Would Donald Trump’s marriage be accepted in a CA church?

[Ken]

So there are what? At least 8 different views that are all based on reading the same scripture?

Do any of these views change if children are involved? Or are children a non-issue when it comes to Anabaptists and divorce?

Despite what someone like JD Vance might say, I don't think whether or not someone has children affects whether or not a marriage or divorce is OK.

In groups that allow some divorce & remarriage, like mine, a remarriage might feel like a better idea if an ex-spouse has remarried herself and has children from that marriage. I wouldn't have wanted to see my ex-wife leave her new husband once they had a kid together and try to reconcile with me, for example. But there isn't some scriptural basis for that.

I'm not referring to what ex-spouses might do. I'm asking the following:

1. Is there any belief that divorce is worse or different if there are children involved in the marriage compared to a childless marriage, and
2. Is remarriage more frowned upon if either or both individuals already have children from previous marriages.

Or to put it another way. If a primary purpose of marriage is to form a family, does the existence of a family affect views towards divorce. And/or is breaking up a family considered a separate problem or sin from breaking up a marriage?

As a practical matter I believe that breaking up a marriage with children is worse than breaking up a childless marriage. I'm curious if there are any religious groups that think the same.

[Ernie]

Is there a difference between these two views?

"Wisdom" response: Even though being married to a divorced person is not a legitimate marriage, it is often unwise to remarry

Mostly celibate response: Remarried individuals should remain celibate or remarry their first partner

yes, the one is looking at it through a Covenant View lens and the other through a Permanent View lens. See my labels above these positions. They are the same terms you are using.

[Ernie]

1. Is there any belief that divorce is worse or different if there are children involved in the marriage compared to a childless marriage, and
2. Is remarriage more frowned upon if either or both individuals already have children from previous marriages.

Or to put it another way. If a primary purpose of marriage is to form a family, does the existence of a family affect views towards divorce. And/or is breaking up a family considered a separate problem or sin from breaking up a marriage?

As a practical matter I believe that breaking up a marriage with children is worse than breaking up a childless marriage. I'm curious if there are any religious groups that think the same.

Scripturally, I am not aware of any church that makes a distinction, even though it feels worse.
However, I might recommend different living arrangements for a family as compared with a couple. There have been situations in which a wall was built in a house with a window between the two apartments so that the dad could interact with his children some, get meals from his family, etc.

[Josh]

Is there a difference between these two views?

"Wisdom" response: Even though being married to a divorced person is not a legitimate marriage, it is often unwise to remarry

Mostly celibate response: Remarried individuals should remain celibate or remarry their first partner

yes, the one is looking at it through a Covenant View lens and the other through a Permanent View lens. See my labels above these positions. They are the same terms you are using.

I was wondering if there are any practical differences in the application. Is there a situation that one would accept and the other would not?

If so, then there are two nuances to the "Reconciliation View".

[Ernie]

Is there a difference between these two views?

yes, the one is looking at it through a Covenant View lens and the other through a Permanent View lens. See my labels above these positions. They are the same terms you are using.

I was wondering if there are any practical differences in the application. Is there a situation that one would accept and the other would not?

If so, then there are two nuances to the "Reconciliation View".

If you look at my chart, the "mostly celibate response" is under Covenant View. These folks do not allow someone to remarry if they were previously married to a divorced person.

The "wisdom response" is under Permanant View which means that they might occasionally allow someone who was previously married to a divorced person to remarry, but often they are going to advise against it for a variety of reasons.

[Josh]

What would CoGiCM do in a situation like this? (one I am involved in right now.)

An Evangelical man has an affair. His wife is devastated. The man comes to our Bible study. He knows what he is doing is wrong, but he can't detach himself emotionally from the woman and doesn't really feel rotten about what he is doing. He tries cutting off the emotional connections, but keeps failing. This results in a binge trip to Vegas with the lady. His wife (not a member of our church) says that this is the last straw and he may not come home anymore. If the man marries this new lady, but then truly repents and wants to join your church, what would CoGiCM tell him to do?

When assessing a couple that wants to join, and one or both are divorced, a question is if the person that did the divorcing knew it was wrong what they are doing. If he divorces his wife so he can continue an affair and then marries that affair partner, that’s not acceptable.

If she divorces him but does so because he conducts an affair, it would be not quite as not acceptable but would still have a dim view.

This is presupposed that he claims he was a Christian then and understood adultery and divorce was wrong. If the nuance is added he went to an Anabaptist Bible study and had an Anabaptist deacon from another church counsel him to stop, that would be even more significant, because then he would be presumed to understand that affairs, divorce, and remarriage to an affair partner are very wrong.

Most people with such “sordid” pasts have their affairs, divorce and remarriage before they are born again / become Christian.

[Valerie]

That’s a truly bizarre position, and in particular isn’t supported by scripture. I do not see where the Bible teaches “he who marries a divorced woman, and then separates from her, must never legitimately marry someone else”.

Ultra-conservatives, Intermediate-conservatives, half of Beachy churches, some other moderate-conservatives hold to this position based on the fact that if a person makes a vow, even a wrong vow, they cannot extract themselves from it until that person dies.

This is a fascinating position, since they simultaneously expect someone to break their vow if they married a divorced person. But then somehow think they made a vow to that person not to marry someone else.

Worldly people generally don’t make such vows. Many vows don’t even say anything about marriage for life. So one wonders what “vow” they think they are upholding.

Josh, this is not true at all. I have a couple plus decades of life experience over you and wedding "vows" have been a part of wedding ceremonies in any wedding I ever attended, secular or Christian.

[Valerie]

Again, open kimono.

I have neither voted for Trump or his opponent in any Presidential race.

Your argument would equally apply to everyone on my street. Should we discuss the theoretical status of their marriage situation on admission to this generic, non definitive CA church?

Feels wrong to me. Not saying I am right but saying it feels wrong
I think Trump fans or Trump opponents could easily read it, and it fires off more controversial yet meaningless arguments.

I think seeking peace means avoiding such discussions. Just my opinion

JayP, with respect, there is no reason not to talk about a public figure and discuss how such a person could possibly fit into one of our churches.

I cannot see anything remotely immoral or wrong about discussing how a public figure could seek salvation and church membership.

If Trump fans or foes have a problem with it then I’d be happy to discuss it with them.

This isn’t an Eastern business meeting where we have “forbidden” topics and police each other’s speech.

This reminds me, there were Amish at Trump's rally in Harrisburg PA the other night. So the country could see the most conservative Anabaptists supporting a D & R candidate.

JapP might categorize this as ,"useless wranglings" the NT warns against. Yet the discussion turned from Trump to the actual theology among Anabaptists in various sects within. Interesting.

I do believe Mosaic law enters in in this way: God Himself was opposed to a spouse who remarried, to return to their original spouse as God saw them as "defiled" therefore not allowed. That was not Moses heart, but God's, therefore, God changeth not, I believe He would not want a spouse to ever return to their first spouse after they had remarried. He saw that as "defiled" which is why I never understood the Anabaptists encouraging returning to first spouse after a D & R

[Josh]

By that argument we should keep the whole old Law.

[Ken]

Again, open kimono.

I have neither voted for Trump or his opponent in any Presidential race.

Your argument would equally apply to everyone on my street. Should we discuss the theoretical status of their marriage situation on admission to this generic, non definitive CA church?

Feels wrong to me. Not saying I am right but saying it feels wrong
I think Trump fans or Trump opponents could easily read it, and it fires off more controversial yet meaningless arguments.

I think seeking peace means avoiding such discussions. Just my opinion

JayP, with respect, there is no reason not to talk about a public figure and discuss how such a person could possibly fit into one of our churches.

I cannot see anything remotely immoral or wrong about discussing how a public figure could seek salvation and church membership.

If Trump fans or foes have a problem with it then I’d be happy to discuss it with them.

This isn’t an Eastern business meeting where we have “forbidden” topics and police each other’s speech.

This reminds me, there were Amish at Trump's rally in Harrisburg PA the other night. So the country could see the most conservative Anabaptists supporting a D & R candidate.

JapP might categorize this as ,"useless wranglings" the NT warns against. Yet the discussion turned from Trump to the actual theology among Anabaptists in various sects within. Interesting.

I do believe Mosaic law enters in in this way: God Himself was opposed to a spouse who remarried, to return to their original spouse as God saw them as "defiled" therefore not allowed. That was not Moses heart, but God's, therefore, God changeth not, I believe He would not want a spouse to ever return to their first spouse after they had remarried. He saw that as "defiled" which is why I never understood the Anabaptists encouraging returning to first spouse after a D & R

Moses probably had 2 wives and Abraham had 3.

If you want to rely on Mosaic law for marriage then you open the door for a lot of customs and practices we no longer tolerate.