Concerning Divorce

[nett]

I know this is a tired old subject that has had plenty of discussion here already. However, I think as our culture becomes more and more demented, we need to continue to understand our beliefs about it.

I bring this up specifically, because I had a very lively discussion with a visitor at our church who feels that strict permanence of marriage is the only option, with no exception clause. Since I have not been able to answer this question myself, I asked him how he defines marriage, and whether a common law marriage would count. He felt common law would not, since there is no "marriage covenant". I asked if a previous state licensed gay marriage should prevent a converted man from marrying a women in the church, and this generated a lot of confusion. He ultimately came to the conclusion that it would, which I believe is consistent, but kind of demonstrates the absurdity of allowing the state / culture to define what marriage is.

I have a number of questions, and I would like to primarily hear from the folks here who are in churches that abide by, and/or personally abide by strict permanence of marriage. I am not interested in discussing conventional evangelical thinking about "grace". I'm very familiar with the view, and the results that it achieves.

Question #1
At what point (if not now) do the plain churches need to re-examine (and question) who they allow to define marriage? Thinking about the what-ifs. What if the state stops endorsing heterosexual marriage at all, or places it in a lower class than things like gay marriage?

#2
If marriage is a covenant before God, how can a gay marriage which is defiance of God's law, or a marriage between two non-believers be considered a marriage at all?

#3
If the culture basically stops having heterosexual marriages, does that mean cohabitation / children in a heterosexual marriage would take over and be deemed a "previous marriage" in our tradition?

#4
How can our traditional view of permanence of marriage adapt in a biblical way to an ever degenerating culture without allowing divorce to creep in?

I really hope I get some discussion on this, because it's something I'm having a hard time with, and it doesn't seem to be something anyone in my circles has any interest in thinking about, which is typical of the conservative people in my area, they like to pretend that cultural problems don't exist until it's too late to do much about them.

[Ken]

Personally I think the state should define marriage as it applies to affairs of state (inheritance, child support, power of attorney, taxes, etc.) and the church should define marriage as it applies to religious affairs (salvation, church membership, marriage ceremonies, etc.)

The problem in the US is that we have blended these two separate spheres in complicated ways. So we have religious leaders conducting civil ceremonies of state and the state in conflict with religious groups over different definitions.

Other countries do not do this. In much of Latin America, civil marriage and church marriage are completely separate spheres. Ministers and priests do not sign marriage licenses or have anything to do with civil marriage. Their role is strictly religious. And vice versa. So when you get married in say Chile the civil ceremony is simply signing the paperwork at the local civil records office in front of the Chilean equivalent of a justice of the peace or magistrate. While the religious ceremony is completely religious and has no governmental role or effect. The two ceremonies are often conducted months apart.

I think churches should be able to define religious marriage however they want. And in a democracy, civil society should be able to define civil marriages however our representative government and courts decide based on the constitution and rule of law. And if those different definitions are not consistent with each other that is perfectly fine. They serve different purposes and different masters.

If you are talking about something like gay marriage in a country like Chile. The Catholic Church would simply state that you are not married in the eyes of the church if you are in a gay marriage. And that they won’t conduct or recognize gay marriages. Full stop. If what goes on in civil society for non-Catholics is different, or for Catholics who choose to defy their church, that is not a concern of the church. Or something that they need to address within the church through church discipline, not civil society.

[MaxPC]

I know this is a tired old subject that has had plenty of discussion here already. However, I think as our culture becomes more and more demented, we need to continue to understand our beliefs about it.

I bring this up specifically, because I had a very lively discussion with a visitor at our church who feels that strict permanence of marriage is the only option, with no exception clause. Since I have not been able to answer this question myself, I asked him how he defines marriage, and whether a common law marriage would count. He felt common law would not, since there is no "marriage covenant". I asked if a previous state licensed gay marriage should prevent a converted man from marrying a women in the church, and this generated a lot of confusion. He ultimately came to the conclusion that it would, which I believe is consistent, but kind of demonstrates the absurdity of allowing the state / culture to define what marriage is.

I have a number of questions, and I would like to primarily hear from the folks here who are in churches that abide by, and/or personally abide by strict permanence of marriage. I am not interested in discussing conventional evangelical thinking about "grace". I'm very familiar with the view, and the results that it achieves.

Question #1
At what point (if not now) do the plain churches need to re-examine (and question) who they allow to define marriage? Thinking about the what-ifs. What if the state stops endorsing heterosexual marriage at all, or places it in a lower class than things like gay marriage?

#2
If marriage is a covenant before God, how can a gay marriage which is defiance of God's law, or a marriage between two non-believers be considered a marriage at all?

#3
If the culture basically stops having heterosexual marriages, does that mean cohabitation / children in a heterosexual marriage would take over and be deemed a "previous marriage" in our tradition?

#4
How can our traditional view of permanence of marriage adapt in a biblical way to an ever degenerating culture without allowing divorce to creep in?

I really hope I get some discussion on this, because it's something I'm having a hard time with, and it doesn't seem to be something anyone in my circles has any interest in thinking about, which is typical of the conservative people in my area, they like to pretend that cultural problems don't exist until it's too late to do much about them.

Great thread topic, Nett. I look forward to hearing from those who currently attend Anabaptist churches.

[ohio jones]

While I suppose it's predictable that Ken was the first to respond, the Latin American model does seem to be a helpful way of distinguishing church and state roles in defining marriage. The Mennonites I've interacted with in that region have practices similar to what he describes. A couple who is in a common-law marriage, which is quite common, would be asked to marry in the church before becoming church members. I'm not quite sure how they work through the issues in #3; that would take some careful thought.

In regard to #2, I do think God recognizes a marriage between non-believers to be a valid marriage on some level. If that's not the case, then whatever someone does before they become a believer just doesn't count at all and there aren't really any concerns about previous marriages or relationships. A divorce wouldn't matter if it wasn't a marriage to begin with.

I think churches should be able to define religious marriage however they want.

I think churches should be able to define religious marriage on the basis of the Bible, and make applications consistent with that.

[nett]

While I suppose it's predictable that Ken was the first to respond, the Latin American model does seem to be a helpful way of distinguishing church and state roles in defining marriage. The Mennonites I've interacted with in that region have practices similar to what he describes. A couple who is in a common-law marriage, which is quite common, would be asked to marry in the church before becoming church members. I'm not quite sure how they work through the issues in #3; that would take some careful thought.

In Latin America, what would the Mennonite's response be to a couple that wanted to join but one or both of them had a previous "common-law" marriage prior to their current one?

In regard to #2, I do think God recognizes a marriage between non-believers to be a valid marriage on some level. If that's not the case, then whatever someone does before they become a believer just doesn't count at all and there aren't really any concerns about previous marriages or relationships. A divorce wouldn't matter if it wasn't a marriage to begin with.

In that case, who is in charge of the validity of a non-believer's marriage? Because marriage as it is defined in the US is not a marriage by any biblical standard. Because the institution no longer involves any lasting commitment (through no-fault divorce), I think would be closer concubinage. That's not even to mention the perversion of gay marriage.

I can't come up with any consistent way to let the state define heterosexual marriage, without also allowing the state to define divorce, remarriage, and gay marriages which is obviously absurd.

I think in cases that are unclear, asking couples to remarry under the church's authority is very consistent, and could be very simple. I think it would also be simple for the anabaptists to determine whether they respect the marriages of other churches / denominations based on their doctrine of divorce.

Generally, I think true churches are going to have to start taking back the definition of these basic social things that the culture have perverted, but it seems to run hard up against some fundamentalism about permanence of marriage that I can't quite reckon with.

[cmbl]

I have a number of questions, and I would like to primarily hear from the folks here who are in churches that abide by, and/or personally abide by strict permanence of marriage.

I am a member of a church in Pilgrim Mennonite Conference, which prohibits divorce and remarriage.

I am not interested in discussing conventional evangelical thinking about "grace". I'm very familiar with the view, and the results that it achieves.

Ah, you sound like a fellow seeker.

Question #1
At what point (if not now) do the plain churches need to re-examine (and question) who they allow to define marriage? Thinking about the what-ifs. What if the state stops endorsing heterosexual marriage at all, or places it in a lower class than things like gay marriage?

#2
If marriage is a covenant before God, how can a gay marriage which is defiance of God's law, or a marriage between two non-believers be considered a marriage at all?

I can't see how God would recognize a gay "marriage." As far as non-believers, I believe he recognizes their marriages. It's part of the creation order, and shows up in most any society. It doesn't explicitly say so in the text, but I think 1 Corinthians 7:21-17 may be addressing situations where the marriage took place before one spouse became a believer. God recognizes the marriages in that text.

#3
If the culture basically stops having heterosexual marriages, does that mean cohabitation / children in a heterosexual marriage would take over and be deemed a "previous marriage" in our tradition?

Well, there's going to have to be a long continued slide in our culture for that to be the case. I can't see our tradition recognizing cohabitation w/ children in the U.S. and Canada as a "marriage." Certainly not in the near term, and I doubt in the far term as well. However, CA's are already capable of recognizing that there are situations where people have lived a past immoral life in such a way as may make marriage ill-advised. So thinking about the far-term, long-term cohabitation with children may be treated as something that makes marriage ill-advised. Or it may be treated as something to repent from and life a right life for some time before getting married. Perhaps it'll be handled on a case-by-case basis.

#4
How can our traditional view of permanence of marriage adapt in a biblical way to an ever degenerating culture without allowing divorce to creep in?

I really hope I get some discussion on this, because it's something I'm having a hard time with, and it doesn't seem to be something anyone in my circles has any interest in thinking about, which is typical of the conservative people in my area, they like to pretend that cultural problems don't exist until it's too late to do much about them.

[RZehr]

We are dealing with this matter as a church right now.

[cmbl]

Generally, I think true churches are going to have to start taking back the definition of these basic social things that the culture have perverted, but it seems to run hard up against some fundamentalism about permanence of marriage that I can't quite reckon with.

That's a great way of putting it. I remember a conversation with a man from church where he brought up people with previous gay marriages, and mentioned there were some people who thought that would prevent them getting married. I responded like I did above, that I can't see how God would recognize a gay marriage to begin with, so I can't see how that would run afoul of divorce and remarriage. (I personally would be overjoyed for a case like Rosaria Butterfield's.)

But the fact that there are some who raise that question means that we're "running hard up against some fundamentalism about permanence of marriage that we can't quite reckon with."

[nett]

We are dealing with this matter as a church right now.

Care to elaborate?

[nett]

Thanks for responding! Yes I am a seeker. I think the perspective on divorce in our fellowship (midwest) would be pretty much the same as Pilgrim, so that's very helpful input so far.

I can't see how God would recognize a gay "marriage." As far as non-believers, I believe he recognizes their marriages. It's part of the creation order, and shows up in most any society. It doesn't explicitly say so in the text, but I think 1 Corinthians 7:21-17 may be addressing situations where the marriage took place before one spouse became a believer. God recognizes the marriages in that text.

The marriage covenant is part of the creation order, and it is absolutely permanent, but I'm having a hard time with knowing what / when God recognizes in unbelievers and at what point is it actually a marriage covenant? If two non-believers get "married" with the belief that they can divorce at any time for any reason, does God recognize their covenant? That's not really a covenant at all. That's really confusing for me, because I can't find any other case in scripture where a new believer is held to a definition that they weren't aware prior to their conversion.

How can God (or the church) hold unbelievers, or deceived Christians to a covenant that they're not actually making? If the culture had permanence of marriage, I think it would be very different, but like I said, people who get married in the world aren't making a marriage covenant in the biblical sense.