Concerning Divorce

[Joy]

Doesn't this quote from Jesus answer some of the questions?

"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

[Josh]

Doesn't this quote from Jesus answer some of the questions?

"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

It doesn’t really tell us if the state decides when two have become one flesh. My point of view is that the government’s perspective on marriage is almost irrelevant in this day and age, although I believe it used to closely aligned with God’s perspective on it.

[Neto]

I'm curious how anyone here would respond to the question of a marriage in a society which has no formal marriage licensing process, such as in a pre-literate society, or among the very isolated or very poor favella (squatters settlement). I personally think what matters is how their own society regards these unions. But this can quickly get mired in your question here about letting the secular society define what marriage is. I'm not sure how to answer that, because I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the Brazilian Indian tribe among whom we lived, where they were illiterate, had no documents of any kind (including birth certificates), but still had a high expectation for the permanence of the marriages in that society. There was also no type of ceremony. ("Divorce" was not unheard of, but very rare.)

[Ken]

I'm curious how anyone here would respond to the question of a marriage in a society which has no formal marriage licensing process, such as in a pre-literate society, or among the very isolated or very poor favella (squatters settlement). I personally think what matters is how their own society regards these unions. But this can quickly get mired in your question here about letting the secular society define what marriage is. I'm not sure how to answer that, because I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the Brazilian Indian tribe among whom we lived, where they were illiterate, had no documents of any kind (including birth certificates), but still had a high expectation for the permanence of the marriages in that society. There was also no type of ceremony. ("Divorce" was not unheard of, but very rare.)

That would probably describe marriage in biblical times as well, wouldn't it?

[Ken]

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.

I think this is right. People who enter into secular marriages, common law marriages, gay marriages, or whatever, are simply entering into a secular legal partnership with each other. And it is simply another secular legal process to undo it. They aren't making any sort of covenant with God. We use the term "marriage" for both concepts even though they are not the same thing.

[Joy]

Doesn't this quote from Jesus answer some of the questions?

"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

It doesn’t really tell us if the state decides when two have become one flesh. My point of view is that the government’s perspective on marriage is almost irrelevant in this day and age, although I believe it used to closely aligned with God’s perspective on it.

It answers the question about whether God has joined together two homosexuals or lesbians.

[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.

I think this is right. People who enter into secular marriages, common law marriages, gay marriages, or whatever, are simply entering into a secular legal partnership with each other. And it is simply another secular legal process to undo it. They aren't making any sort of covenant with God. We use the term "marriage" for both concepts even though they are not the same thing.

uh oh Ken is actually understanding what I'm saying, and agreeing. Where have I gone wrong?

All kidding aside. Yes, this is my quandary, if marriage has become a purely secular legal partnership with really no binding covenant, how can the church redefine that as a biblical marriage?

[Ken]

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.



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.

I think this is right. People who enter into secular marriages, common law marriages, gay marriages, or whatever, are simply entering into a secular legal partnership with each other. And it is simply another secular legal process to undo it. They aren't making any sort of covenant with God. We use the term "marriage" for both concepts even though they are not the same thing.

uh oh Ken is actually understanding what I'm saying, and agreeing. Where have I gone wrong?

All kidding aside. Yes, this is my quandary, if marriage has become a purely secular legal partnership with really no binding covenant, how can the church redefine that as a biblical marriage?

I'm not running a conservative Menno church. But if I was, I think I would suggest a process where new members who were married outside the church are interviewed about the nature of their marriage and commitment. And if the church determines that they entered into a true covenant marriage it might be accepted. But if it was simply a secular marriage of some sort the church would expect some sort of religious confirmation of vows or re-marriage. Or maybe you just do that for everyone. I see no harm in re-confirming your marriage vows in your new church. People do that all the time.

Divorce is, of course, more problematic.

[Neto]

I'm curious how anyone here would respond to the question of a marriage in a society which has no formal marriage licensing process, such as in a pre-literate society, or among the very isolated or very poor favella (squatters settlement). I personally think what matters is how their own society regards these unions. But this can quickly get mired in your question here about letting the secular society define what marriage is. I'm not sure how to answer that, because I'm looking at it from the standpoint of the Brazilian Indian tribe among whom we lived, where they were illiterate, had no documents of any kind (including birth certificates), but still had a high expectation for the permanence of the marriages in that society. There was also no type of ceremony. ("Divorce" was not unheard of, but very rare.)

That would probably describe marriage in biblical times as well, wouldn't it?

I think that in many ways, yes. But the glaring difference to me is that these people to whom I am referring live in, or in juxtaposition to, a larger society that "requires" some additional formalities, or documentation. My quandary is that I see the society in which these people live as "determining" (not in a legal sense, but in terms of cultural attitudes toward the couple) which co habitations are deemed 'marriages', and which are what some would call "shacking up".
In the case of the Indian culture, there is no such thing as "shacking up". (There was traditionally some "messing around" prior to marriage, and in some cases this might have involved multiple persons before a permanent relationship was "found" & formed, but their objective is to form a permanent union, one that brings children into the world. (One of the divorces that we know of was, in fact, because of infertility. It was blamed on the woman, but judging from the childlessness of the second marriage, the fault lie with the man. There is another case in which a man considered leaving his wife over the same issue, but a Brazilian missionary who also lived & worked there at that time; he & his wife were also childless at that time, and he convinced the man to stay with his wife. It is likely that in most cases of infertility the 'fault' DOES lie with the man, due primarily to having suffered high fevers repeatedly or over a long period of time, usually from malaria.)
In the case of the extremely poor city dwellers, they are not a distinct cultural group, but rather a social sub-group, so it is a bit more difficult to think what they should do to "authenticate" their marriages. (I don't know what the actual cost of a civil marriage license is, but I suspect that the larger society would not regard that as a full marriage either - it would require a ceremony in the Catholic church, and that would be of considerable expense.) There is, of course, another Brazilian sub-culture there, the isolated back-water Brazilian communities that are days or weeks travel away from any officiating government office, and there is still the church issue involved. It may seem odd, but of these three groups I've mentioned here, the native culture is the one that is the most morally upright. (They have said that the non-Indians living near them "live like animals".)

[Josh]

Much as baptism and church membership are an indication of something that has already happened, I view civil marriage as an acknowledgement of something that already happened.

For people whose religion is the state and who view government officials as a high priesthood, I would simply say they treat a government civil marriage the same as any other religious adherents. (These days, such worshippers of the state don religious apparel such as face masks in submission to the state.)