of the sacraments. I also agree that marriages should not be performed by the church in the sense that marriage itself was given before there was a church – or before there was a government. Marriage is when a man and a woman come together, in the sight of God, and vow to stay together for life, as husband and wife. No marriage license is needed; Adam and Eve didn’t have one. You don’t need the government or the church to have a real, binding marriage. I do recommend having witnesses, in order to keep things honest.
I do think the church should be involved. Technically, the church does not actually perform the marriage; they are not a party in the vows, and the vows are actually between the husband and wife. I think the church should be involved for the same reason that friends and witnesses are involved – to witness the marriage; to support it; to help the couple through rough times; to preach and teach the Biblical roles of manhood and womanhood. Marriage in the modern world is a very rough business that has been all-but-destroyed by the legal system. It needs all the help it can get, and the church ought to be helping it, instead of not caring and hiding in a corner.
[D: Welcome to the blog Jonathan.]
People tend to see (as Feurbach – himself a Christian – observed) whatever pleases them in the religion of their choice. This applies as much to Christianism and its Bible (both New and Old) as any other religion. I was thus struck by the following from the above: ‘Divorce is not to be promoted in this Forum except where individuals are in physical danger’. Given that a man would never admit to such a fear – and even if he did so, Divorce would hardly be his immediate reaction; physical fear being a rather transitory and momentary state – the word Individual can thus only mean Woman. Women seeking to continue in their round of serial monogamy are then (in their own minds) justified in their fear for if their ignorant husband were aware of their promiscuous intentions his anger would perhaps be entirely justified.
I am not attacking Christians for Atheists (with a capital A) are just as capable – if not more so – of inventing whatever suits their purposes.
Some more thoughts for Drew.
I respect what you are doing. You care about this issue enough to try to do something about this. No matter what you find, this speaks very well for you. Kids are suffering, marriage is teetering as an institution, and you are rolling up your sleeves to help. Whether we ultimately agree on this or other issues won’t change the respect I have for your willingness to take action here.
Right now the default position of nearly everyone I’ve spoken with on the issue is essentially that while divorce is rampant across Christianity today, their church has been spared. They believe this by default. A far more realistic default position is that their church has the same fundamental problem and go from there. Whether or not you agree with Sherwood Baptist on all theological issues, I think it is fair to assume that when they set out to make Fireproof they didn’t intend to create divorce porn for women. I don’t question that they intended to make a movie about Christian marriage. That their intentions went so wildly wrong should be very telling. The problem is insidious, and it is massive. Likewise I don’t think Focus on the Family set out to champion kicking fathers out of the home. But the culture changed them, or perhaps they were already changed and didn’t notice. Their Directer of Family Formation Studies says and writes astounding things as a result. He brags about the most faithful Christians only divorcing 38% of the time, and calls unwed mothers heroes. If you are a regular reader of this blog you know I could go on here.
Given the widespread nature of the problem not finding much data isn’t a good sign. A church which is truly different will be under visible attack for judging frivolous divorce. There will be a hue and cry of “how dare you not show Christ’s love to women who aren’t haaaapy” (or something to that effect). Women who were chastised by the church for getting their groove back will be anxious to tell all how God wanted them to divorce to be happy, and the church wouldn’t listen. That you only found evidence of justified divorce (and only two of these across three churches) suggests strongly that no such firestorm is under way.
One way to get a reality check on this would be to talk with the Sunday school and nursery teachers. Ask them if any of the children either live with at least one step parent or don’t have a father in the home. Theoretically it could go the other way and the mother could be the one kicked out, but statistically this is rare.
Thank you, Dalrock. I’ve been reading your blog for months but have never posted until now. This blog – and the comments – have been a tremendous education. I wish I had known all these things much earlier in life. I’ve read books on marriage and dating; I’ve both attended premarital counseling and taught it; I’ve listened to sermons and seminars on it; but all I got was the same standard nonsense. It really bothers me that the only reason I ever found the truth was because I happened to stumble across this blog.
Do other people really have no idea? Is the truth that well-hidden? These principles are absolutely vital to life and marriage, and yet I only discovered them by pure chance. I could have gone the rest of my life and never found out. It’s appalling.
The tricky part is trying to get others to understand. I wish there was some type of book, or summary of everything I’ve read here that I could give to people. Red pills are apparently hard to find. I’ve thought about writing my own book but I don’t know if I could do it justice.
Someone has got to make the church understand that it has completely fumbled the ball on marriage. I really had no idea how bad things were until I came here.
Jonathan:
Ive made it my personal mission in life to expose this one church at a time. I set meetings and sit with pastors, I engage them by email when they are far away, looking for them online, reading their sermons and then writing to them, I have much anecdotal stuff from these interchanges with pastors
I also have 7 years worth of anecdotes from trying to show this to friends. A summary or book or whatever will not do it. Most of the men who can see through the fluff have been bashed by the system, legal and church, and until then were comfy in their white knight chairs. That you read and saw is outstanding, but rare. Of 5 friends I launched on this journey in the early days, telling them about this, them denying it saying “well not in MY church” then staying on them weekly, asking about sermons and things, reading where I could or listening to their sermons online, months later 4 of the 5 agreed and said they see it. No one has time, including me, to dog folks that way. So we will continue to be mostly a band of recovering men, recovering from divorce or a near miss with a divorce, having stared into the abyss.
Pick some friends, and try. Pick your own pastor, get some facts organized, and have a coffee. They react very differently. The best one I had when I asked a pastor why churches do (or dont do) what they do, he said “my wife is listening”
Opus good catch on the physical danger. You will never find a poster on CF that doesn’t say “physically, emotionally, and verbally abused”…..when describing the ex.
If I took the percentages that I see anecdotal on line in posts about divorce, of women abused and afraid….the numbers show Im the only house on my street where there isnt a scared woman
Women are not stupid (although implications are not understood). Christianforums states, ” Divorce is not to be promoted in this forum except in cases where individuals are in physical danger.” Of course most women will then modify their story to fit the RULES in order to obtain the sympathy they seek.
Additionally, when Christianforums defines marriage as a ”legal union”, it demotes the traditional meaning of marriage and the oaths before God to inconsequential status.
The moderator is most likely a woman since these things are contrary to principles of truth.
Women are not stupid
I think most of them ARE stupid – being cunning is a separate issue. Stupid people have to be cunning; it’s all they’ve got. They are pliable and almost invariably respond to self-serving and short-sighted incentives.
7Man
Women are not stupid
For what definition of “stupid”? I do not consider “foolish” and “stupid” to be synonyms, nor is “ignorant” the same thing as “stupid”. Ignorance can be fixed with varying degrees of effort. Foolishness can be curbed likewise. Stupidity, eh, not so much. All IMO, of course.
So what does “stupid” mean to you?
Jonathan,
“Technically, the church does not actually perform the marriage; they are not a party in the vows, and the vows are actually between the husband and wife.”
Not sure about your denomination, but here is what mine has to say:
http://www.pcanet.org/BCO/bcoappa-c.htm
Sure seems like there is another party involved beyond the husband and wife.
Good thing CL came in to clarify my position. And with that, I will concede that I may have made my statement without fully thinking it through.
stu•pid
adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
The moderator(s) are women….like 95% of them. Among their number there is one very very feminist one called…. A New Dawn…., who takes great pleasure moderating the men’s only area.
She wears it on her sleeve and writes it in black and white, yet any and all moderation has been and will continue to be in the direction of leaving a so called “:married” area safe for the sistas.
She isnt even cunning about it. That they have lots of criteria for moderators and pride the balance and non biased nature…..then that goes on…..shows that JUST LIKE THE CHURCH, committees of women can do what they want
I have known very few people who were actually, genuinely, “stupid” according to the dictionary definition of the term (“characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness”). What I have seen are many people who make decisions that ultimately prove harmful to themselves because they are focused on either (a) the short-term, or (b) their own selfish desires. I have seen brilliant techniques used to achieve very selfish ends that, ultimately, destroyed the person. But in the short term they got exactly what they wanted, and they got it using very clever means.
The larger problem is that “what people want” and “what people need” are two very different things. To get back to Dalrock’s post about the church, many (possibly all) churches have decided that in order to keep things humming along in the short term, it’s best to avoid the whole issue of marriage and act like everything is fine. This doesn’t mean they’re stupid; they realize that if they take a Biblical stance they will be punished for it by the culture, by other churches, and by their own congregation. So, to avoid massive problems, they brush the issue under the rug and move on. Ultimately this strategy destroys the church, but in the short term they get what they want – peace. (I have seen my own pastor tackle this issue Biblically; he is now our former pastor, as the congregation got rid of him. I supported him, but others did not.)
Instead of “stupid”, I would rather say that a great many people are foolish. They lack the wisdom needed to see the ultimate effects of their actions, and are instead focused solely on the short term. It is very difficult to think through the results of an action that you are about to take, and few people bother to do so.
Jonathan,
“the vows are actually between the husband and wife”
Not sure about your denomination, here’s what mine has to say:
http://www.pcanet.org/BCO/bcoappa-c.htm
The prayer:
“Almighty and ever blessed God, our heavenly Father, place the seal of your loving approval upon the union of these two hearts and lives in the sacred bonds of matrimony. Enable your servants, by the gift of thy sufficient grace to be faithful in keeping the vows they have now assumed. Whether in prosperity or in adversity, in sickness or in health, in sorrow or in joy, may their love and sympathy for each other never fail. Into your holy keeping we now commit them, praying that they may ever live “as being heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). For Jesus’ sake. Amen.”
Does not this prayer express our shared faith that God too has vowed to uphold the marriage?
There are more than two parties in play here.
It seems 7man knows Dalrock’s first rule of holes. He is not stupid.
@ Jonathan Cooper
I would rather say that a great many people are foolish.
I agree.
fool
noun
1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4. an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He’s just a dancing fool.
5. a weak-minded or idiotic person.
“3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.”
everyone on earth at some point in their lives, in other words
jso, yes but in that case it is temporary. There’s a difference between that and being “a weak-minded or idiotic person”, which suggests a more definitive and permanent state. My point was that stupid vs. foolish is splitting hairs and that words have meaning; we can’t just assign meanings as we feel like it or the discussion itself becomes meaningless.
Right, as you were!
/ grammar nazi derailment
I was just reading my little book from OUP on Happiness.
A study referred to therein revealed that the most happy are the Married, followed by the Cohabiting, followed by the Single, and thereafter the Divorced, Widowed, and lowest of all the Separated. Subject to that, Happiness tends to remain fairly constant throughout life (and thus is as a goal pointless – whatever your Constitution aspires to). One must conclude that Divorce has the opposite effect to that intended, yet of course with the prospect of a massive boost should their be a remarriage.
I may have written this before, but a friend told me of an ex of his who had recently married another man, but was threatening to Divorce so that my friend could marry her (her idea). He pointed out to her that as she was Roman Catholic, that would not be possible, but she responded that God would not want her to be Unhappy(!) It would appear that she is mistaken as to where she would achieve happiness, which she presumably now is, as she failed to carry out her threat.
It probably is splitting hairs to some extent. But it is not entirely useless. The problem is not that we are dealing with people who cannot think; the problem is that we are dealing with people who are thinking the wrong way. We need to teach people to think differently. To borrow a superhero metaphor, we need to teach people to use their powers of thinking for good and not for evil. There is too much brilliance right now on the side of evil, and not enough on the side of good. (For example, getting a random neighbor to babysit your kids, and then trying to use that as a basis to make them legally obligated to pay child support, is quite brilliant. It is also quite evil.)
It is great to say that pastors ought to teach the truth on this subject, and I wholeheartedly agree. But as long as congregations disagree, they will simply bounce the faithful pastor and find themselves someone else. People need to be trained to think differently; to see the real, shocking costs of the current state of things – the damage to families, to marriages, to children, to society, and to the church itself. They need to be made to understand the devastation that Marriage 2.0 has wrought upon countless people.
People need to stop thinking “divorce will improve my life, because it removes the icky husband and gives me cash and prizes”. They need to stop thinking “I’ll just go ahead and get married, because if it doesn’t work out I can get a divorce”. They need to stop thinking that serial monogamy is somehow God’s design – and on and on it goes. We need a revolution in the way people think.
I’m not sure this is even possible, except on an individual, case-by-case basis. It may be that the Titanic has already stuck the iceberg, and all we can do is save some. I suppose time will tell.
[D: Brilliant.]
These words are not trivial, hair splitting issues. It makes a difference whether someone is too dull minded to see when they are setting themselves up for disaster, vs. when someone has a short time horizon and poor impulse control. People who just can’t think beyond the next ten minutes are not in the same category as people who can do that but won’t do so. Therefore, “ignorant”, “stupid” and “foolish” are not synonyms – they do not point to identical behavior.
Words really do mean things. They do.
Of course, pointing this out does no good when women are constantly told how “smart” and “savvy” they are by the supplicating mass media, even as “smart”, “savvy” women are coached to ride the carousel, throw away their 20’s and pursue a cube-farm career as the best route to happiness. The first step towards sanity for young men is to reject everything their parents, teachers, preachers, TV shows, etc. ever told them about women. Perhaps women should do the same?
“Sure seems like there is another party involved beyond the husband and wife.”
You are quite right, and I don’t disagree at all. God is certainly involved, and is central to the entire process. I didn’t leave that out on purpose; my point was that in my opinion the church is not one of the parties. Real marriages were made long before there were churches around, and they were no less binding than the ones today. I see the church as a witness to the marriage, not the institution that actually makes the marriage “real”.
I certainly agree that God is involved, and that is why the marriage vow is so serious – you’re not just making a promise to another person (as serious at that is), but to the Holy One as well. Breaking your vow is not just breaking a promise to another human being, but breaking a promise you made to God. That is a very serious and grave matter.
Now, there is some debate as to whether the marriage vow is one you make to another person in the sight of God, or one that you make to God Himself. That is, are you saying “Honey, in the sight and presence of God, I promise to be your husband for life”, or are you saying “God, I take this woman as my wife and promise to be her husband forever”? I fall into the latter camp, but this may be a case of splitting hairs. (I doubt very much that the average bride and groom even thinks about it.)
@ AR
People who just can’t think beyond the next ten minutes are not in the same category as people who can do that but won’t do so.
True. I was thinking that the results are the same and so the refusal to ‘think beyond the next ten minutes’ is stupid too. Intelligence is no guarantee against stupidity.
I’m wondering who cares enough about the efficacy of the nomenclature when there is a common problem being highlighted.
I really really hate to say this, but these rabbit trails of pontification on the meaning of a word, right in the midst of discourse on an over arching issue, complete with pasted dictionary entries etc., were oh so common at Christian Forums. In fact, there is one poster who made it her thing to even start fresh thread about “what do you think foolish means” and things like that.
You guys are giving me flashbacks.
regardless if foolish or stupid, in the long run or short term, and regardless if God is placed into a sentence about marriage is a well placed or misplaced modifier, the problem is there, the marriage is the marriage regardless of how its performed and which church because the damage to kids and society is the same when it ends, and regardless how the mechanics work the thinking is wrong, messed up, whether it be the divorcing woman, the preacher, or us, John(nna) Q Public.
People who just can’t think beyond the next ten minutes are not in the same category as people who can do that but won’t do so.
CL
True. I was thinking that the results are the same and so the refusal to ‘think beyond the next ten minutes’ is stupid too. Intelligence is no guarantee against stupidity.
Just because the results may be the same, it does not follow that the intentions were the same, and different intent implies different means to solve the problem. Consider two situations:
A. An 8 year old child is left alone in a vehicle with the engine running. Bored, he crawls into the driver’s seat and pops the automatic transmission out of “Park” and into “Drive”. The car meanders across a parking lot and smashes into a brand new Mercedes.
B. A 16 year old young person is driving the family car back from the grocery store with a gallon of milk. While driving, this person becomes obsessed with fiddling with the radio to get better music, and winds up smashing into a brand new Mercedes.
C. A 20 something young adult who has had waaay too much to drink decides to call it a night, starts the car, puts it in gear, and with a loud “WHEEEEE!” mashes the accelerator, smashing into a brand new Mercedes.
In all of A, B and C we have a smashed Mercedes. But we got there by very different routes, and thus prevention of Mercedes-smashing requires different lessons to be taught. I hope the analogy to the topic at hand is obvious?
I think most christians would harshly judge those who divorce simply because they’re not happy.
However, I think CF has had to post a definition of marriage, and the peramaters in which divorce can be discussed mainly to keep the peace and try to control flaming.
I personally believe only adultry and abuse are reasons for divorce.
Of course, you’d now have to define ‘abuse’ further, eg. just physical abuse, or verbal? If so what constitutes verbal abuse?
These are all gray areas that are just not possible to discuss in a public setting like CF because of how strongly different people believe certain things.
Therefore it’s easier to make a site-wide ban and try to define what is acceptable or not in black and white.
I can’t blame them really – it’d be like constantly pulling apart squabbling kids if you didn’t. Too exhusting
There’s a lot of good points on this blog and in some of these posts, but the way in which they’re presented I think hinders more than helps.
Peace.
@AR
Understood.
@empath
I really really hate to say this, but these rabbit trails of pontification on the meaning of a word, right in the midst of discourse on an over arching issue, complete with pasted dictionary entries etc., were oh so common at Christian Forums.
Sorry about the flashbacks. I’ll just be quiet now.
@Empathologicalism: We who used to post on CF did not all get thrown out or banned. At least one of us told them that he was sick of their misandry and would not be coming back. To get a warning for “vulgar or crude language” for using the expression “pussy pass” when a female poster claims that it is much worse for a man to retaliate than it is for a woman to assault a man because the man is physically stronger took my breath away, when, in the same thread, a female poster claimed she was being Christian when she referred to her husband as “butt head”. I have descrinbed CF to its moderators as behaving like children who think that there is a “do over” every time somneone corrects them. I have found the theology and the honesty of the arguments on The Marriage Bed to be of a much higher standard and I will be getting my Christian marriage input mainly from that site in future.
@Jonathan Cooper: You are so right that preachers need to preach the truth. We left our previous church when it decided that homosexual activity per se was not incompatable with Scripture. We are in the UK and that church was a member of the Evangelical Alliance, but the leadership refused to invite an outside speaker from the EA to address the church on the topic of homosexuality, while inviting an outside speaker with a liberal viewpoint. In our present church, we have heard only one mention of marriage and/or sex in the eight years while we have been there, and that was an ordained clergyman who said that Paul would prefer that we were all celibate.
@Anonymous Reader: Be thankful that it was a Mercedes. The build quality on them has fallen so much that you would probably have less damage to your car than if you hit a small Honda.
@FaceInACrowd: “I think most christians would harshly judge those who divorce simply because they’re not happy.”
Really? So when are they going to start doing that? When is this bashing of frivolous divorce going to begin? I’ve heard many sermons were men were told they were losers and needed to get their act together. But condemning divorce – even outright frivolous divorce – is pretty much unheard of, even (or perhaps especially) in the church. It would be fantastic if pastors would get up and say “No, you can’t get a divorce just because you’re unhappy.” I’m hoping that one day they’ll start doing that, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
“These are all gray areas that are just not possible to discuss in a public setting like CF because of how strongly different people believe certain things.”
Divorce is absolutely devastating to all parties involved – and it is contagious, as Dalrock has shown. There are very few legitimate reasons for causing that much pain and suffering to that many people – not to mention breaking your vow to God. Yet, what I am hearing is that we must not talk about this subject in public because it will hurt people’s feelings. If Christians are really too immature to talk about (and condemn!) divorce on a forum that’s dedicated to marriage, then Christianity is in enormous trouble. How can you possibly fix something you aren’t allowed to mention? How can you condemn frivolous divorce when you’re not allowed to condemn any divorces at all? Doesn’t that just provide everyone cover to do appalling things and then go get emotional support for it from others? Am I really supposed to believe that forbidding people from condemning divorce somehow makes the world a better place?
Where did all of the adults go? Have we been reduced to a society of brats who are incapable of acting maturely in public?
How can you possibly fix something you aren’t allowed to mention? How can you condemn frivolous divorce when you’re not allowed to condemn any divorces at all? Doesn’t that just provide everyone cover to do appalling things and then go get emotional support for it from others? Am I really supposed to believe that forbidding people from condemning divorce somehow makes the world a better place?
—————————————————————————
The pat answer is “I dont know anyone who divorced because of the toilet seat being up”, or other flip garbage like that. Or the other is, well that may be but I didnt do that, I was ABUSED I tell you ABUSED.
If a woman accidentally, in telling her story, leaves off explicit mention of abuse, and tells a tale that looks alot like divorce for unhappiness, one of the gentle sisters will say “sweety , you poor thing dont you realize that what he was doing was abuse?” Or, a woman simply sharing a marital problem but with no mentioned divorce intent is met with “honey I hate to break this to you but you were being abused”
I used to ask, repeatedly, what innate value there is to that specific label, abuse. They are masterful at avoidance, saying things like “well if it is abuse why not call it abuse”…missing the point entirely. Id ask is it not enough to say to someone, hey, that’s a bad thing, you guys need to work on that….but abuse is a recruitment concept. The more people that can join the orgy of abuse empathy the better. Its the trump card, but it doesnt work on me because I have a license to call them out.
Yes there is cover for divorcing, indeed they never met a divorce they wont support, unless its a man whose wife just, oh, slpet w/ a football team under a red light or something, then they have to qualify it, well maybe she had PMS, maybe he was abusing her, maybe she’d put up with him for years, or the bestest one of all…..maybe he USSSEEEDDD POOORRRNNNN.
CL – left out one example.
D. The carjacker who steals a vehicle at gunpoint, and in the course of trying to escape from the scene of the crime, smashes into a new Mercedes.
I think we can agree that prevention of D calls for different measures than prevention of A, B or even C. And the sanctions laid on the persons responsible for a smashed Mercedes would be different as well.
We might consider treating the 16 year old single mother differently from, say, a 35 year old who is pregnant with her third child by as many men. Just off the top of my head.
With respect to Reg (5:48 PM on 3/27/12) and others who have commented that “Protestant churches don’t consider marriage a sacrament,”– the Episcopal Church does. Please see the following link: http://episcopalchurch.org/page/sacraments
My husband and I were recently married in the Episcopal Church, and I can guarantee that the language was that of “Holy Matrimony” and “according to God’s plan.” To address a hair-splitting question from earlier, the man and woman make the vows to each other, though the priest’s pronouncement recognizes that it is God who has joined them together (“whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder”). I don’t know if/how our church tracks divorces; I’ll have to ask.
If you go back to the comment I left on the original post:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/does-your-church-measure-divorce/#comment-33465
I detailed the numbers I pulled together by reconstructing the marriage history of the churches I attended, using the records I did have available (mostly membership records). I really did enter this project expecting, exactly what Dalrock says- “A far more realistic default position is that their church has the same fundamental problem and go from there.” I have been a long time lurker on this blog and have recommended it to others. I do agree with D quite often, or more accurately I agree with Malachi 2:16. I know this church will not be immune to this problem.
Based on my reconstructions, I came up with an absurdly low number. So my first thought is that the sample size is too small. Having actual marriage records would help some, but that has never been done in hundreds of years. I can’t go back 100yrs or 15yrs and change that. What I really need is a way to gather a broader net of churches into the data pool and was originally looking for suggestions on how to achieve that or suggestions on what sample size is really needed to be a significant statistic.
My perception of Dalrock’s response
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/christians-washing-their-hands-of-sexual-morality/
is this– since I don’t have the records from the past decades and can only rely on reconstructions and estimates, then the church isn’t serious about this work. I find this is judging too quickly, and is changing the goal posts. Those goal posts were measure and report/track. To the best of my ability I have done what seemed reasonable, reconstructing the facts as I find them.
For some of you, please put your assumptions of how the church I attend does things on hold. For example, I have never in my memory seen the church’s building used for a wedding. So no, there are no advanced plans or fees to keep records. There are many other things they do (don’t do) which you may not expect. Don’t assume, ask.
@ Jonathan Cooper:
“Really? So when are they going to start doing that? When is this bashing of frivolous divorce going to begin? I’ve heard many sermons were men were told they were losers and needed to get their act together. But condemning divorce – even outright frivolous divorce – is pretty much unheard of, even (or perhaps especially) in the church. It would be fantastic if pastors would get up and say “No, you can’t get a divorce just because you’re unhappy.” I’m hoping that one day they’ll start doing that, but I’m not going to hold my breath.”
I commend this article to you, good Rev. Cooper:
Game for Pastors 101
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/game-for-pastors-part-i/
[D: Thanks Deti. This discussion reminds me that I still owe a part two on the topic.]
“The Church is corrupt.”
The Latin root of “corrupt” is “rupta” meaning broken. And the church insofar as it relates to marriage, is broken, i.e. it doesn’t work correctly. Marriage in the church doesn’t work correctly because most Christian churches (at least claim to and used to) view marriage as a three-way agreement: man, woman and God. Man and woman at bottom of pyramid, with God at the apex. The foundation of a Christian marriage being in Eph 5 and (I believe) I Peter and II Corinthians in which the authors describe how husbands and wives are to treat each other and relate to each other. Christian marriages don’t work unless you follow these directions:
1. Wife submits to and respects husband
2. Husband loves wife, lay down his life for wife, and gives himself up for wife (NOTE: wife submits FIRST, THEN husband loves)
3. Wife’s body belongs to husband
4. Husband’s body belongs to wife
5. Husbands and wives are not to abstain from sex except by agreement for a time of prayer and fasting, and then return to sex
6. Marriage is a calling. According to St. Paul, a fortunate few are not called to marriage. Most people, however, are called to marriage because they cannot remain ceilbate. It is better to be married and have a sex partner than not to be married and want sex but be deprived. It is also better to marry and have sex rather than to have extramarital sex and suffer the pain of fornication (“If you cannot contain, marry, for it is better to marry than burn”).
That’s Christian marriage. Note that there’s nothing in there about happiness. Neither party is required to do anything to make the other happy. But sex IS an obligation, according to Christian marriage; and sex plays a pretty prominent role in what God commands for marriage.
Sex feels good. It’s fun. It makes babies. But it does not make him or her happy.
But I suspect that what makes husband happy is when wife submits to and respects him.
I suspect that what makes wife happy is when, IN RETURN FOR HER SUBMISSION, he loves her and gives himself up for her.
That’s not what marriages, even marriages performed in churches, are anymore. And that’s why it’s broken.
@Drew
Thanks for the clarification. I’ve added a correction to the OP. Your wording that the church doesn’t “technically” marry anyone threw me off there. I would say that so long as churches don’t rebuke those who divorce frivolously and aren’t going to track the success of their own membership’s marriages in a time when marriage fails at catastrophic rates it is better that they not perform marriages or pressure men or women into marriage. I don’t see this as correct, but better than the churches today which strenuously promote marriage on the one hand and then turn a blind eye to divorce as not their business once the wedding has occurred.
“plus cash and prizes”
That phrase captures the situation so well. I suggest everybody use everywhere from now on.
@Deti:
Marriage is a calling.
I’m unclear on that, partly because I’m itchy about pedastalizing the default – becoming a religious, remaining a single celibate, that sort of thing, seems “more qualified”, as they’re not the norm. As much as marriage is a vocation, and holy work, I’m wondering if elevating it to a “calling” is precisely what makes it culturally acceptable to exchange partners when the next one “calls”, or if one no longer hears “the call” to remain with one’s spouse. Perhaps that is the right word, I don’t know, but the call thing is something of an infection in Christian circles, and it really means “I feeeeel”. It’s another way to wash our hands of sexual morality.
The better approach is to assume marriage is your vocation unless there is a calling from the Lord to give up that fundamental right to marriage and serve him exclusively as a consecrated person.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=19
I realize not everyone is Catholic, but I thought this perspective was useful.
And Earl Scruggs died 😦 (/derail)
Jonathan…. your comment tells my story exactly too. I went to my church when my marriage was in a tailspin and they utterly failed me. The red pill would have saved us.
Its remarkable that I have found the truth in Pick-Up Artist circles, and in BDSM theory, rather than in the churches I grew up in. The church desperately needs the red pill, but it will be rejected, and they will close. I’d rather shoot straight and pastor a church that failed, than to continue to fail the families in trouble, year after year, acting like all is well. Female subjugation just isnt politcally correct…
they dont want the truth anymore, they want their ears tickled…
@Deti
What if you’re married to a non-christian? One who doesn’t love you like Christ loves the church, what if you really married a dud who isn’t worthy of respect?
Should the woman submit to a man who would abuse his headship because he doesn’t understand what it means?
Should you automatically ‘respect’ him, even if by anyone’s standard he isn’t worthy of it?
I’m not asking to be a sh*t disturber, I really want to know your opinion.
Peace.
@ Jonathan
Where did all of the adults go? Have we been reduced to a society of brats who are incapable of acting maturely in public?
I think you just answered your own question. *grin*
Johnathon said something useful
Now there is a very good biblical term for such people. They are called fools, and there is a book in the Bible that tells us how to handle them. Called Proverbs.
And one of the core teachings in proverbs is that arguing with fools is a vexation and tedious. Part of the job of the leadership of any congregation is to weed fools out. You cannot afford them leading: they have no wisdom and no discretion.
They have to be left in the consequences of their foolishness. You cannot reason with them, and they will despise correction. Which is why the rod was made for them: the only things they understand are external controls. Like Jail.
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except
precisely that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, then I am not
confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the
loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefront besides is merely flight and
disgrace if he flinches at that point.” -Martin Luther
They are wound up about the “It Wasn’t Me” post now, suggesting that this group here of Christian men are somehow discussing strategy for how to blame shift it we got busted cheating.
Oy:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7644019/
AFaceInTheCrowd:
“””Of course, you’d now have to define ‘abuse’ further, eg. just physical abuse, or verbal? If so what constitutes verbal abuse?”””
———————————————————————
Abuse is whatever it takes to cover her tracks for divorcing because she is not happy. The rule is, IF she is unhappy, THEN she must be abused. Lack of happiness means presence of abuse. You will not find a Christian woman who divorced because she was unhappy….they simply do not exist, they were all abused in some way. This is because loosing an argument is abuse, its that simple.
next
These are all gray areas that are just not possible to discuss in a public setting like CF because of how strongly different people believe certain things.
Therefore it’s easier to make a site-wide ban and try to define what is acceptable or not in black and white.
I can’t blame them really – it’d be like constantly pulling apart squabbling kids if you didn’t. Too hustings
—————————————————————————–
I at once sympathize with staff, and dont. Yea its frustrating, but any topic can be discussed. Two things, 1. making NICE the cardinal virtue and defining that as always supporting everyone is silly. and 2. The feminist tools of misrepresentation of mens posts are painfully evident to linear thinkers, yet even many men on CF (which I expect you are one) let that slide, only raising up to rebuke men who get tired of being told that if they would like to see the divorce rate lower they are therefore in favor of forcing women into servitude and abuse. Now that IS stupid.
Next
There’s a lot of good points on this blog and in some of these posts, but the way in which they’re presented I think hinders more than helps.
———————————————————————————————
Hinders what? More than helps what? The purpose of this , well I cannot speak for dalrock, but Im comfortable saying the purpose here is not to garner female support, or that of wishy washy white knights who hold niceness as pinnacle virtue. The purpose here is men, iron sharpening iron, boldly describing problems, catharsis for some, refining views, outing the church for its pro-divorce by default stance and for being everything female friendly all the time. This is tail chasing. I saw many nice guys try to write nicely, one friend who started his tenure on CF being so nice he seemed to not be taking a side, which defaults to being perceived by the women as an ally. he was roundly celebrated as one of the good men. he slightly changed his content, still very very nice and polite, but stating some things about divorce, and porn perceptions etc…..and he was cast as evil incarnate.
No, the mode of delivery as a solution was left roadside to rot decades ago
@deti: “Game for Pastors 101”
Thanks for the link! I appreciate it. This is exactly what is needed. The tricky part is that if you take the leap and do this, the chances are good you will get bounced right out of church. Congregations cannot stomach a pastor who actually preaches the truth and tells people how it is. I have seen it happen to others, and it has happened to me.
Now, it still needs to be done; the truth is so vital and important that it ought to be proclaimed and defended at all costs, up to and including the cost of our very lives. But it is very difficult for a pastor to teach something that the congregation does not want to hear. They’ll just get rid of him. The best I’ve ever been able to do is find the handful of people in a congregation who are open to the truth, and minister to each of them privately. There are people out there who will listen; the tricky part is finding them.
“Christian marriages don’t work unless you follow these directions:”
You are absolutely right. That is why marriages are failing catastrophic today – because people are not following God’s directions for marriage. What troubles me is that there’s really not a way to fix this. The reason modern marriages are so lousy is because the law provides strong incentives for divorce; it actually encourages women to leave their husbands. Right now a woman can cheat on her husband, break her vow, and still end up with cash and prizes and custody of the children. The situation will never change until the law stops rewarding divorce. I would love to think that perhaps one day the law will be fixed, but that seems unlikely. I think for the foreseeable future we’re going to have to live with things the way they are.
Which brings us back to St. Paul. One of the other things he said in that passage about marriage is that getting married is not a bad thing, but he wished people could avoid getting married altogether because people who get married “shall have trouble in the flesh” (I Corinthians 7:28). In other words, people who choose to get married will have all kinds of problems that single people will never face. It’s not a sin to get married, but you are setting yourself up for trouble.
I think the same thought applies today: if you take the leap and get married you are running a really big risk. Single people who remain celibate don’t really have to worry about losing custody of their kids, or their wife cheating on them, or paying alimony, or paying child support, or getting arrested on phony charges of “abuse”, or the thousand other dangers that arise in marriage.
Getting married in modern times is something like playing the lottery: there’s a very small chance you will win, and a very large chance you will lose. However, when you lose at the lottery you are only out $10. Losing at marriage can cost you your children, your fortune, your freedom, and your future.
What are the odds of finding a woman willing to take upon herself the Biblical role that Deti described – despite the mockery of society and the church, and despite the incentives for divorce? I’d say they are very, very small. When you get married you are betting your life on your spouse. It’s a huge gamble.
@FaceInACrowd: “What if you’re married to a non-christian?”
The Bible never makes our obedience conditional on the obedience of someone else. For example, St. Paul told the church to submit themselves to the government, even though the government was rounding up Christians and burning them at the stake. The government was oppressive, cruel, heartless, and unspeakably evil, but that did not change the duty of Christians one bit. Believers are called to be faithful, even if those around us are not.
Husbands must still love their wives and even be willing to die for them – even if their wives are total jerks who despise them and do terrible things. It doesn’t matter how awful their wives are. It doesn’t matter what they’ve done. Yes, at some point you may have to divorce her; you may not have a choice. But until that point comes we must still act with love and compassion (real love, tough love, not “let’s play and be nice” love).
The duty and role of wives, likewise, is not conditioned on their husbands’ behavior. No one is given the right to say “Well, he is unfaithful, so that gives me the right to be unfaithful too”. It doesn’t work that way. In fact, I Corinthians 7:13 explicitly says that Christian wives should not leave their unbelieving husbands: “And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.”
Having an unbelieving husband, therefore, does not give a person a “get out of marriage” card or even a “get out of submission” card. Does that make life hard? Yes, it does. Does that add pain and suffering to life? Absolutely. But the Christian life is full of pain and suffering. Jesus suffered. The apostles suffered. It’s how things always have been. We are called to suffer for what is right.
@Jonathan
Husbands must still love their wives and even be willing to die for them – even if their wives are total jerks who despise them and do terrible things. It doesn’t matter how awful their wives are. It doesn’t matter what they’ve done. Yes, at some point you may have to divorce her; you may not have a choice. But until that point comes we must still act with love and compassion (real love, tough love, not “let’s play and be nice” love).
The duty and role of wives, likewise, is not conditioned on their husbands’ behavior. No one is given the right to say “Well, he is unfaithful, so that gives me the right to be unfaithful too”. It doesn’t work that way. In fact, I Corinthians 7:13 explicitly says that Christian wives should not leave their unbelieving husbands: “And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.”
Having an unbelieving husband, therefore, does not give a person a “get out of marriage” card or even a “get out of submission” card. Does that make life hard? Yes, it does. Does that add pain and suffering to life? Absolutely. But the Christian life is full of pain and suffering. Jesus suffered. The apostles suffered. It’s how things always have been. We are called to suffer for what is right.
Really great post! Thanks for sharing – as I’m reading it, it’s ringing true, but something is causing me to pause and go over some of your statement.
I totally agree that we’re called to love, point blank, no matter what. And I truly respect and admire men who can stay married to that type of woman and act lovingly.
You’re correct when you speak of ‘sticking with your unbelieving husband’ – I feel like if you chose to marry him, you have to deal with the consequences of it, even if it is difficult.
My hesitancy comes in when I think of a non-christian husband, not loving his wife as he should, yet still demanding submission and dominance over her.
For example, what if said husband wanted to do something sexually demeaning to her, she tries to convince him otherwise, but as the ‘good christian submissive wife’ should she allow herself to be demeaned in such an intimate way? Or is this an acceptable time to not submit?
I agree with the traditional view of submission and a patriarchal household, but I can’t help but think of those women trapped and abused in the FLDS church, who insist they’re doing the right thing by submitting to these men who marry multiple child-brides, and submit to their husband, because it’s what a “good mormon wife does”…
I hope I’m making sense, but I feel like I’m blathering. Ah well.
Peace,
Interestingly, last night I was reading the passages cited by Deti in the other thread on marriage (Peter, Corinthians, Ephesians IIRC), she didn’t bat an eye at the submissive parts, agrees with the not denying each other, she started spinning a bit where it talks about the wife’s bits belonging to the husband, I told her to keep going because the next phrase is about the husband’s bits belonging to the wife, she smiled and said your thingy is MINE, and I said and yours is mine, and the one flesh part is always good.
Then we read from the Song of Songs, which she really likes and it gets her hot and bothered.
Oh, BTW, not North American, hasn’t even been here yet.
I agree with the traditional view of submission and a patriarchal household, but I can’t help but think of those women trapped and abused in the FLDS church, who insist they’re doing the right thing by submitting to these men who marry multiple child-brides, and submit to their husband, because it’s what a “good mormon wife does”…
————————————————————————————————–
Why cant you help but think of that? Thats the kafka trap of evangelical feminism to point out some irrelevant extreme, and swing the entire topic over to it as if it IS the topic.
The implication is that IF one practices biblical submission, they will necessarily have greater risk of these weird things. You actually contradict yourself with the “but” statement in the last paragraph.
I could point out a million examples that are parallel to that logic or lack of.
I agree with loving my wife sacrificially but I cannot help but think of the hen pecked men who cant even speak for themselves and are not allowed out of the house.
I agree with loving sacrificially but I cannot help but think of the woman whose idea of sacrifice means meeting her need to NOT have sex
etc etc
I agree its cool to have a swimming pool but I cannot help but think of the drownings
The LDS, the sexually demeaning stuff, that’s all a trick, a tactic. There will always be people doing all sorts of things. Discussing normal submission per Ephesians with normal folks has about as much to do with that as Cinderella with Freddie Kruger
@FaceInACrowd: “For example, what if said husband wanted to do something sexually demeaning to her, she tries to convince him otherwise, but as the ‘good christian submissive wife’ should she allow herself to be demeaned in such an intimate way? Or is this an acceptable time to not submit?”
I don’t want to take this thread off-course; I fear we are getting pretty far from the topic. But I’ll try to answer as best I can.
If we are talking about a specific situation, and not general principles, then I would suggest discussing the matter in person with someone. Unfortunately, this isn’t the kind of thing that can be answered over the internet on an anonymous forum.
Colossians 3:18 says “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” There are limits to submission; the verse does say “as it is fit in the Lord”. But what those limits are, and whether or not a specific situation is within those bounds, is very hard to determine outside of some sort of counseling session.
I say this in all seriousness. There are some women (I am NOT saying this is you) who complain about their husbands being unreasonable, and then I find out they’re upset because their husbands want to kiss them. Then there are the husbands who don’t understand why their wives don’t want to be a part of a threesome. The devil is always in the details.
Whenever there is a specific complaint, I always recommend having an in-depth, in-person talk with someone who is qualified and competent. There’s really no other way to understand all of the nuances of a situation – and without a detailed knowledge of the situation and the people involved it is extremely hard to make any kind of recommendation. I have never seen a serious marriage issue that could be fixed by strangers on an internet forum. (Realistically, how can anyone possibly give you sound, practical advice on how to fix a specific situation in your marriage without knowing you, your husband, or your marriage?)
On a more general basis, the Bible does prohibit certain kinds of sex. It prohibits incest, sex outside of marriage, sex with animals, and homosexual sex (be it male/male or female/female). I am not a Mormon and have very serious disagreements with them, but I must admit that the Bible does not prohibit polygamy – King David had multiple wives, which God actually gave him (2 Samuel 12:8). I have not found any passages that prohibit certain kinds of sex between a man and his wife.
However, how to apply those principles in a given situation is exactly the sort of question that counseling was designed to answer. I hope that you have someone in your life that you can bring these issues to and discuss. Local churches are supposed to be able to help, but sadly many of them have abandoned their duties.
FaceInACrowd – “For example, what if said husband wanted to do something sexually demeaning to her, she tries to convince him otherwise, but as the ‘good christian submissive wife’ should she allow herself to be demeaned in such an intimate way? Or is this an acceptable time to not submit?”
Well, according to a judge and jury in Tennessee, it is apparently reasonable not only that she not submit, but that she might even shoot him in the back while he is asleep, and to make sure that if the initial gun-shot didn’t kill him outright, he would have no way of seeking medical attention on his own.
Sorry to get somewhat snarky there, but your proposed scenario seemed to be quite in line with what was claimed* by one Mary Winkler as her reason for shooting her (pastor) husband in the back while he slept, pulling the phone cord form the wall, and leaving him to bleed-out and die.
While your actual question does raise a good point about the rational limits of what can be expected to fall in line with the idea(l) of wifely submission, I think that the idea of what constitutes abuse has been greatly over-stretched (VAWA guidance even considers attempting to curtail a wife’s spending habits as a means of abuse and control by a husband). And once a man is tagged as an abuser in a relationship with a women, a certain degree of “license” is extended to the “abused” woman – not only within the legal realm, but also socially and even within Churchianity.
In that regard, I would co-sign with empathologicalism’s comment above:
</”You will not find a Christian woman who divorced because she was unhappy….they simply do not exist, they were all abused in some way.”
Not that I believe women should submit to husbands who wish to abuse their desire to submit, but I think we need to be a bit more cautious about making the distinction between something being demeaning, distasteful, and even immoral; and that same thing being abuse. You did not use the word abuse, but, in the modern context, I believe that many will be inclined to insert the notion of abuse into anything seen as a coercive demand made by a husband upon a wife. The jury who exonerated Mary Winkler was only too willing to accept that her husband might have asked her to dress sexy and have anal sex was abuse worthy of death.
* I’m just relating what she said. I know that there was much more to her motivations – not least of which was her quickly unraveling checking fraud scheme – and that even her own children disputed her after-the-fact, and oh-so-convenient claims of “abuse”. So, don’t shoot the messenger.
@ Empath
You’re right I was swinging it to the extreme, I was just curious as to how “black and white” the submission doctrine should be taken,
@Jonathan
I really enjoy the way you write, do you have a blog?
I’m sorry I’ve taken this thread off course, and thanks for humouring my little detour.
But I have never noticed “as it is fit in the Lord” before, and I don’t know exactly how I missed that, as it’s such an important qualifier, that really changes a lot, and puts to rest a lot of assumptions.
I guess I do write like a girl, huh? I was trying not to be so obvious. But thankfully I don’t have the aforementions issues that I was using as an example. I am in a traditional submission/patriarchal marriage, but I have never had an issue with submitting to my husband as he’s a wonderful Christian man so…
@Slwerner
Thanks for your reply. I agree that the term ‘abuse’ has been well…abused more often than not, and what consitiutes actual abuse has become fuzzy, there’s more I’d like to say, but I won’t derail this thread any longer.
Thank you all for the responses, you’ve given me lots to think about, and I always appreciate that.
Peace,
Piggybacking on what Opus wrote “I may have written this before, but a friend told me of an ex of his who had recently married another man, but was threatening to Divorce so that my friend could marry her (her idea). He pointed out to her that as she was Roman Catholic, that would not be possible, but she responded that God would not want her to be Unhappy(!) It would appear that she is mistaken as to where she would achieve happiness, which she presumably now is, as she failed to carry out her threat.”
This. A friend of mine (from a Bible study) learned her husband of 16 years was cheating (she stayed at home and homeschooled the kids; he was sole provider). Not only did he not cheat a single time, but apparently had been on and off for several years, with different people. She had no idea and was devastated. (in the long run, it took over 2 years for them to get divorced- he emptied their banking accounts, hid money, hid is income, etc etc etc)
She had gone to their church for support and was shocked to learn she was not supported. Apparently, the bulk of the congregation felt that her husband had “the right” to be happy- even if that meant cheating on her. After all, “God wouldn’t have led him to these other women if He didn’t want {him, husband} to ‘be happy.'”]
Obviously, her church (which was an established branch of a very conservative, large southern church) had a very different understanding of marriage (and apparently, the entire Bible) and she left. I do believe at the end of the day, she was more heartbroken over her church than she was the husband, because she really felt that had he received actual Biblical guidance, that they could have repaired their marriage.
There is a reason why people go church shopping and why some don’t go much at all…………….
TikkTok
Ive heard that one before
I dont believe it
I am certain its not as you say it is, and this is a case of perception being reality
Empath,
I think the issue isn’t one of perception being reality, but more of the apex fallacy. There are a small number of men who both act as TickTok described and receive a pass for their actions. It may well have happened exactly as described, and even if that case isn’t real, that kind of case certainly exists. The problem is that it is taken as the norm, and the far more frequent cases of women doing similar things and receiving a pass are swept under the rug.
Edit: As an example, see Newt Gingrich.
@FaceInACrowd: “I really enjoy the way you write, do you have a blog?”
Yes, I do, but posting the link here seems impolite at best. I’ve never been a fan of people who post on other people’s blogs and try to divert traffic away to their own site; it’s spammy, it’s rude, and it’s unprofessional. I’d much rather drive traffic here than divert traffic away somewhere else. People need to read what Dalrock has to say, and I don’t want to distract them.
Besides, my blog has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. I discuss a lot of spiritual matters, and some eschatology. The blog also has a lot of science fiction stories (nobody seems to write Christian science fiction these days, so I do it myself). It’s not really a part of the “manosphere”, if you know what I mean. I probably should be talking about marriage, but other blogs do such a great job covering the subject that I haven’t really felt the need to join in. There are a lot of great professionals out there who are doing a fine job; I’m content to let them keep at it and just point people in their direction.
What part don’t you believe? She wasn’t trying to screw him; she just wanted what was rightly hers (as a helpmate for the last 16 years) under the law, and found herself a biblically inclined (male) lawyer. She could have gone for a lot more, but didn’t want it that way. At the end, he got custody of the son; she the daughter, and he moved out of state with his latest girlfriend and her kids.
He had his own business, and part of what took so long was that they had to get the IRS involved just to have an accurate track of the income (which, as I understood, landed him in hot water because he hadn’t paid all the taxes). Since he had dealt with all the money, it was hard for her to track and had to legally acquire bank records, etc etc.
She did not initiate divorce, either. She was still hoping he would come to his senses and go to counseling with her (which he refused) and work to repair their marriage. In the end, his girlfriend (who he was also cheating on, according to his mother) won out and off he went. When he moved out and in with his mother and then filed for divorce, she finally got a lawyer.
Up until the point she caught them in bed in her house (coming home early with a sick kid) she had no idea what he had been doing, because she did not want to see the signs.
I find the “the man is never wrong” attitude delusional and cliche. People on both sides of the fence are quite capable of screwing over their spouses. Some of the time, it actually is the man who does it………..
Regarding TikkTok’s story, I would not be surprised if the “haaaaapiness” view of Christian marriage has it’s female victims as well. However, one must be careful about generalizing anecdotes. The “haaaaapiness” view is more likely to motivate women to cheat, largely because women are more likely to make decisions based on their emotional state than are men. And they’re more likely to feel justified in the eyes of other women for doing so. Men, generally, are more likely to make decisions based on perceived facts and logic than on their emotional states. And their fellow men will usually require an appeal to facts and logic in order to feel a man’s actions were justified. Obviously, this is not universally true all the time.
As well, social dynamics among men would make it rare for Christian men to accept such an excuse as “I wasn’t haaaappy” from another man. Why? Because it makes the guy sound like a complete whiney little unaccountable and irresponsible b—ch (excuse the language). A much manlier excuse (though still morally unacceptable) would be “I was traveling for work and a really attractive 25 year-old blonde woman came on to me. I fell to temptation.”
That is why, while TikkTok’s story might be true, it would be a less common situation.
@Brent
Agreed, but we do at times see this.
FaceInACrowd says:
March 28, 2012 at 12:55 pm
” If so what constitutes verbal abuse?”
Nagging or harping on a spouse. Being a harridan. Believing you are the commander who must order the minutia in the life of your spouse. Never being happy and blaming it on your spouse instead of taking personal responsibility for your self. These things both sexes can do. Too many people duck their responsibilities of adulthood.
Even then, who believes this is the normal pattern for a married man? The ‘Iron John’ syndrome may be broken, but it was men’s training to carry on in life and bare any burden. Who in their life and so in their marriage is not taught to carry their burden anymore?
TikkTok, I definitely agree that men can be culprits in the destruction of a marriage. I don’t think anyone here is denying that. I know situations where it has happened. However, as Dalrock pointed out with the statistics in another post, frivolous divorce on the part of women is more common. Within the church, frivolous or hypergamous female divorce is much more accepted than a man cheating on his wife. For goodness sake, evangelicalism has been trumpeting over and over again that a woman is justified in divorcing a man just because he once looked at boobiez on the interwebz.
FaceInACrowd says:
March 28, 2012 at 11:35 pm
What fool would marry a man like that. I’m not an intelectual here, so I don’t have the reference for Dalrock’s choosing a spouse articles. But if you choose poorly, you are responsible for your action of marrying someone that is a dud. Are you saying that women should be the strong ‘you go girl’ types until their wedding night yet are now relieved of responsibilty of keeping their vow because ‘suddenly’ the man doesn’t measure up?
Find out who you are marrying first or face the consequences of your actions.
empathologicalism says:
March 29, 2012 at 5:09 am
As an atheist, I feel left out. Could you put in a bad word for me there, please.
What if you’re married to a non-christian? One who doesn’t love you like Christ loves the church, what if you really married a dud who isn’t worthy of respect?
There are 2 ways to get unequally yoked.
(1) Innocently: If you were a non-believer when you married, and got saved later — you have my sympathies. The scripture addresses the situation rather clearly. If the unsaved spouse is willing to stay with you, do not divorce. There is a possibility that the spouse may yet get saved, NOT through nagging or shaming, but by a godly example and showing said spouse true Christian love and respect — even if the unsaved spouse doesn’t always quite deserve it. Apparently this actually works now and then.
(2) By Disobedience: If you were a Christian, and wilfully married a nonChristian in a brazen defiance of the Scriptures — (and, btw, it’s almost always Christian woman + high-status/rich nonChristian man, very seldom the reverse) — You did it to yourself, and you rejected a lot of good Christian men in the process (including perhaps my younger self), so I can’t spare you much sympathy. The same scriptures that apply in case (1), still do: if the unbeliever is willing to stay, you have no right to divorce.
Biblically… there IS NO OUT. So quit looking for one. Whether the burden of unequal yoking was ordained for you by God, who called you to salvation after you were already hitched, or whether you sinfully and wrongfully assumed the burden yourself, either way you are bound.
FaceInACrowd says:
March 29, 2012 at 8:30 am
“For example, what if said husband wanted to do something sexually demeaning to her, she tries to convince him otherwise, but as the ‘good christian submissive wife’ should she allow herself to be demeaned in such an intimate way?”
Sounds like your looking for a ‘Get Out of Hell Free’ card in the situations you come up with. I’m reminded of George Carlin saying that when a priest asked his class if they had any questions, one asked: “Is god so powerful that he could create a rock so big that he himself could not lift it?” Are you trying to trick your god through the men commenting on this site?
@Brent- yes, I completely agree. Given the current trend in churches to side with the woman and her variety of excuses, I was very surprised that the church as a whole took the opposite stance because he was cheating. I really expected him to be thrown to the curb instead of what happened.
My point was that in this case, the “happiness” won out over gender and he was supported by the church, even though it destroyed his family. I have to wonder if this somehow falls into the category of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Bottom line- churches have an entirely corrupt view on just about everything. And I say this as a committed Christian. 😯
@ Brent- yes, I agree. There are always two parties in every marriage, and it’s generally assumed that either one party (usually the man) is completely at fault, and yes, while this is usually actually not the case, generalizations are usually made.
I just think we need to be very careful when making blanket statements and assumptions, because there is nothing that is 100% all of the time. When we’ve fallen into the rut of doing this, we become just as bad as the opposite side, imo. Sinking to that level can feel very good (and even justified at times) but it’s rarely beneficial in the overall long run……..
TikkTok says:
March 29, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Ah, Not All Divorces Are Like That. So we cannot address women’s faults in divorce, which is not discussed anywhere but in the manosphere, unless we use the few men acting similiarly as a shield for women’s destruction of marriage today.
Well played.
Nope not at all. Whoever’s fault it is should get it. We just shouldn’t assume anything every time based on gender. There should be no pass giving at all, ever. Pretty simple. Whoever does it, gets it. Period. Until we can get the law actually doing *something* about divorce, it’s not going to go away.
Used to be, the penalties (social {especially for women}, financial) that came with divorce were enough of a deterrent. Until there is no longer a reward for divorce, it’s not going to stop.
But to assume a man never does anything wrong in a marriage and isn’t at fault makes that stance just the same (and just as guilty) as the women who blame the man every single time.
Divorce and conflict (and sin, if you want to go that route) is an equal opportunist. Doesn’t mean that women aren’t taking advantage of the current system, because they are. But no one gets a pass because of gender, at least in my world.
Pingback: Put away shameful games. | Dark Brightness
Yep sometimes it is the man.
And?
We’ve spent the last 40 years on that topic, therefore its almost silly as a rejoinder to say “men do it too”…because thats the platform off which we operate
Empath,
I understand your frustration, but in this case TikkTok wasn’t going off topic. The example fits the theme of Christians washing their hands of sexual morality. As I mentioned, we see the same kind of pass given to Gingrich for example.
Dal:
Maybe you know something I don’t. If so, sorry.
If not, Id betcha a coke that I measured the angle correctly.
Alrighty then. 😆
Thanks. 😀
Dal
Are you saying Gingrich is getting a pass now? I guess thats true, but he didnt get a pass back when it happened, and Im not sure the value in holding stuff over men and or women after a decade. If you accept that the goal is to lower the divorce rate, much of the reason why pastors cant or wont speak on divorce is because the folks who are divorced act as if they are being attacked. Decry them or not, they done done it.
Im trying to understand what his getting a pass looks like? Who is giving him a pass? He has had that on his back, rightfully so, from day one. Its actually a scale of preference to present occupants of White House that some would be willing to give a pass on that. I am not attempting to start talking politics in detail, but the desperation to change the president may have just about anyone, even morally bankrupt anyone, given a chance
Gingrich was a cad to his first two wives. That these politicians display typical alpha male patterns of behavior should surprise no one, honestly. But then you have the media hypocrisy of giving a moral soapbox to his second wife to complain because he cheated on her: His second wife was the woman with whom he cheated on his first wife. What moral right does she have to go after him for nailing Calista?
@Empath
I would say this is another area where Roissy is mostly right. Alphas get a pass that ordinary men don’t get. I would even take it a step further and argue that ordinary men (betas like us) have internalized this to such a degree that we have a sort of reverse apex fallacy; while women only see the alphas getting a pass, we don’t tend to note it even when right in front of us because we know those rules don’t apply to us. Either way, alphas are the exception and shouldn’t be mistaken for the rule.
As for the specifics of Gingrich’s pass, as I understand it he very likely received annulments for his first two marriages from the Catholic church fairly recently. However, when I searched the sources I found stated that the church keeps these things confidential and his priest won’t comment. I did find a surprising quote from Falwell however:
From a Christian perspective, we see despicable behavior from men, women, whatever, and we would like to see some sort of sanction. Obviously a bolt of lightening, the earth opening and swallowing the sinners, sinners turning into a pillar of salt etc, THAT’S what we want to see of a just God.
If a spectacular display can’t be had, then some sort of wrist slap from the church would be a salve for the wounded…but alas, the church sees no money potential in “hell-fire-and-brimstone”, but lots of cash in “love-n-forgiveness” .
Others have very correctly relayed the strict biblical justifications for divorce above. The church is seeing the falling away of the flock because they will not enforce a clearly defined moral standard.
My daughter asked about a co-worker of Mrs Buck at her office, a very nice, personable, open lesbian. My daughter was reading her bible about how Christians are not to associate with sinners, “what hath light with darkness”, pearls to swine…
I told her, these admonitions had to do with the Body-of-Christ. We live in a world of many “unsaved” (in fact the majority), we do not hold them to Christian moral standards, in fact, we in the body are to be living witnesses of the light of Christ. We are to be, honorable, loving, kind, “and ready to give an answer for the joy within us”…to nonbelievers!
BUT within the body of Christ, moral sanctions are REQUIRED, moral teaching is required. The ministers will be held responsible for failing to tell their flock what the bible says about sin and judgment.
Christianity is mocked because of the lack of moral clarity within the body of Christ.
I agree with the general thrust that the church has basically washed its hands of the whole issue of sexual morality, and I would argue, with some of the others who have been on CF that one problem is that the church is full of woolly-headed people who spout forth without looking at the longer term implications of what they are saying or doing, and some of the women on the CF married couples area are among the worst for that. Back in the 1960’s my mother used to call it “Opening your mouth to let your belly rumble”. But while the bible tells us that we should not have hard hearts, nowhere does it tell us to have soft heads.
John Piper, one of Mark Driscoll’s favourite theologians if that can be judged from the mumber of times Dr Piper is quoted at Mars Hill, did issue a position paper on Divorce and remarriage which is available at:
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper
which is probably almost Roman Catholic in its hard-line view of marriage, divorce and remarriage. It is one of the few discussions on the subject which takes Scritpure seriously but too many people treat it like Jesus’ teaching when He was on the Earth and shy away from it because it is too hard.
Two things I would say on divorce: firstly that in every divorce there are three sides to the story, his side, her side, and the truth which may or may not bear any resenblance to the other two, and secondly for a divorce to occur thare has to be sin at some point in the process. That sin might well be cruelty, or adultery, or even abandonment (which would generally produce what the manosphere would call serious reasons), or it might be covetousness or greed (which would generally come out as frivolous reasons such as ‘I’m not haaaappy’). It is simply that in the latter case, it is nigh on impossible to prove that someone else is covetous or greedy because these are internal, where as the actions involved in cruelty, adultery or abandonment are clearly visible.
There are things about Piper I like. I love the fact that he’s clear that “I wasn’t haaapy” is not a basis for divorce (wonder if his church actually enforces that). I strongly disagree with his interpretation that Matt. 5:32 bans re-marriage by someone whose former spouse committed infidelity, because it seems to do a great deal of violence to the text. The clause “except in a case of sexual immorality” seems to be a clause that conditions both the “causes her to commit adultery” clause adn the “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” clauses. Piper’s exegesis splits these two appart and seems to say the “woman” spoken of in the second clause is somehow entirely distinct from the “woman” spoken of in the first clause of that text. As if they are two different women, one guilty and one innocent.
Rather, it is much easier to understand the text as meaning, unless a man divorced a woman because of her sexual immorality, then he causes her to committ adultery [implicitly, that is if she remarries, as is shown by the second clause above], and any man who marries such a woman is also guilty of adultery.
@Brent I know that there was another scholar, although I cannot remember who he was, who pointed out the there was an ‘easy option’ divorce in Jesus’ day, called ‘any reason’ because some of the more liberal rabbis interpreted the Jewish law as allowing the husband to divorce his wife for any reason if she displeased him, and that this ‘any reason’ divorce was abused in Jesus’ time. This ‘any reason’ divorce was treated as akin to modern ‘no fault’ divorce so that if one party wanted out of the marriage, it would be dissolved. Although the husband divorced the wife, the wife could petition the court to instruct the husband to divorce her if she wanted out of the marriage even if he did not.
@Ukfred, yes this is true from what I understand. That is why, after Jesus re-iterates his statement in Matt. 19, his disciples respond with astonishment, “If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this , it’s better not to marry ! ” (v 10). One must remember that in a Marriage 1.0 environment, and with the added stipulation that a woman would be stoned to death if she’s caught cheating on a guy, women had a much lower benefit, and much higher cost, to committing infidelity. So effectively, His disciples were interpreting this as, “The overwhelming majority of you will never have an excuse for divorce, and you are committing a grievous sin if you divorce for any but the rarest reason.”
Pingback: Begetting Unfaithfulness | The Society of Phineas