Whose wife shall she be?

[RZehr]

BMA is "permanent" position essentially.

So how would BMA view Mary in the OP? Or wouldn’t there be consensus?

[AnthonyMartin]

BMA is "permanent" position essentially.

So how would BMA view Mary in the OP? Or wouldn’t there be consensus?

From my time in BMA churches, I would understand their position to be that all marriages other than the first for both were adulterous. Since the first spouse died, they would be able to be remarried, possibly stay married. But, they would require an admission of sin in the other marriages and likely require them to be remarried to make it an official "first wedding".

[joshuabgood]

BMA is "permanent" position essentially.

So how would BMA view Mary in the OP? Or wouldn’t there be consensus?

From my time in BMA churches, I would understand their position to be that all marriages other than the first for both were adulterous. Since the first spouse died, they would be able to be remarried, possibly stay married. But, they would require an admission of sin in the other marriages and likely require them to be remarried to make it an official "first wedding".

Yes...that is how I think they would sort it out.

[RZehr]

Thanks. Does Henry’s prior marriages not matter? Or are we assuming that his prior spouses have passed away, or that his wives were married before? Does John’s marriage not matter?

If both of Mary’s second marriages were ‘invalid’ because of her marriage to Michael, who was still living at the time, then what is the logic or illogic, that tips it toward Henry instead of John?

[joshuabgood]

Thanks. Does Henry’s prior marriages not matter? Does John’s marriage not matter?

John's doesn't be because it "wasn't a real marriage" and wasn't marriage "in God's eyes" as at that time Mary was still married to her first husband Michael.

In re-reading it...Henry's might. One would need to find out if any of his first marriages were also firsts for the "other party." If not, he would be free to marry. If so, no, then Henry couldn't live with or marry Mary.

*That is the BMA position...which basically is the Joseph Webb position. Everyone can either get married or go back to their first spouse.

[nett]

I guess RZehr decided he wasn't waiting for that "conservative" subforum

The Consequential View is the unanimous opinion of the early church, and I think it's wisest choice when children are not involved.

In the example posed, our church would not consider her marriage to John, but Henry's marriage would be considered obviously. if he were previously unmarried, they could be considered for membership.

This thread brings up the elephant in the room for CAs. Biblical permanence of marriage is becoming more and more problematic as the culture's definition of marriage gets more and more twisted. For the CAs to end up in a situation where we cannot accept the vast majority of converts into the church without splitting up families is not a good situation.

I believe it will eventually be necessary for Anabaptists to no longer implicitly recognizing marriages from the world, figuring it out on a case-by-case basis, and then having a church-ordained "remarriage" ceremony for convert families who are found to be unencumbered. I believe this is something the early church did in certain cases as well.

I'd really like to know the answer to this question. Is a state sanctioned marriage that is 1. not before God 2. possible between two men (or women) 3. dissolvable for any reason (no fault) actually a marriage? I would posit that it is not.

[Ernie]

I'd really like to know the answer to this question. Is a state sanctioned marriage that is 1. not before God 2. possible between two men (or women) 3. dissolvable for any reason (no fault) actually a marriage? I would posit that it is not.

Interesting question. If I am correct, Menno Simons seemed to think it is not.

[nett]

I'd really like to know the answer to this question. Is a state sanctioned marriage that is 1. not before God 2. possible between two men (or women) 3. dissolvable for any reason (no fault) actually a marriage? I would posit that it is not.

Interesting question. If I am correct, Menno Simons seemed to think it is not.

My understanding is that the Anabaptist fathers would not have agreed with conventional CA stance on state sanctioned marriage, but that is a subject of some debate.

[RZehr]

So there are basically two viewpoints among conservative Anabaptists.

1. Covenant or Consequential View - All marriages involve covenants and therefore have consequences. There is no way to untangle marriage situations once there is remarriage (while a former partner is still living) so the only way to make things right is to repent and separate from all marriages and live celibately (caring for all former partners) until there is only one living partner. If the remaining partner is willing to live with the one who had multiple marriages, they can live together. Otherwise they need to keep living celibate.

2. Permanent View - God only recognizes one marriage. All subsequent marriages are not marriages and a person should return to their first partner. If you marry a divorced person, that is not a marriage, and you are free to marry a person who is not married.

In between these two viewpoints is the Old Mennonite position which basically says, "First spouses should always be inclined to reunite. But if someone marries a divorced person, they should separate and remain celibate until one of them dies." (People have claimed that this position is not very logical, so it has fallen out of favor in many places in favor of one of the above two positions.)

Does anyone know which viewpoint the Amish might hold? And/or how they might sort out the OP?

[Sliceitup]

So there are basically two viewpoints among conservative Anabaptists.

1. Covenant or Consequential View - All marriages involve covenants and therefore have consequences. There is no way to untangle marriage situations once there is remarriage (while a former partner is still living) so the only way to make things right is to repent and separate from all marriages and live celibately (caring for all former partners) until there is only one living partner. If the remaining partner is willing to live with the one who had multiple marriages, they can live together. Otherwise they need to keep living celibate.

2. Permanent View - God only recognizes one marriage. All subsequent marriages are not marriages and a person should return to their first partner. If you marry a divorced person, that is not a marriage, and you are free to marry a person who is not married.

In between these two viewpoints is the Old Mennonite position which basically says, "First spouses should always be inclined to reunite. But if someone marries a divorced person, they should separate and remain celibate until one of them dies." (People have claimed that this position is not very logical, so it has fallen out of favor in many places in favor of one of the above two positions.)

Does anyone know which viewpoint the Amish might hold? And/or how they might sort out the OP?

They would subtly suggest the person go find another church. They aren’t strong on theology, so they wouldn’t have some big thought out theory on why it’s wrong or how to make it right, just nope, not gonna work, goodbye.