The Anabaptist perspective towards dating and/or courtship?

[ken_sylvania]

My friend, you quoted Mike saying that most of the divorces among people with plain background occurred after they left the church, and then you accused him of making a semantic argument because, you claim, these folks who voluntarily left before they divorced were somehow pushed out due to failed marriages.

Mike never claimed that the marriage failure rate in plain churches is zero. So no, you weren't just pointing out that the marriage failure rate in plain churches is not zero.

Can you try to explain again why you think Mike's comment was a "semantic argument?"

I was referencing szdfan who talked about an entire family being excommunicated when the father left. My points are simply the following:

1. Judging the success or failure of plain culture family life and marriage should be done by looking at the total number of marriages within that community and tracking how many of them remain successful. If, as has been reported here, that couples are forced to leave the church in order to end an unsuccessful marriage then I would consider that to be an example of a failed marriage within the plain community. It was a match that was made within a plain church or community, in front of God, friends, and family. And it failed. Just like a failed marriage within any other community. Just because a church chooses not to recognize it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

2. Even accounting for failed marriages in this manner I expect the divorce rate within the larger plain community is still far far lower than in wider society simply because the bars to divorce are so much higher. I expect there are probably more unhappily married couples as a result. I expect that is the inevitable result of a society that emphasizes marriage to such a degree and simultaneously prohibits divorce. Does that make it better or worse than wider society? In some ways I think better. But that approach is also not without its problems. Plain society isn't perfect. No society is. They just have different problems I think. If you emphasize marriage at a young age and make it exceedingly difficult or impossible to end a marriage then you are going to end up with some unhappy and failed marriages. I think it is inevitable.

Thanks. Now would you be interested in explaining why you think Mike was making a "semantic argument"?

[Ken]

My friend, you quoted Mike saying that most of the divorces among people with plain background occurred after they left the church, and then you accused him of making a semantic argument because, you claim, these folks who voluntarily left before they divorced were somehow pushed out due to failed marriages.

Mike never claimed that the marriage failure rate in plain churches is zero. So no, you weren't just pointing out that the marriage failure rate in plain churches is not zero.

Can you try to explain again why you think Mike's comment was a "semantic argument?"

I was referencing szdfan who talked about an entire family being excommunicated when the father left. My points are simply the following:

1. Judging the success or failure of plain culture family life and marriage should be done by looking at the total number of marriages within that community and tracking how many of them remain successful. If, as has been reported here, that couples are forced to leave the church in order to end an unsuccessful marriage then I would consider that to be an example of a failed marriage within the plain community. It was a match that was made within a plain church or community, in front of God, friends, and family. And it failed. Just like a failed marriage within any other community. Just because a church chooses not to recognize it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

2. Even accounting for failed marriages in this manner I expect the divorce rate within the larger plain community is still far far lower than in wider society simply because the bars to divorce are so much higher. I expect there are probably more unhappily married couples as a result. I expect that is the inevitable result of a society that emphasizes marriage to such a degree and simultaneously prohibits divorce. Does that make it better or worse than wider society? In some ways I think better. But that approach is also not without its problems. Plain society isn't perfect. No society is. They just have different problems I think. If you emphasize marriage at a young age and make it exceedingly difficult or impossible to end a marriage then you are going to end up with some unhappy and failed marriages. I think it is inevitable.

Thanks. Now would you be interested in explaining why you think Mike was making a "semantic argument"?

I had to look upstream to see what you are talking about. Mike said: "I know ex-plain people who divorced, but all but one of them that I can think of divorced some time after leaving. I don’t think it’s fair to count those divorces as occurring among plain people." I'm simply disagreeing and saying if people are forced to leave the church in order to get divorced then I would count those as failed marriages within the plain community. Obviously we disagree.

[steve-in-kville]

I honestly do not know any plain folks who are divorced. I know of a few that separated for a while, but none that are legally divorced. Maybe its a regional thing.

I want to retract my statement from earlier... got thinking about this a bit more... my wife has a few aunts that were once quite plain. They left the plain church they were in and almost right away got divorced. There were obvious reasons, most of which there was trouble in the marriage for years but kept it together for appearances and/or for the sake of the children.

[Josh]

I had to look upstream to see what you are talking about. Mike said: "I know ex-plain people who divorced, but all but one of them that I can think of divorced some time after leaving. I don’t think it’s fair to count those divorces as occurring among plain people." I'm simply disagreeing and saying if people are forced to leave the church in order to get divorced then I would count those as failed marriages within the plain community. Obviously we disagree.

I shared plenty of examples of divorced people who aren't "forced to leave" a plain church. Such an assertion is simply absurd. It's true that divorce is very rare, but divorced people do not have to leave.

A lot of people continue to attend church despite being excommunicated, often for years, and most less conservative churches don't even practice much excommunication. You could pretty much get divorced and keep attending church and be part of most church functions.

[Szdfan]

I think you’re minimizing the harm and trauma of verbal and emotional abuse. I was married for sixteen years to a narcissist. What I experienced wasn’t an occasional “bad day,” like all marriages have. What I experienced was unremitting psychological warfare where I had to continuously walk on egg shells, because the wrong look or saying the wrong thing would set her off. If I expressed the wrong opinion, it would set her off. I was frequently the target of manipulation and gaslighting. With all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no idea how dehumanizing and oppressive a verbally and emotionally abusive relationship is.

In the year after I got remarried, I would randomly start crying over nothing, because for the first time I felt safe enough to realize how traumatized I was by my first marriage.

My divorce was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done and I’m still living with the consequences of it. If my ex-wife was not a narcissist and capable of change, I would still be married to her. We married for almost 16 years, because I tried to make it work. I walked away when I couldn’t live like that anymore.

My divorce was hard and ugly. It also probably saved my life.

I am deeply sorry for what happened to you. Without knowing more, I do not fault someone separating from a spouse in order to protect themselves or especially to protect children. I have in-laws whose mother separated from a mentally unstable husband for a time for physical protection for herself and her family. The situation was able to be resolved in time and they came back together. I think this should be the goal for any separation, if possible. And I know that it is not always possible.

I agree that under ideal circumstances, that reconcilliation should be the goal. Unfortunately, it's not always possible. I believe I did really try to fix things with my ex-wife during the sixteen years we were married, but things kept getting worse.

[mike]

I had to look upstream to see what you are talking about. Mike said: "I know ex-plain people who divorced, but all but one of them that I can think of divorced some time after leaving. I don’t think it’s fair to count those divorces as occurring among plain people." I'm simply disagreeing and saying if people are forced to leave the church in order to get divorced then I would count those as failed marriages within the plain community. Obviously we disagree.

I specifically said that in most of the few cases I know about, the divorce happened some time after leaving. Marriage problems were not an issue over the time of their leaving. I know of one actual case where a man in a plain church left his wife and the church at the same time. It happened this year. I will let you count that as a divorce among the plain people. That's the only instance I know of where this happened. Most if not all other situations I personally know of happened long after they were no longer plain.

[ken_sylvania]

I was referencing szdfan who talked about an entire family being excommunicated when the father left. My points are simply the following:

1. Judging the success or failure of plain culture family life and marriage should be done by looking at the total number of marriages within that community and tracking how many of them remain successful. If, as has been reported here, that couples are forced to leave the church in order to end an unsuccessful marriage then I would consider that to be an example of a failed marriage within the plain community. It was a match that was made within a plain church or community, in front of God, friends, and family. And it failed. Just like a failed marriage within any other community. Just because a church chooses not to recognize it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

2. Even accounting for failed marriages in this manner I expect the divorce rate within the larger plain community is still far far lower than in wider society simply because the bars to divorce are so much higher. I expect there are probably more unhappily married couples as a result. I expect that is the inevitable result of a society that emphasizes marriage to such a degree and simultaneously prohibits divorce. Does that make it better or worse than wider society? In some ways I think better. But that approach is also not without its problems. Plain society isn't perfect. No society is. They just have different problems I think. If you emphasize marriage at a young age and make it exceedingly difficult or impossible to end a marriage then you are going to end up with some unhappy and failed marriages. I think it is inevitable.

Thanks. Now would you be interested in explaining why you think Mike was making a "semantic argument"?

I had to look upstream to see what you are talking about. Mike said: "I know ex-plain people who divorced, but all but one of them that I can think of divorced some time after leaving. I don’t think it’s fair to count those divorces as occurring among plain people." I'm simply disagreeing and saying if people are forced to leave the church in order to get divorced then I would count those as failed marriages within the plain community. Obviously we disagree.

"if people are forced to leave the church in order to get divorced"
I would agree. Where I disagree with you, apparently, is whether Mike was talking about anyone needing to leave the church in order to get divorced. He seems to be saying that the divorces happened long enough after the folks left the church that he doesn't believe they left because they wanted to get divorced.

[Ken]

"if people are forced to leave the church in order to get divorced"
I would agree. Where I disagree with you, apparently, is whether Mike was talking about anyone needing to leave the church in order to get divorced. He seems to be saying that the divorces happened long enough after the folks left the church that he doesn't believe they left because they wanted to get divorced.

Look, you guys are closer to this world than I am. I have extended family attending plain and Amish churches but we don't actually talk, let alone about these topics.

I just get the impression from the many other discussions about divorce and marriage that have occurred here in this forum that divorce is forbidden in many conservative plain churches and getting divorced (and especially remarried) is grounds for excommunication or being excluded from the church however that actually works.

I don't feel the need to belabor this point. If divorces are indeed accepted in most plain churches then I stand corrected.

[ken_sylvania]

"if people are forced to leave the church in order to get divorced"
I would agree. Where I disagree with you, apparently, is whether Mike was talking about anyone needing to leave the church in order to get divorced. He seems to be saying that the divorces happened long enough after the folks left the church that he doesn't believe they left because they wanted to get divorced.

Look, you guys are closer to this world than I am. I have extended family attending plain and Amish churches but we don't actually talk, let alone about these topics.

I just get the impression from the many other discussions about divorce and marriage that have occurred here in this forum that divorce is forbidden in many conservative plain churches and getting divorced (and especially remarried) is grounds for excommunication or being excluded from the church however that actually works.

I don't feel the need to belabor this point. If divorces are indeed accepted in most plain churches then I stand corrected.

Sigh....

Neither Mike nor I have said anything remotely like that. You're the guy claiming that the reason divorce is more rare among the plain people is because people who divorce are forced out.

Mike simply said that in his experience this isn't necessarily the case - that most of the folks who were of plain background who ended up divorcing, divorced some time after leaving the plain world, and that therefore it seemed unlikely that wanting to divorce was their reason for leaving. Neither of us has claimed that nobody ever leaves because they want to divorce.

To add a comment on the idea that plain people simply suffer in bad marriages rather than divorce their spouses - my observation would be that the percentage of unhappy marriages among the plain people I know is significantly less than the percentage of unhappy marriages among the non-plain people I know. Certainly divorce statistics don't tell the whole story, but to claim that the rate of bad marriages among the plain people is similar to that of society in general, but that the plain people just suffer in bad marriages instead of divorcing is simply absurd.

[Soloist]

I shared your comments in a private group made up of conservative and ex-conservative Mennonites who question or reject the teachings on patriarchy and gender roles. One response pointed out that there’s a difference between a difficult marriage and a destructive marriage:

Huge difference between between difficult or destructive. Difficult and disappointing can usually be worked on and improved if both parties do the work.

In a destructive marriage, the partner with destructive behavior has to be willing to seek help, become accountable, and take ownership and responsibility for the behavior. This seldom happens.

In an ideal setting, if the spouse is unwilling to engage in seeking help, accountability and responsibility the church would step in and ultimately excommunicate the unrepentant spouse. The church responsibility should not end at that point though, and that should increase the church responsibility to the repentant spouse (generally, in marriage conflicts, both sides have problems) as well as attempts to bring about repentance for the unrepentant. Otherwise, I would say the verses about the wife winning her husband through her conduct applies and could apply to a man as well in regard to how he regards her. Is this really harder than forgiving people who are trying to kill us or even providing food and drink for them? It seems like if we are to love our enemies, that should also include our spouses. The Bible already says that if someone is in adultery (particularly unrepentant adultery), that would be a reason to divorce, but it doesn't seem to say anything beyond that.

This isn't easy at all, but the more I study and learn, the more convinced I am that Christianity is one of the hardest calls and most difficult for us to do. The cost is astronomically high, but the reward is far above that. The cost is only for a moment but society tends to struggle with short term cost for long term gain.

This group you mention, are they also supportive of homosexual behavior? Transgender behavior? Is there an actual Biblical case that can be made against those if we throw out the teachings of Jesus on reasons for divorce and remarriage, The teachings on male and female roles? I'm not trying to attack here; I'm legitimately curious as to the position and how they handle this sort of stuff. You can private message me if you prefer.