Whose wife shall she be?

[I Timothy]

Going back to the original scenario, at what point was the marriage covenant broken? We are told that the marriage covenant is a symbol between Christ and the church, therefore disallowing divorce. In CA marriages I have seen unfaithfulness, does this mean Christ can be unfaithful to his bride? The obvious answer is that Jesus is not unfaithful to his bride.

We like to say it was broken at the divorce, but these scenarios introduce adultery. So isn't the marriage vow broken before adultery? What we are trying to preserve by disallowing divorce and remarriage needs to examined to fully understand what we are doing.

[Josh]

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?

Amish aren’t really systematic. I have heard of someone who never joined, ran wild, and was briefly married and divorced later being baptised and married. (Someone from a prominent Amish family.)

As far as outsiders, outsiders who are D&R are not really accepted - but it is dealt with so rarely I don’t think there is a systematic position. As far as I know groups that hold to strict shunning would hold the more strict covenant view like Easterns; the Old Order Amish would be closer to the permanent view like the Beachys. But I can’t think of any examples (and I’ve asked) of someone who was D&R and tried to join. Most seekers who join are single or are in a non-controversial marriage.

[Josh]

Going back to the original scenario, at what point was the marriage covenant broken? We are told that the marriage covenant is a symbol between Christ and the church, therefore disallowing divorce. In CA marriages I have seen unfaithfulness, does this mean Christ can be unfaithful to his bride? The obvious answer is that Jesus is not unfaithful to his bride.

We like to say it was broken at the divorce, but these scenarios introduce adultery. So isn't the marriage vow broken before adultery? What we are trying to preserve by disallowing divorce and remarriage needs to examined to fully understand what we are doing.

This is essentially the Holdeman position. An important nuance is that they hold members to a higher standard than non members who are previously married/divorced.

[nett]

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.

That's a broad generalization, and I don't think it's entirely fair. Just because English thinkers don't understand Amish theology, doesn't mean it's "weak"

The most nuanced conversation I've ever had about Divorce and Remarriage was with an Amish minister in Kentucky.

He admitted he didn't have the answer for everyone, but said two-tiered membership was something he had considered, and what they had basically come to.

They'd had over 20 divorced and remarried people come through their community, and want to join, they didn't turn any of them away, or encourage them to go to other churches.

[Sliceitup]

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.

That's a broad generalization, and I don't think it's entirely fair. Just because English thinkers don't understand Amish theology, doesn't mean it's "weak"

The most nuanced conversation I've ever had about Divorce and Remarriage was with an Amish minister in Kentucky.

He admitted he didn't have the answer for everyone, but said two-tiered membership was something he had considered, and what they had basically come to.

They'd had over 20 divorced and remarried people come through their community, and want to join, they didn't turn any of them away, or encourage them to go to other churches.

I say they aren’t strong on theology because they have no process through which to teach and evaluate their theological thoughts other than church services. Children receive no formal education on what it means to be Amish. There are no schools where Amish people learn more about their faith. And there is no guarantee that the ministry has any deep knowledge of what it means to be anabaptist. Compared to Mennonites they are theologically destitute.

[Josh]

And yet the Amish have far more theological continuity and consistency generation to generation than the zoo of Mennonite conferences and fellowships do.

[Sudsy]

Question only for current members at a plain, conservative Mennonite church. If you are not currently a member at a Mennonite church that requires women to wear a covering, please don’t post for a week.

Scenario:
Mary and Michael marry. First marriage for both.
They have two children. Unfortunately they both have multiple affairs, and eventually they divorce.
Michael gets married to a divorcee, Susie, they have no children.
Mary gets married to John. This is John’s first marriage. They have no children.
Mary and John get divorced. John does not remarry.
Mary gets married to a divorcee, Henry. This is both Henry’s and Mary’s third marriage. They have no children. Henry’s prior spouses may or may not be married or living.

Few decades pass. Now, Susie dies. Then Michael dies.

How does or doesn’t Micheals death affect the current married status of Mary? Could Micheals death mean that Mary and Henry’s marriage is right? Does her marriage to John matter at all?

*Names have been changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty.

Well, a week is up so I guess we who 'are not currently a member at a Mennonite church that requires women to wear a covering' can respond.

To the question - 1st question - it doesn't, Mary is in a married state in her current marriage. 2nd question - Micheal's death has nothing to do with with Mary and Henry's marriage state. 3rd question - No.

I based this on the befief that remarriage is an act of adultery but not a state of adultery as explained here and by various others -
https://www.gotquestions.org/remarriage-adultery.html

Without getting into debates on this, which we have had before many times, I would just like to point out that if remarriage is living in a state of adultery. then those of us who live in this state (30 years now for me) would be classified as adulterers and will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven according to other scripture. Then there is more than one sin that is unforgiveable beyond the sin of rejecting Christ for our salvation.

For the sake of those reading this forum and are remarried, for whatever reasons, not all Mennonites and Anabaptists consider remarriage as living in an on-going state of adultery but rather that God forgives all past sinning and as Jesus said to the woman they were going to stone for adultery, go and sin no more. Jesus said she had five previous husbands. Was He lying or is this a verse to not be taken literally ? No need to answer just think about it.

Well, I'm bailing out now as, imo, this topic is not concerned so much about the salvation of others. but for other reasons I don't care to get into.

[silentreader]

Question only for current members at a plain, conservative Mennonite church. If you are not currently a member at a Mennonite church that requires women to wear a covering, please don’t post for a week.

Scenario:
Mary and Michael marry. First marriage for both.
They have two children. Unfortunately they both have multiple affairs, and eventually they divorce.
Michael gets married to a divorcee, Susie, they have no children.
Mary gets married to John. This is John’s first marriage. They have no children.
Mary and John get divorced. John does not remarry.
Mary gets married to a divorcee, Henry. This is both Henry’s and Mary’s third marriage. They have no children. Henry’s prior spouses may or may not be married or living.

Few decades pass. Now, Susie dies. Then Michael dies.

How does or doesn’t Micheals death affect the current married status of Mary? Could Micheals death mean that Mary and Henry’s marriage is right? Does her marriage to John matter at all?

*Names have been changed to protect both the innocent and the guilty.

Well, a week is up so I guess we who 'are not currently a member at a Mennonite church that requires women to wear a covering' can respond.

To the question - 1st question - it doesn't, Mary is in a married state in her current marriage. 2nd question - Micheal's death has nothing to do with with Mary and Henry's marriage state. 3rd question - No.

I based this on the befief that remarriage is an act of adultery but not a state of adultery as explained here and by various others -
https://www.gotquestions.org/remarriage-adultery.html

Without getting into debates on this, which we have had before many times, I would just like to point out that if remarriage is living in a state of adultery. then those of us who live in this state (30 years now for me) would be classified as adulterers and will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven according to other scripture. Then there is more than one sin that is unforgiveable beyond the sin of rejecting Christ for our salvation.

For the sake of those reading this forum and are remarried, for whatever reasons, not all Mennonites and Anabaptists consider remarriage as living in an on-going state of adultery but rather that God forgives all past sinning and as Jesus said to the woman they were going to stone for adultery, go and sin no more. Jesus said she had five previous husbands. Was He lying or is this a verse to not be taken literally ? No need to answer just think about it.

Well, I'm bailing out now as, imo, this topic is not concerned so much about the salvation of others. but for other reasons I don't care to get into.

It appears to me that you may have the events in John 4 and the events in John 8 mixed together. And Jesus did say in John 4 to the woman who had had 5 husbands, "and the one you now have is not your husband." Not sure what He meant by that.
And to the woman in John 8 who was caught in adultery and was to be stoned He said, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more."
We can't tell for sure if she was caught in the act of adultery and continued in the state of adultery or not.
And was her non-condemnation dependent on her "not continuing in sin"?
Forgiveness is often dependent on repentance and amendment of life, isn't it? Or not in the case of adultery?

[RZehr]

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.

That's a broad generalization, and I don't think it's entirely fair. Just because English thinkers don't understand Amish theology, doesn't mean it's "weak"

The most nuanced conversation I've ever had about Divorce and Remarriage was with an Amish minister in Kentucky.

He admitted he didn't have the answer for everyone, but said two-tiered membership was something he had considered, and what they had basically come to.

They'd had over 20 divorced and remarried people come through their community, and want to join, they didn't turn any of them away, or encourage them to go to other churches.

I say they aren’t strong on theology because they have no process through which to teach and evaluate their theological thoughts other than church services. Children receive no formal education on what it means to be Amish. There are no schools where Amish people learn more about their faith. And there is no guarantee that the ministry has any deep knowledge of what it means to be anabaptist. Compared to Mennonites they are theologically destitute.

I would still expect that there would be some opinion present in Amish about the state of divorce and remarriages. It may not be monolithic, and it may not be a hot topic there. But surely they would at least have a cultural tilt toward some position.

[Ernie]

I would still expect that there would be some opinion present in Amish about the state of divorce and remarriages. It may not be monolithic, and it may not be a hot topic there. But surely they would at least have a cultural tilt toward some position.

I have an Amish friend I can ask about this sometime.