Divorce question

[JohnH]

Boot,

In your view, what do you see as the right way for the divorced-and-remarried people to make amends and otherwise "reconcile" (in a scriptural fashion) with their ex-spouses?

I am in a church myself that has some divorced and remarried people. I don't know a huge amount about their ancient history (other than that some of it is quite colourful). As Christians, though, we need to make sure we have set right past wrongs with other people - that is indeed part of being converted - it is also part of a Christian who falls into sin and then later is restored to grace.

I don't have a clear answer on what that would even look like. Conservative Mennonites generally don't have to think about this since they have a very narrow idea of what "reconciling" would be in this case.

[sojourner]

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.


I realize that most Conservative Mennonites see this differently.




Indeed they do. Most Conservative Anabaptists would not be favor of breaking up an adulterous marriage in order to return to an earlier one. Rather, a divorced couple can only be reconciled if no subsequent marriages have taken place.

[ken_sylvania]

Deuteronomy 24 explicitly says that if a wife has married another man, she may not return to her first husband. This seems designed to protect the second marriage.

Designed to protect what second marriage? I suppose you are talking about where it says that if a woman is divorced and remarried, and the second husband dies, that she is not to return to her first husband? I'd say after the second husband dies or divorces her, there isn't a "second marriage" to be protected any more. Why is the second marriage more important to protect than the first marriage?

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

You sound an awful lot like the paedobaptists here.

Surely you realize that there is NO example in the NT of the church countenancing the remarriage of a divorced person.

[Ernie]

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

This is the difference between the way the Reformers handled the scriptures vs. the Anabaptists.
The Reformers read the scriptures and said, "If the scriptures do not forbid something, we are allowed to do it."
The Anabaptists read the scriptures and said, "Whatever the scriptures promote and hold up as ideal, that we should do!"

[Valerie]

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

This is the difference between the way the Reformers handled the scriptures vs. the Anabaptists.
The Reformers read the scriptures and said, "If the scriptures do not forbid something, we are allowed to do it."
The Anabaptists read the scriptures and said, "Whatever the scriptures promote and hold up as ideal, that we should do!"

Ernie were those both actual quotes from Reformers & Anabaptists? Were they quotes from one person from each group or part of a creed or what?

[Bootstrap]

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

This is the difference between the way the Reformers handled the scriptures vs. the Anabaptists.
The Reformers read the scriptures and said, "If the scriptures do not forbid something, we are allowed to do it."
The Anabaptists read the scriptures and said, "Whatever the scriptures promote and hold up as ideal, that we should do!"

So you believe that the Scriptures promote and hold up the notion of breaking up marriages with children? Where? You believe that the value of preserving even second marriages in Deuteronomy was overruled by the New Testament? Where?

I think the real question is this: given where these people are at now, what is God's call on their lives? What does the ministry of reconciliation look like, given all the circumstances and people involved? How can we get people on the path to simple obedience?

Repentance is not usually portrayed as undoing every consequence of past sin by reversing history. Paul could not undo his persecution of Christians. Zacchaeus could make restitution, but he could not restore the past. David could repent, yet the consequences of his sins remained woven into the lives of many people.

So if someone entered a second marriage sinfully, does repentance necessarily mean creating yet another broken home? Where do we see the apostles commanding that? Where do we see the church dissolving existing marriages in order to restore earlier ones?

The New Testament certainly upholds lifelong faithfulness as the ideal. It clearly condemns hardness of heart, covenant breaking, and sexual immorality. But I do not see it teaching that repentance requires abandoning one’s present spouse and children in order to reconstruct a former marriage that no longer exists in reality.

At some point, the question becomes: what covenant responsibilities exist now, before God, toward the people presently entrusted to one’s care?

[Bootstrap]

Most Conservative Anabaptists would not be favor of breaking up an adulterous marriage in order to return to an earlier one. Rather, a divorced couple can only be reconciled if no subsequent marriages have taken place.

Is this true? I am not a plain Anabaptist, I did not know this.

[JohnH]

Most Conservative Anabaptists would not be favor of breaking up an adulterous marriage in order to return to an earlier one. Rather, a divorced couple can only be reconciled if no subsequent marriages have taken place.

Is this true? I am not a plain Anabaptist, I did not know this.

Amongst Swiss Anabaptists who are more conservative / plain, there are two positions. sojourner is describing the "stricter" position.

They would that the second marriage needs to broken up, but nobody can return to the earlier first marriage. Everyone has to stay single until somebody dies. This would be the position of German Baptist Brethren including one type of Old Brethren, Eastern PMC&RA, most Old Orders, and many others. This view puts some validity on the second marriage, believing that you somehow have to remain faithful to both marriage covenants (but being "faithful" apparently means not living with or being intimate with either).

The other position is that what matters is if a marriage is "valid" or not, and subsequent "invalid" marriages are as if they never happened, so returning to the earlier spouse is fine. They view a divorce and remarriage as being the same thing as an affair or adultery. This would be the view of most Beachys, Mid-West, Pilgrim (maybe?), and so on.

There are some rare views like one of the Old Brethren positions (Petition #1?) which holds that living with someone equals a marriage covenant with them and also binds you to that person for life with no option to exit, since the "marriage" was done in rebellion to church. Nigerian Holdemans hold a similar position.

Russian (Dutch) Anabaptists generally don't hold any of these positions and would be closer to Menno Simons' or Michael Sattler's view, believing the marriage bond can be broken by a certain threshold of immorality, generally speaking, that being adultery or getting married to another person, with an "innocent" and a "not innocent" spouse in the resultant break-up.

[Bootstrap]

In your view, what do you see as the right way for the divorced-and-remarried people to make amends and otherwise "reconcile" (in a scriptural fashion) with their ex-spouses?

I am in a church myself that has some divorced and remarried people. I don't know a huge amount about their ancient history (other than that some of it is quite colourful). As Christians, though, we need to make sure we have set right past wrongs with other people - that is indeed part of being converted - it is also part of a Christian who falls into sin and then later is restored to grace.

I don't have a clear answer on what that would even look like. Conservative Mennonites generally don't have to think about this since they have a very narrow idea of what "reconciling" would be in this case.

This is a really good question. I think it starts by looking at the circumstances for all involved, the levels of hostility and unforgiveness, giving room for time, and a whole lot of prayer.

For instance, a divorced wife may often need child support or other financial aid from her ex, and they may need some way to work together to make decisions involving the children. There may be real wounds beyond the divorce itself - was abuse involved? infidelity? Does everyone have a safe place to live that they can afford?

For the first year at least, I think most divorced people are very shaken, and need a lot of support to avoid making stupid decisions or letting hostility grow unrestrained. Or just as bad, accepting all the blame themselves and seeing themselves as worthless and helpless and unable to move forward in life. Learning to let go of things is often not instant, husband and wife may have very different memories of what actually happened in crucial times, and it may not be possible to work through everything together. Maybe not ever. So learning to grow beyond that is important. Often, one or both are basically in a state of PTSD and grief. And the financial burdens of divorce are a real nightmare.

I think 1 Corinthians 6 is apt here. Secular courts often make everything worse. But we have to work really hard to make things actually better.

I know two Christian marriages that ended because the husband had serious psychological problems. In one case, they were not present when they first got married. I can't imagine how those marriages could safely continue for their wives and children. But they have all grown beyond animosity and are being good to each other.

There are other cases where couples could go through a process of growth and reconciliation and come back together as husband and wife.

The New Testament considers different cases differently - the exception clause, 1 Corinthians 7. Nothing in the New Testament tells us exactly how to build on some parts of Deuteronomy 24. But I think the details matter. And I think the goal should be to find everyone a way back to discipleship.

[eccentric_rambler]

So you believe that the Scriptures promote and hold up the notion of breaking up marriages with children? Where?

There is Ezra 10:3.