Concerning Divorce

[Ernie]

It seems that two terms are being used interchangeably here. Permanence and Covenant

In the Plain Anabaptist world, there is sometimes a distinction between a Permanent view of marriage and a Covenant view of marriage.

Those with the Permanent view believe that only one marriage is recognized by God (the first marriage to someone of the opposite gender) and all other "marriages" are not marriages. All unrecognized "marriages" must be repented of and forsaken.

Those with the Covenant view believe that God recognizes all marriages between men and women and that a person who has been married more than once must separate from all marriages and remain celibate.

Are you all using the terms this way?

[nett]

It seems that two terms are being used interchangeably here. Permanence and Covenant

In the Plain Anabaptist world, there is sometimes a distinction between a Permanent view of marriage and a Covenant view of marriage.

Those with the Permanent view believe that only one marriage is recognized by God (the first marriage to someone of the opposite gender) and all other "marriages" are not marriages. All unrecognized "marriages" must be repented of and forsaken.

Those with the Covenant view believe that God recognizes all marriages between men and women and that a person must separate from all marriages and remain celibate.

Are you all using the terms this way?

For that to have meaning, you still need to define what "permanent" marriage is, otherwise you end up will all the logistical problems that I mentioned above.

[Sudsy]

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.

OK, I will stay out of the conversation as I am one trusting on the grace of God to save me from all of my failings, including marriages.

[nett]

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.

OK, I will stay out of the conversation as I am one trusting on the grace of God to save me from all of my failings, including marriages.

Unless your belief system involves condoning a system where 60% of marriages end in divorce, I wasn't talking about you.

[Ken]

It seems that two terms are being used interchangeably here. Permanence and Covenant

In the Plain Anabaptist world, there is sometimes a distinction between a Permanent view of marriage and a Covenant view of marriage.

Those with the Permanent view believe that only one marriage is recognized by God (the first marriage to someone of the opposite gender) and all other "marriages" are not marriages. All unrecognized "marriages" must be repented of and forsaken.

Those with the Covenant view believe that God recognizes all marriages between men and women and that a person who has been married more than once must separate from all marriages and remain celibate.

Are you all using the terms this way?

Is this an actual distinction that is debated in religious circles? Permanence vs Covenant?

I must admit that I haven't heard this distinction made before. I have heard people distinguish between contract marriage and covenant marriage. But not between permanent marriage and covenant marriage.

[mennonitemom1]

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.

I think in biblical terms if a man “takes” a woman that constitutes marriage… Paul said do not couple yourself to a harlot because what God hath together, let no man separate (or something very close to that)… 1 cor 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

[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.

I think in biblical terms if a man “takes” a woman that constitutes marriage… Paul said do not couple yourself to a harlot because what God hath together, let no man separate (or something very close to that)… 1 cor 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

So a woman is married to whoever takes her virginity? What about rape?

[JimFoxvog]

Unless your belief system involves condoning a system where 60% of marriages end in divorce, I wasn't talking about you.

I believe Jesus' teaching on divorce, but not your statistics. From the US Census:

In 2019, there were 16.3 new marriages for every 1,000 women age 15 and over in the United States, down from 17.6 in 2009.

At the same time, the U.S. divorce rate fell from 9.7 new divorces per 1,000 women age 15 and over in 2009 to 7.6 in 2019.https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... years.html

Maybe you're calculating differently, but that looks like about 42%.

[nett]

Unless your belief system involves condoning a system where 60% of marriages end in divorce, I wasn't talking about you.

I believe Jesus' teaching on divorce, but not your statistics. From the US Census:

In 2019, there were 16.3 new marriages for every 1,000 women age 15 and over in the United States, down from 17.6 in 2009.

At the same time, the U.S. divorce rate fell from 9.7 new divorces per 1,000 women age 15 and over in 2009 to 7.6 in 2019.https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... years.html

Maybe you're calculating differently, but that looks like about 42%.

Not what I talking about, but 42% is is 42% too high.

[Ken]

Unless your belief system involves condoning a system where 60% of marriages end in divorce, I wasn't talking about you.

I believe Jesus' teaching on divorce, but not your statistics. From the US Census:

In 2019, there were 16.3 new marriages for every 1,000 women age 15 and over in the United States, down from 17.6 in 2009.

At the same time, the U.S. divorce rate fell from 9.7 new divorces per 1,000 women age 15 and over in 2009 to 7.6 in 2019.https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... years.html

Maybe you're calculating differently, but that looks like about 42%.

I'm not sure that math gives you the correct answer.

The real question is how what percentages of marriages end in divorce. Which requires more than one year to track or answer. The 16.3 per 1,000 new marriages and the 7.6 per 1,000 new divorces are each counting completely different marriages except for any people that got married and divorced in the same calendar year.