Bunny Trails

[JohnL]

"arguing for the sake of arguing"
Continuing a disagreement solely out of obstinacy.
We have a potential compromise, so he's just arguing for the sake of arguing now. It's like Jeff is determined to misunderstand me. He's just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of arguing, so can we please move on from this topic?

"arguing for the sake of argument"
arguing simply to be difficult or contrary. You are just arguing for the sake ofarguing. You don't even know what the issue is. He is annoying, because he is always arguing for the sake of argument.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ar ... of+arguing

[Ernie]

We believe that if an unbelieving partner divorces their spouse, the believing partner should not participate in the divorce.

Practically speaking, how does a believing partner "not participate in the divorce"? For example, legally speaking, when your spouse decides to divorce you, you're legally compelled to give a response. The response can't just be "I don't believe in divorce". The response is expected to be what you think should happen in the divorce, such as dividing property, who gets how much parenting time with the children, and so forth. Refusing to respond would generally just mean the other party would have 100% of the parenting time. I don't think most conservative Anabaptists would agree that that's a good outcome.

If your spouse decides to divorce you, there is nothing that can keep them from doing so in this country. Most Plain Anabaptists encourage members to not participate in the divorce. It happens so seldom in our churches that I don't know what happens when it comes down to dividing out the property.

We know of many situations in which a sinning spouse repented years later, due to the fact that their partner stayed celibate, did not remarry, but rather tried to win their spouse back to the Lord through chaste conversation.

This sounds like a utilitarian argument for doing so, and I question how common this really is. I would not feel comfortable at all with encouraging the spouse who left them, married someone else, and had children with that person to somehow abandon that new spouse (& the children resulting from it) and achieve some kind of reconciliation. I'm not saying the Bible prohibits this - I'm just saying I would have a very hard time encouraging this.

I'm uncomfortable with what you write here as well. As usual, I don't believe what you assume I believe. Just because I think it is good for a spouse to pray for their estranged spouse's repentance does not mean that I believe what you wrote. Just because does not believe A, does not automatically mean that he does believe Z.

[ohio jones]

If your spouse decides to divorce you, there is nothing that can keep them from doing so in this country. Most Plain Anabaptists encourage members to not participate in the divorce. It happens so seldom in our churches that I don't know what happens when it comes down to dividing out the property.

Seems like a good opportunity to follow the teachings of Jesus, just a few verses after his teaching on divorce.

But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

[JohnH]

If your spouse decides to divorce you, there is nothing that can keep them from doing so in this country. Most Plain Anabaptists encourage members to not participate in the divorce. It happens so seldom in our churches that I don't know what happens when it comes down to dividing out the property.

Seems like a good opportunity to follow the teachings of Jesus, just a few verses after his teaching on divorce.

But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

To use a recent sample (from plain circles, actually), two spouses are at loggerheads. The wife filed for a divorce and demanded all the property, such as a clapped-out minivan and a storage shed crammed full of junk. She also demanded 100% parenting time and sole custody of the children including an adult disabled child.

Now, let’s make it a little more hypothetical. Suppose she was intending to take the children, demand 100% parenting time and sole custody and no longer raise them in a Christian home.

The court sends a summons to the husband, asking for his response. Should the other spouse respond and state he would prefer to continuing parenting his children and continue to (for example) send them to the Christian school they always have attended?

[ohio jones]

Just a few verses earlier (the first book of each Testament really does seem to have the Answers):

Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him...

It seems reasonable for him to tell the court what he thinks is best for the children. Perhaps 18:6 applies here.

[JohnH]

Just a few verses earlier (the first book of each Testament really does seem to have the Answers):

Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him...

It seems reasonable for him to tell the court what he thinks is best for the children. Perhaps 18:6 applies here.

Well, the process is conducted via mail, and the court asks for a response that may not “agree” with the adversary. I think it’s fine to give up property; I don’t think it’s fine to give up one’s children though just because someone else demands to take them.

I also don’t think it would be ok to agree to pay an adversary money you don’t have, and such unreasonable demands often happen in divorce proceedings.

[Ken]

If your spouse decides to divorce you, there is nothing that can keep them from doing so in this country. Most Plain Anabaptists encourage members to not participate in the divorce. It happens so seldom in our churches that I don't know what happens when it comes down to dividing out the property.

Seems like a good opportunity to follow the teachings of Jesus, just a few verses after his teaching on divorce.

But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

To use a recent sample (from plain circles, actually), two spouses are at loggerheads. The wife filed for a divorce and demanded all the property, such as a clapped-out minivan and a storage shed crammed full of junk. She also demanded 100% parenting time and sole custody of the children including an adult disabled child.

Now, let’s make it a little more hypothetical. Suppose she was intending to take the children, demand 100% parenting time and sole custody and no longer raise them in a Christian home.

The court sends a summons to the husband, asking for his response. Should the other spouse respond and state he would prefer to continuing parenting his children and continue to (for example) send them to the Christian school they always have attended?

It sounds like they were probably ill-suited to each other to start with and probably should never have gotten married and had children. But that is water under the bridge at this point.

I disagree with the notion expressed by Ohio Jones here that passivity is the correct course of action in the face of divorce, at least where children are involved. I think we have an actual Biblical obligation to raise and guide our children and be engaged in their lives. And to passively allow a spouse to walk away with the children without objecting is an abandonment of those responsibilities. And an example of where avoiding the legal system is inconsistent with Biblical and social obligations toward one's family and children. You may still not achieve the outcome that you prefer. But I think we are obligated to at least pursue the best course of action for our children. That might not mean complete reconciliation. Some marriages are past that point. But it might at least mean some form of shared custody and involvement in your children's lives. And that will likely require court action or involvement of some sort.

Of course that is easy for me to say since I'm still happily married in my first marriage and plant to remain so for the rest of my life so this is just theoretical on my part.

[JohnH]

It sounds like they were probably ill-suited to each other to start with and probably should never have gotten married and had children. But that is water under the bridge at this point.

It’s hard to say. They adopted a number of children, and from a purely utilitarian perspective, some of the children have done well. One is special needs but he is doing very well - to the point of employment when it was believed never to be possible.

Likewise the natural born children includes one of my most unique friends, and also well accomplished. The sad situation with both parents is a matter of both anguish and prayer.

With that said, their conduct both individually may have been the problem, and a bad marriage just a consequence of that. (It’s hard to have a good marriage when you make choices that lead to you being incarcerated, for example. Likewise, seeking generous welfare benefit programmes instead of working often is not the wisest life choice for either a mother or father.)

I disagree with the notion expressed by Ohio Jones here that passivity is the correct course of action in the face of divorce, at least where children are involved. I think we have an actual Biblical obligation to raise and guide our children and be engaged in their lives. And to passively allow a spouse to walk away with the children without objecting is an abandonment of those responsibilities. And an example of where avoiding the legal system is inconsistent with Biblical and social obligations toward one's family and children. You may still not achieve the outcome that you prefer. But I think we are obligated to at least pursue the best course of action for our children. That might not mean complete reconciliation. Some marriages are past that point. But it might at least mean some form of shared custody and involvement in your children's lives. And that will likely require court action or involvement of some sort.

Of course that is easy for me to say since I'm still happily married in my first marriage and plant to remain so for the rest of my life so this is just theoretical on my part.

I would agree with this, and part of the problem is the adversarial nature of the court system. It requires you to be aggressive in order to advocate on the behalf of innocent third parties, such as children. (SNAP is the same way - SNAP fraud requires filing a lawsuit against a merchant and the attorney general expects you to do this. This bothers me, since such a fraudster has stolen not just from a hungry person, but from the state. I would gladly give away my SNAP benefits, but they are not mine to give. They are the state’s.)

[Ken]

It sounds like they were probably ill-suited to each other to start with and probably should never have gotten married and had children. But that is water under the bridge at this point.

It’s hard to say. They adopted a number of children, and from a purely utilitarian perspective, some of the children have done well. One is special needs but he is doing very well - to the point of employment when it was believed never to be possible.

Likewise the natural born children includes one of my most unique friends, and also well accomplished. The sad situation with both parents is a matter of both anguish and prayer.

With that said, their conduct both individually may have been the problem, and a bad marriage just a consequence of that. (It’s hard to have a good marriage when you make choices that lead to you being incarcerated, for example. Likewise, seeking generous welfare benefit programmes instead of working often is not the wisest life choice for either a mother or father.)

I disagree with the notion expressed by Ohio Jones here that passivity is the correct course of action in the face of divorce, at least where children are involved. I think we have an actual Biblical obligation to raise and guide our children and be engaged in their lives. And to passively allow a spouse to walk away with the children without objecting is an abandonment of those responsibilities. And an example of where avoiding the legal system is inconsistent with Biblical and social obligations toward one's family and children. You may still not achieve the outcome that you prefer. But I think we are obligated to at least pursue the best course of action for our children. That might not mean complete reconciliation. Some marriages are past that point. But it might at least mean some form of shared custody and involvement in your children's lives. And that will likely require court action or involvement of some sort.

Of course that is easy for me to say since I'm still happily married in my first marriage and plant to remain so for the rest of my life so this is just theoretical on my part.

I would agree with this, and part of the problem is the adversarial nature of the court system. It requires you to be aggressive in order to advocate on the behalf of innocent third parties, such as children. (SNAP is the same way - SNAP fraud requires filing a lawsuit against a merchant and the attorney general expects you to do this. This bothers me, since such a fraudster has stolen not just from a hungry person, but from the state. I would gladly give away my SNAP benefits, but they are not mine to give. They are the state’s.)

Divorce need not necessarily be adversarial, especially when it comes to the best interest of the children. Sometimes the legal system just provides structure for the parties to work things out in a rational manner and then certify what they have agreed on in a binding manner.

It is the people involved who make it adversarial, not the system itself. I would imagine that 99.9% of judges and attorneys would be happier if couples came to an agreement amongst themselves and they were just there to put it down on paper and make it legal. As opposed to being forced into refereeing a "he said, she said" adversarial fight that benefits no one.

[JohnH]

I’m just saying the court system is adversarial. It would be nice if we had more alternative types of tribunals that help people come to agreements instead of going straight into the court system.