The Anabaptist perspective towards dating and/or courtship?

[Josh]

i'm not saying that divorce is right or wrong. i'm not saying that the reality of the world is any better or any worse.

what i'm trying to get thru to you, is that the stats for plain people are manipulated. of course divorce is pretty much non existent in the plain churches, because the ones who get divorced have left the plain life. and so they don't get counted.

I had a congregant who grew up plain and whose entire family was excommunicated when her father left and divorced her mother, even though they didn’t have anything to do with it. If divorce means you lose your church and your entire social network, then no wonder there isn’t a lot of divorce in plain communities.

I’m seeing a lot of self-righteousness in this thread about divorce “in the world” and not a lot of willingness to go beneath the surface of what actually might be happening behind closed doors.

This is simply not the norm. There is probably more to the story, or else the congregation is very very different than a typical plain church.

[mike]

i'm not saying that divorce is right or wrong. i'm not saying that the reality of the world is any better or any worse.

what i'm trying to get thru to you, is that the stats for plain people are manipulated. of course divorce is pretty much non existent in the plain churches, because the ones who get divorced have left the plain life. and so they don't get counted.

I had a congregant who grew up plain and whose entire family was excommunicated when her father left and divorced her mother, even though they didn’t have anything to do with it. If divorce means you lose your church and your entire social network, then no wonder there isn’t a lot of divorce in plain communities.

I’m seeing a lot of self-righteousness in this thread about divorce “in the world” and not a lot of willingness to go beneath the surface of what actually might be happening behind closed doors.

This is simply not the norm. There is probably more to the story, or else the congregation is very very different than a typical plain church.

I would agree.

[steve-in-kville]

i'm not saying that divorce is right or wrong. i'm not saying that the reality of the world is any better or any worse.

what i'm trying to get thru to you, is that the stats for plain people are manipulated. of course divorce is pretty much non existent in the plain churches, because the ones who get divorced have left the plain life. and so they don't get counted.

That’s simply not true. There are plenty of people who are divorced in plain circles.

It’s true that if you divorce your spouse for no reason, you will be expected to repent of that. And I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.

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.

[Josh]

I’ve gotten to have a front row seat to what divorce looks like in plain circles (unfortunately).

Case #1: Dad cheats on mom, goes on authoritarian power trips and is otherwise verbally and emotionally abusive.

Mom leaves that church and goes and attends a Charity church. She’s accepted there. Three youngest kids go with her. Local Pilgrim church helps find a job and helps with the kids who need a father figure.

Mom files for a divorce after many years due to financial matters when the IRS and creditors start calling and sending letters.

Eventually, youngest two kids grow up and decide to attend the original church. One became a member. The rest of the kids transferred their memberships or joined non plain churches.

Original church is still trying to work with mom and dad. Both are still technically members. They aren’t even excommunicated.

Case #2: Girl gets married and it becomes apparent her husband is into porn and is either a homosexual or transsexual. Spends years trying to make it work. Eventually he’s running around away from home so much and emptying out her bank account her dad gets sick of it and petitions the church for a divorce in account of sexual immorality. (Husband got excommunicated for immorality.) It was granted.

Eventually, the husband repented and was accepted back into church fellowship - but he died a few months later due to the health consequences of an immoral lifestyle of an incurable disease. I am glad to say both the former husband and wife were able to be at peace.

Church leaders were instrumental in keeping both parties from not losing their faith, or regaining it. And I’d say Jesus himself had a big hand in it too. Powerful testimonies.

Case #3: Two older people marry after losing their spouses. Unfortunately they can’t get along. The church asks them to repent, but it becomes a situation where they live separately.

The church works with each of them to learn how to live in peace and eventually reunite. There is no immorality - and no reason for a divorce.

———

The idea that marriage problems are “covered up” in plain circles isn’t true; if anything, seems everyone knows about everyone else’s business. I agree some abuses have happened but it’s far better than how things are handled in the world.

[ken_sylvania]

I think you are making something of a semantic argument. If marriages happen within the plain community and they subsequently come apart. The fact that plain churches simply expel anyone who has an unsuccessful marriage doesn't mean they have a perfect record when it comes to family and marriage. It just means they hide the evidence.

My wife is a physician. She would have a phenomenal looking record if she simply purged her panel of every patient who got sick and only kept the healthy and fit ones around to "count"

To get a true count, you should start with every marriage within the plain community and track them for success regardless of where the couple ends up. I suspect if you did that you would still see a much lower divorce rate within the plain world than wider society. But it would not be zero. And you would probably find more unhappy marriages simply because the barriers to ending a marriage are so much higher in the plain world.

So if one of your wife's patients stops treatment with her and goes to a clinic in Mexico, then dies a year later, you think that ought to reflect on your wife's record as a failed treatment?

It seems to me that's what you're saying.

Mike is talking about folks that have left the plain churches, and divorced sometime after. I don't see how you can treat that as "plain churches simply expel[ing] anyone who has an unsuccessful marriage" as you put it.

Just upstream we heard about an entire family being excommunicated because the father got a divorce. Which is it? Is divorce allowed in plain churches or forbidden? If it is forbidden, what are the consequences if a couple gets divorced?

I'm just pointing out that the marriage failure rate in plain churches is not zero. And forcing anyone with a failed marriage to leave the church doesn't change that fact.

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?"

[steve-in-kville]

I work with a lot of diverse people and I am hearing less and less about marriage. I have several coworkers have babies out of wedlock and they think nothing of it. No one wants to commit to the long haul of marriage. Just live together until it isn't viable or doesn't "work out" and split. Both are now potentially damaged goods and the poor children are caught in the middle.

[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.

[Szdfan]

I work with a lot of diverse people and I am hearing less and less about marriage. I have several coworkers have babies out of wedlock and they think nothing of it. No one wants to commit to the long haul of marriage. Just live together until it isn't viable or doesn't "work out" and split. Both are now potentially damaged goods and the poor children are caught in the middle.

I’ve also observed situations where a couple had the relationship first, including children, and then eventually did get married. I often think there is fear of marriage, but there’s still commitment and that commitment has to prove itself before it’s made permanent.

And I don’t like calling people damaged goods. None of us are goods and all of us are damaged.

[Josh]

I’ve also observed situations where a couple had the relationship first, including children, and then eventually did get married. I often think there is fear of marriage, but there’s still commitment and that commitment has to prove itself before it’s made permanent.

And I don’t like calling people damaged goods. None of us are goods and all of us are damaged.

People who have had children out of wedlock are much less likely to end up in a successful marriage, ever. They are simply less desirable as a future husband/wife.

You can complain about calling that "damaged goods", but that's simply the reality. Such people are much more likely to get divorced if they do get married, and their children are much more likely to have a host of social problems themselves.

[Ken]

I’ve also observed situations where a couple had the relationship first, including children, and then eventually did get married. I often think there is fear of marriage, but there’s still commitment and that commitment has to prove itself before it’s made permanent.

And I don’t like calling people damaged goods. None of us are goods and all of us are damaged.

People who have had children out of wedlock are much less likely to end up in a successful marriage, ever. They are simply less desirable as a future husband/wife.

You can complain about calling that "damaged goods", but that's simply the reality. Such people are much more likely to get divorced if they do get married, and their children are much more likely to have a host of social problems themselves.

You can say all the exact same things about people who haven't gone to college. Are they "damaged goods" also? They are also less likely to get married and more likely to get divorced.