iMarriage
by Steve Watters on 08/15/2007 at 12:40 PM
In a recent comment, "Justin" wrote, "If I don't want to get married until I'm 40, then that is between me and God. Not me and the congregation."
I think by this statement it's fair to say Justin's concept of marriage fits into a category researcher Paul Amato describes as "individualistic." In a book that he (and a team of other researchers) wrote called Alone Together, Amato describes the transformation of marriage to the current individualistic focus:
Marriage changed from a formal institution that meets the needs of the larger society to a companionate relationship that meets the needs of the couple and their children and then to a private pact that meets the psychological needs of individual spouses.
We believe at Boundless that God created marriage to be larger than us as individuals, larger than any one couple and larger than any children that couple has. That "institutional" view puts us at odds with the individualistic zeitgeist.
I wonder if those who are primarily motivated by an individualistic view of marriage realize how much that drive is at odds with sentiments like "marriage is a reflection of Christ and the church" or "for better or worse, for rich or poor, etc." Those ideas end up being like the terms and conditions we so quickly accept without reading as we download software or sign up for a new online service -- things that we know are probably important, but ultimately have little influence on our daily lives.
As the title, Alone Together implies, an individualistic marriage results in something far short of "becoming one flesh" with another person. Instead, it's something that looks a lot more like "roommates who have sex but few other things in common." Living independently with their own separate circle of friends and leisure activities, these couples often find little keeping them together when they start discovering reasons to be on their own again.
Have we gotten so good about being individualistic that we no longer have what it takes to become one flesh with another person and live out a relationship that can reflect the mystery of Christ and His church?
1. AMarriedGal said the following at 1:09 PM on Aug 15:
1
I have a somewhat off-topic question/subject I would be interested in seeing addressed by Boundless...
How do single staffers/contributers of Boundless (if there are any, particularly males?) feel about the Boundless position on singleness...particularly as it relates to most states of singleness being a sin (or result of) and the impression that without marriage it is difficult, if not impossible to become an 'adult'.
I enjoy your website and as a married person now I'm not particularly offended by your 'singles' posting, but I just have the mental image of there being a clause in the Focus on the Family contract requiring marriage within six months of employment or something... :)
I'm interested in hearing more personal stories of your own staffers who have also not yet attained the 'blessing of marriage'.
2. P&P said the following at 1:28 PM on Aug 15:
2
What concerns me with the idea that the congregation has a say in the marriage of two people is that there could be pressure to marry the "wrong" person or to stay in a miserable or even abusive situation.
This is an unfortunate but common theme in very conservative congregations. I belong to a liberal congreation and we have had several members join over the years because of that pressure. I've seen older single people join because they're told that something is wrong with them (or endure rumors as to their sexual orientation) because they didn't marry before age 25. In addition to this I've seen recently divorced men and women come to my church because they were shunned for leaving physically or verbally abusive marriages.
That isn't to say that people shouldn't try to work out marital difficulties, but when epithets (or unfortunately fists) start to fly, it's time to get a divorce.
Rather than pressuring people to "get married and make babies," perhaps ministers should be preaching respect for one another and let marriage come out of the situation organically.
3. Nelson said the following at 1:47 PM on Aug 15:
3
A wrong marriage happens because people don't understand what marriage is. The goal, for the two individuals, is to love sacrificially for the other. There is no "wrong" person to do for. Christ did it for the whole world to the point where he was crucified.
That's how the Bible parallels marriage along God's relationship with people.
When you approach marriage as a "taking" act instead of a "giving" act, then you'll naturally end up with far more problems because that's not what marriage is suppose to be.
It's not to undermine possible marriage problems, but the path to the altar should have John 3:16 in mind.
For God so loved the world, that he GAVE...
4. v@v said the following at 1:57 PM on Aug 15:
4
This year's "State of our Unions" report from the National Marriage Project addresses this idea, and attributes it to secular individualism. The report also connects this ideological adoption of secular individualism to the decline in marriage and marriage maintenance, as successful marriages depend on selflessness.
5. v@v said the following at 2:04 PM on Aug 15:
5
I just bought this book -- "When Sinners Say 'I Do'" by Dave Harvey. Just got it in the mail and am only on page 25, but, it's good so far. Perhaps one of you will want to check it out.
6. DT said the following at 2:17 PM on Aug 15:
6
Justin assumes that the age at which he marries is his decision, and not God's entirely. :)
7. Ted Slater said the following at 2:46 PM on Aug 15:
7
AMarriedGal -- I'm concerned about your impression that we at Boundless consider "most states of singleness being a sin." On many occasions we've specified that the state of singleness is indeed not sinful.
I'd be interested to see where you've gotten the impression that we consider the state of singleness as sinful. Perhaps we're not communicating clearly enough.
8. Laura said the following at 3:21 PM on Aug 15:
8
Congregation and community in marriage is necessary though. As a loving church family, they provide accountability and support and guidance. My fiance and I are eight months away from being married, and our church has provided all these things - and we truly appreciate them! It is also true that congregation can help guide you in your choice of spouse, as P&P says:
"What concerns me with the idea that the congregation has a say in the marriage of two people is that there could be pressure to marry the "wrong" person or to stay in a miserable or even abusive situation."
While I'm very sorry for those who have felt pressured into marriage, I believe the church family plays a significant role when choosing a spouse. For example, if someone had concerns with your particular choice, they would address those concerns with you. If there were no concerns,there would be celebrations all round. For example, my fiance and I are both actively involved in our youth ministry, and one thing we did was gage the reactions and responses of our youth (and the rest of the church) when we first started dating. This indicated whether they had any concerns or not (thankfully, not).
I'm not saying the congregation needs to have their nose in your business all the time, but we are a family and families support, help and guide.
9. James said the following at 6:51 PM on Aug 15:
9
Ah me (*sigh of wistfullness*), I wish my peers and friends would READ boundless (well, one does, but she's now married....very happily married), b/c if I mention something I agree with from here, usually I get the patronizing,
"Now now, you have to understand...." blah, blah blah.
I understand quite well, thank you. Thanks to teaching by pastors, and by boundless and by the Holy Spirit on my own heart through the Word of God.
Thing is that I can't get them to take the time to read this webzine OR this blog. They have time for myspace and facebook (okay, so do I...for facebook =p), but not for a good, informative webzine.
I've finally figured out my marriage problem: no one in my area but me reads boundless.
Okay, that was pretty much tongue-in-cheek and half-serious, but once again, good job on nailing the issue right on the head.
But, how can we effectively communicate these things to our fellows who are still somewhat caught-up in the iMarriage and iChristian life?
10. A.J. said the following at 8:10 PM on Aug 15:
10
To the remark P&P made about conservative congregations pressuring people to stay in abusive relationships, i think that is unfair. i belong to a conservative congregation, and we in no way do that. perhaps instead of the terms conservative and liberal, healthy and unhealthy should be used. a healthy congregation can be conservative, liberal, or somewhere in the middle, as can an unhealthy congregation. and a healthy church will support and offer guidance to its members that is based in scripture, while an unhealthy congregation will give advice based on prejudice and biased opinions.
these are just my thoughts, i really hope i didn't offend anybody.
11. Anu said the following at 10:04 PM on Aug 15:
11
"I'd be interested to see where you've gotten the impression that we consider the state of singleness as sinful. Perhaps we're not communicating clearly enough."
Ted,
While I do agree that Boundless has spelled numerous times out why "technically" singleness isn't a sin, the overwhelming overall impression is that if one is single something is "wrong" with you, in that one is selfish, not doing enough to find a spouse, or not making themselves marriageable enough.
12. Jacob said the following at 10:18 PM on Aug 15:
12
The problem is that we don't like accountability these days. The idea that anyone other than "Almighty I" would have a right to call us out is intolerable. "It's my life" we cry! Accountability means I can't follow my heart and throw myself any whomever I will for whatever reasons I want to convince myself of.
Nelson's comment is money: marriage is mutual sacrifice and love for the other. Today, we do not sacrifice as much. There is no "I love you and will demonstrate that I do by committing myself to your good and will lay down everything for that end." Rather, there is "I love me, I want you, and here's why I want you."
13. derek_from_canada said the following at 11:08 PM on Aug 15:
13
I am not sure I get it...
Is the idea that the preferences of church family, biological family and friends for who you should marry
is just as important as what God thinks and you and your partner think?
Arranged marriages much?
Isn't it a better balance when all of these influences, in concert, are prayerfully considered and each given their due. With the top-most being God's opinion and then each partner and then the rest of the families? Because once you are married, who is going to decide things for the new family unit? The local pastor? the in-laws? the local busybody?
One poster says God will choose Justin's mate in His time, thus it isn't a choice of ours at all. If so, then this website shouldn't even exist, as the website is just meaningless navel gazing and all opinions are for naught if we have no free will.
Derek
14. DannieA said the following at 11:44 PM on Aug 15:
14
I really don't think that a person should base marriage on what a congregation thinks fo them....and if that is the kind of congregation one belongs to...well find another one.
A marriage is a covenant between God and the two people choosing to take the vows.
Congregations should have role models and such...but ultimately they should not judge a person for their current state of singleness
15. JJ said the following at 12:38 AM on Aug 16:
15
AMarriedGal -
I have to admit that I did giggle wondering how I could have missed such a clause in the employement contract. You see, I am evidence that there is no such "get married within six months of employment" clause here. Now, that's not to say that there aren't people getting married during their employment. I have attended several coworker's weddings over the years.
I am still waiting with anticipation for the Matchmaking Department to emmerge ;-)
16. wombatty said the following at 3:22 AM on Aug 16:
16
DT wrote:
Justin assumes that the age at which he marries is his decision, and not God's entirely. :)
There are plenty of folks on the other side who make the same error - they think it's their decsision when he (or anyone else) marries.
17. Marci said the following at 6:07 AM on Aug 16:
17
Hey All,
I agree that individualistic approaches are leading to untimely marriage and shaky marriages. What's sad is that people don't think about families and marriage as enriching elements of the church, the community, and the members of such unions themselves. For some, marriage is just 'too much responsibility' and should thus be put off for when 'life starts to get dull anyways.'
And it is a cycle. For instance, if a child grows up in a family that broke up due to individualistic approaches, the child may fear marriage and delay it unduly. As well, because the child didn't saw an individualistic approach to marriage, it may be harder for him or her to grasp how to have a marriage that isn't this way. Not having this understanding can lead to him or her marrying and then divorcing due to similar reasons as the parents.
Now I'm not saying that all divorces occur because both parties are individualistic; I'm just saying that children who grow up in situations where their parents took an indivdualistic approach have less tools to break the cycle and have healthy marriages of their own.
I also really think the church needs to teach people more about God's love and sacrifice when they speak of marriage - I think many of the problems church members have in their marriages are related to a failure to understand how marriage should marry Christ's relationship with his bride, the Church.
Blessings to all
18. Raj Sharma said the following at 8:03 AM on Aug 16:
18
Who decided that pressure to get married is a bad thing???
MOST marriages happen because of pressure (parents, friends, culture, elders etc.)
If left to our own devises, most people would not take on the responsibility.
In fact, this whole debate is evidence of what happens when people are left to their own devises.
19. Amy said the following at 8:52 AM on Aug 16:
19
AMarriedGal --
As a Focus employee, I can assure you that there is no such marriage clause in our employment contracts! But you're very keen to point out that there is a large number of would-be Focus constituents right here within the company... those who wish they had a family to focus upon!!!
It is extremely challenging to work here as a single person. Well-meaning coworkers try to encourage you... but then their constant conversations and comments about their spouses and kids and grandkids have an almost depressing effect. The vast majority of Focus' resources are aimed at a target audience that a good chunk of their very own employees do not fit into.JJ -- when you get that Matchmaking Department started, sign me up! :-D
20. Alison D. said the following at 10:09 AM on Aug 16:
20
Amen! I think this post is spot-on. Unfortunately, even pastors have bought into the individualistic concept of marriage. The pastor who married my husband and I certainly had. It was very disconcerting for us when he rejected a reading we wanted to include in our ceremony that described our marriage, in part, as a service to our friends and community. He thought it sounded "New Age" to say that marriages should serve others as much as they serve the spouses. Frankly, marriage is not about making me happy! It's about shaping and molding one another, growing together, serving together--being better together, a more powerful force for the Kingdom togther, than we were apart. True, marriage brings new responsibilities that can take away time from other pursuits, but I can honestly say that because of the growth I have experienced in only 11 months of marriage, I am a better friend, daughter, and member of the body of Christ. And just in terms of making a marriage work, if it's all about you and your personal happiness, don't get married! Marriage is about sacrifice, unconditional love and respect, and honoring another person's needs above your own.
21. Joe said the following at 10:22 AM on Aug 16:
21
P&P --
"What concerns me with the idea that the congregation has a say in the marriage of two people is that there could be pressure to marry the "wrong" person or to stay in a miserable or even abusive situation."
I think you highlight well in your post the essential difference between "conservative" and "liberal" churches. "Conservative" churches tend to view Scripture as authoritative, "liberal" churches tend not to, and divorce is a perfect example of this. Let's look at Jesus's teaching about divorce:
"'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:7-12)
That is the "problem" that conservative churches have towards divorce -- Jesus's teaching is very clear and rather harsh. There is no provision for abuse, there is no provision for unhappiness. Yes, those situations are unfortunate and sad, but they are not justification for divorce. I am sure that many liberal churches are proud that they ignore Jesus's words here, but all true believers, regardless of church affiliation, must consider them fearfully.
May we all take VERY seriously the task of choosing a spouse, because in God's eyes, marriage is for life. No matter what.
22. John said the following at 10:33 AM on Aug 16:
22
Joe wrote,
"May we all take VERY seriously the task of choosing a spouse, because in God's eyes, marriage is for life. No matter what."
No kidding. That is one very good reason why many of us are taking our sweet time and not rushing into anything. If there are no do-overs, no second chances, then it doesn't make sense to marry young if you're not absolutely sure. Better to wait until you meet the right one or not do it at all.
23. Holly said the following at 10:47 AM on Aug 16:
23
Joe, a young lady of my acquaintance had a mother who agreed with your interpretation of scripture entirely. She delivered her father's child when she was 16. The Jesus you seem to believe in, who preferred that situation to divorce, is one I hope I never meet.
24. Carrie said the following at 11:06 AM on Aug 16:
24
Holly,
"The Jesus you seem to believe in, who preferred that situation to divorce, is one I hope I never meet."
Here is the problem that happens and leads to relativism.
There is no "Jesus you seem to believe in". What you mean, but aren't saying for whatever reason, is that "You have interpreted Jesus' teaching in ______ way and I don't agree with it because I have seen _______ happen."
Joe said:
"There is no provision for abuse, there is no provision for unhappiness. . . May we all take VERY seriously the task of choosing a spouse, because in God's eyes, marriage is for life. No matter what."
So, really, its not the fault of Jesus that your friend gave birth at the age of 16, it was her mother's poor decision in a spouse. Her mother then tried to justify her poor decision by trying follow what Jesus taught, but everything was going to straight to Hades. Your friend is an unfortunate victim due to the extreme, heinous, unrepented sins of her parents.
Please, don't blame someone's Jesus for something like that. Put blame where blame is due: at the foot of the sinner.
25. xeres said the following at 11:09 AM on Aug 16:
25
I see your concern Holly. However, we are living in an anti-marriage and anti-relationship culture and that is not okay at all. While you mean well, I hope you are not using that scenario to support the anti-marriage/anti-relationship view of point (which is not a biblical one by the way)
26. Nelson said the following at 11:15 AM on Aug 16:
26
She delivered her father's child when she was 16.
Wait. I am having trouble understanding that sentence. So... she had a child that was... fathered by her own father?
27. Jo said the following at 11:33 AM on Aug 16:
27
Joe:
There is no provision for abuse? Not everything is spelled out in scripture, sometimes we have to read between the lines. We could quibble about the details (like whether someone who got divorced in such a situation would still be forbidden to marry again), but to someone in an abusive relationship I would say 'Leave him/her' every time. We live in a fallen world, and sometimes rather than right versus wrong, we're faced with two evils and have to choose the lesser of those.
28. Holly said the following at 11:41 AM on Aug 16:
28
Nelson: yes, that is what happened. Her mother hid the situation from the authorities in the name of submission to her husband and not divorcing, because she believed that Scripture says that divorce is never an option, period, no exceptions. This situation finally came to light, many years later, via the counseling ministry at my church. The young lady has made a significant recovery, for which we can all praise the Lord.
Others: my phrasing was poor, perhaps, but it was not meant to offend, and I apologize. I simply marvel at people whose view of such matters is so black and white that they would see divorce as not an option, not even in situations of terrible abuse. Perhaps they simply have no experience with situations of great evil, so the hard cases never enter their thoughts. My background is different from what I imagine the typical reader of this blog's is, and certainly the typical writer's, as my life has been touched by severe abuse, as well as mental and physical illness. I also work among the lost and teach as an avocation (martial arts) to the lost. Thus, it is easy for me to lose patience with those whose experience is so different and less "gritty," for lack of a better term -- those who rarely meet an unbeliever and have no experience with serious domestic violence or abuse but still hold black/white all-or-nothing views on related matters. It is difficult to remain teachable when people with no abuse in their histories, healthy bodies, no mental illness issues, etc., people with Christian parents married to Christian spouses raising or homeschooling Christian kids who work in Christian ministries and spend most of their time with their extended Church families then proclaim their strong and inflexible views on ideas related to personal evangelism or how to live righteously (no divorce, ever; everyone must have kids, etc.) in situations of extreme difficulty, situations with which they have no experience. My lack of patience makes my word choice imprudent at times. Perhaps I will revert to lurker status now. Thanks for listening.
29. Carrie said the following at 12:10 PM on Aug 16:
29
Holly,
I would encourage you to be a little bit more charitable in your view towards Boundless readers and conservative Christian culture in general.
Perhaps people hold "black and white" views because there is so much gray in this fallen, sinful world. A friend of mine, who was raised by Christian parents and was homeschool by those Christian parents, has a "no divorce ever" view. Here is the great catch though: their father has threatened to divorce their mother! They have seen quite a bit of the nastiness of this world too, but yet they still interpret Jesus' words a specific way and plan to hold to that firmly.
Also, I go to a church where there are no public attenders. Everyone homeschools or sends their children to private, Christian affiliated schools. Here is yet another catch: most of the parents attended public schools. Almost everyone in our congregation has some member of their immediate family that is not a believer. Yet, they have somehow all ended up in this small, southern, conservative congregation.
I don't any of the Boundless readers or writers personally, but I find it pretty hard to believe they don't know hurt on a very real level.
You say:
"Thus, it is easy for me to lose patience with those whose experience is so different and less "gritty," for lack of a better term -- those who rarely meet an unbeliever and have no experience with serious domestic violence or abuse but still hold black/white all-or-nothing views on related matters."
I would be cautious in blanketing the fact the some of us have very strong "black and white" opinions with "you must not have been abused or have any real experience with abuse". That's just plain hurtful.
30. Holly said the following at 12:23 PM on Aug 16:
30
Carrie: unless Joe and John are women with male names, it IS a safe assumption that they have never been in danger of being impregnated by their fathers. :-) Having said that, I do need a more charitable attitude. Thank you for the admonishment. I'm working on it.
31. Ted Slater said the following at 12:28 PM on Aug 16:
31
Holly -- divorce is permitted in certain circumstances, including marital unfaithfulness. The situation you recount allows for divorce. It's not "necessary," but is permissible.
What is *not* acceptable is to divorce because of "irreconcilable differences" or because the marriage is "unfulfilling."
32. Lynne said the following at 12:46 PM on Aug 16:
32
Holly,
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. As you revert to lurker status, the conversations will be less rich without your input.
Ted,
Thank you for pointing out that sexual abuse is marital unfaithfulness.
Also, no one has mentioned that concept of separation. Perhaps an extended separation that doesn't culminate in divorce but takes active steps to preserve the emotional health of the family members in a way that could not be done with the other spouse in the home.
What do you think?
33. Holly said the following at 12:48 PM on Aug 16:
33
Ted, can you please clarify for whom you are speaking? Is that your personal position, the position of Focus on the Family, the position of Boundless Line, Dr. Dobson's position, or your church's position? It's not clear to me, and perhaps not to others, as well, since you responded to me and not to the posters who expressed a view explicitly contrary to yours (Joe and John). Thanks.
34. Ted Slater said the following at 1:09 PM on Aug 16:
34
Holly -- it is the position of myself, FOTF, the Boundless Line, Dr. Dobson, and my church that divorce is permissible in certain circumstances, including marital infidelity.
In the example you gave, the girl's father engaged in sexual activity with someone other than his wife. That sexual infidelity is grounds for divorce.
Again, while it is "permissible," in many cases it's possible to work through the sins committed, reconcile, and come through the other side with a wonderfully rich marriage. Lots of work and humility and grace are required....
35. Gary said the following at 1:14 PM on Aug 16:
35
Ted,
I'd be interested in seeing your biblical support for allowing divorce when abuse occurs. As far as I know, the two ways that divorce is allowed in scripture is by unfaithfulness, or if an unbelieving spouse does not want to remain married. In Matthew 5:32 (and in Matthew 19:9) Jesus states:
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
This only talks of unfaithfulness, though, not abuse.
Concerning the second criteria, 1 Cor. 7:15 says:
"But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
This references a believer being married to an unbeliever who does not want to stay together, but again, abuse is not mentioned.
So, if an abusive spouse wants to remain married, and is faithful, is there any recourse for that person to get away from that unsafe relationship? I think there might be...earlier in 1 Cor. 7 (v. 10) it talks of separation from a husband, and the woman is commanded to not marry again. Even though she is commanded to not separate, it seems as if it is a permissible thing to do from Paul's wording. So, that may be the correct action for someone in an abusive relationship...just a thought.
I guess you could also say that being faithful to your spouse is done so in perhaps a non-sexual way as well, so an abusive husband is being unfaithful to his wife by not fulfilling his vow of protecting and serving her...but this seems to be more of a stretch.
36. Ted Slater said the following at 1:22 PM on Aug 16:
36
Gary -- you ask, "I'd be interested in seeing your biblical support for allowing divorce when abuse occurs."
I never said that. I concur with your explanation about when divorce is permissible.
That said, I sometimes wrestle with the term "marital unfaithfulness." Is trying to kill your spouse or break their nose "marital unfaithfulness"? Hm. I guess I wouldn't fault someone for separating from a spouse who is this abusive. That's my opinion, not The Line's or FOTF's....
37. cn said the following at 1:34 PM on Aug 16:
37
what in the world constitutes a liberal congregation.... is it something like the united church of christ? or is it a body dances and creates art during worship? is it a doctrinal issue?
In terms of a congregation being involved in the marriage of two people, as long as everyone is being prayerfully discerning, I think its great... but if all parties arn't being discerning, it could be a problem. eg. Is the congregation trying to push two people together who don't really have like minded callings? They just seem like a good fit b/c of age and availabilty.... is the congregation missing that one person really needs to go through a deep season of healing before they enter into a relationship headed towards marriage? There's a lot of factors involved and I've seen groups of people council others to be involved in relationships that were not the best.
This isn't to say that a congregation can't be helpful... a lot depends on the extent of relationships the individuals have with their community.
it seems to me that if any two people are feeling "pressured" into marriage by outside people, it might not be the best situation to be in. Feeling "pressured" is a lot different than a sense of conviction or calling.
38. Joe said the following at 1:37 PM on Aug 16:
38
Quick note -- Jesus says in 3 of the 4 gospels that divorce and remarriage is adultery, period. In Matthew, there is the clause for "porneia" (a notoriously difficult Greek word most commonly translated "fornication" or "unchastity"). The view of myself and many commentators is that this refers only to sexual unfaithfulness in the Jewish betrothal period (thus its inclusion only in the Jewish-targetted gospel of Matthew). But even if Jesus meant sexual unfaithfulness at any time, physical abuse does not fall under this heading! An abusive marriage is a terrible, heartbreaking situation, but it is NOT grounds for divorce. Seeing Scripture as authoritative means accepting its teachings even when we would like to disagree with them.
39. Gary said the following at 1:47 PM on Aug 16:
39
Ted,
Yes, you clarified you're reasoning for allowing divorce in Holly's situation with a later post. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I also echo your thoughts on when divorce is correct...it seems counterintuitive that an abusive relationship would not be grounds for divorce, yet I do not know of it mentioned in scripture. I guess that's why I would say that separation is the way to go, with hopes that the abusive spouse would eventually allow God to help transform their life, so that reconciliation could occur. Either way, it's a very difficult situation.
40. Patricia said the following at 3:08 PM on Aug 16:
40
The problem with domestic violence, is that domestic violence wasn't considered a problem until modern times. People in the early church had no concept of such because it was considered legal for a husband to beat, even severely, his wife because she was under his authority. I'm not even sure if there was a concept of "domestic" until modern times because the public and private were generally seen as the same utnil the industrial revolution and separation of work from family. If you look at English common law (which American marriage law was derived from), a wife's body was her husbands. Thankfully, feminist (yes, they have done some good things) publicized this issue. Frankly, I find it dangerous to tell women to stay with seriously abusive husbands, especially since women staistically are most likely to die from their husband, boyfriend, significant other than anyone else in the world. Women should leave, seek counseling, and if that fails, get a permanent separation.
41. Carrie Lea said the following at 3:27 PM on Aug 16:
41
Holly,
Thanks for your input. It's vital for those of us who were more "sheltered" to consider difficult situations such as the one you described. We must always be sensitive to the balance of God's justice and mercy, taking both into consideration and discarding neither.
Could you further explain the situation with your friend's mother? Was the woman married to her own father? If so, how was that marriage legal? If not, why the concern about divorce?
Incestuous relationships are prohibited in God's Law. I'm not sure that such a marriage would be recognized by God to begin with, as it would suggest that the sin of incest is continuously taking place within the marriage. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
42. Nelson said the following at 6:14 PM on Aug 16:
42
The danger of holding the "not grounds for divorce" viewpoint is that it doesn't actually aid the couple in any way whatsoever. Yes, divorce is not to be used to "solve" problems, but just because you're not getting divorced, doesn't mean the relationship is healthy.
A woman in an abusive relationship might not be grounds for divorce, but it's definitely grounds for putting the husband in jail. Even secular laws recognize violence as something bad. Divorce will not solve the violence, and violence is the issue here.
43. DannieA said the following at 11:31 PM on Aug 16:
43
I wholeheartedly DISAGREE in staying in an abusive marriage. Statistics prove abusers rarely change their ways. God commands men to love their wives as God loves the church as well...let's not forget it.
I also cannot believe that some people would condone this if the couple has kids...who protects them?
44. Carrie said the following at 7:22 AM on Aug 17:
44
Joe,
Doesn't Scripture prohibit suicide? In an extremely abusive situation, where death is a very real possibility, if you were to stay in it you would be committing suicide. Any elders that would recommend you staying in the marriage would be sentencing you to death. I can't see how that's biblical.
45. Ahnivah said the following at 8:49 AM on Aug 17:
45
From www.gotquestions.org/abuse-divorce.html:
Question: "Is abuse an acceptable reason for divorce?"
Answer: The Bible gives only two reasons in which divorce is permitted: the first is in the case of abandonment of a Christian by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15), and the second is if one partner is involved in a lifestyle of infidelity (Matthew 5:32). Although God allows it in these circumstances, He has never been an endorser of divorce. It should be assumed that two Bible-believing Christians will not mutually agree to divorce, but should practice the forgiveness and love that God freely gives us. “'For I hate divorce!' says the Lord, the God of Israel...” (Malachi 2:16).
The Bible is silent on the issue of marital abuse as a reason for divorce, although it is obvious that God despises the mistreatment of wives by their husbands (Colossians 3:19, 1 Peter 3:7, Ephesians 5:25-33). Abuse should not be tolerated by anyone. No one should have to live in an abusive environment, whether it be from a family member, friend, employer, caregiver, or stranger. Physical abuse is against the law, and the authorities should be the first ones contacted if this occurs.
The best way to prevent ending up feeling trapped in an abusive marriage is to get to know a potential spouse before making the commitment to marry. The signs of being an abuser are manifested in one's personality. These “red flags” are always there, but are often overlooked or even ignored when attraction and infatuation take over. These signs can include: irrational jealousy, the need to be in control, a quick temper, attempts to isolate the other person from his or her friends and family, drug or alcohol abuse, and disrespect for their partner's boundaries, privacy, personal space, or moral values.
A wife (or husband) who is being abused should get herself, and any children, out of the situation immediately and find a new temporary home. I can find nothing in the Bible to indicate that separation (not divorce) in this instance would be wrong. Although friends and family will likely tell the woman (or man) to immediately file for divorce, God places a much higher value on marriage than the world does.
Once separated, the husband (if he is the abuser) has the responsibility to reach out for help. First and foremost, he should seek God. “For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who knocks” (Matthew 7:8). No one has more power to heal individuals and relationships than God. He must be the Lord of our lives, the Master of our assets, and the Head of our households.
Both husband and wife must commit themselves to God and then develop a relationship with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ. “And this is the way to have eternal life – to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth” (John 17:3). This should be accompanied by intensive Christian counseling – first individually, then as a couple, and even for the entire family if necessary.
During this time, the wife should let her husband know of her unconditional love and support, and devote herself to much prayer. Although the effort must be made on the part of her husband to make the changes, she should not give up hope if he is at first resistant. However, if he never even takes the first step, she should not consider returning to him until he does.
The abused spouse should not return home until a trained Christian counselor decides that the family will be safe in the same home as the former abuser. Together, the couple should then commit to serving and obeying God. They should spend individual time with God daily, attend a Bible-believing church, begin serving God through a ministry, and get involved in small Bible study groups that fit their needs. “What this means is that those who become Christians become new persons. They are not the same anymore, for the old life is gone. A new life has begun” (2 Corinthians 5:17)!
I think this is a very balanced and biblical view of how spouses should act if abuse occurs. Divorce is permissable on the grounds of marital unfaithfulness and if a unbelieving spouse chooses to leave the relationship. I would definetly question the validity of one's faith if they consistently choose to physically, emotionally, or sexually abuse their spouse.
46. Jo said the following at 9:25 AM on Aug 17:
46
Joe: What would you suggest that a woman or man in an abusive marriage should do, that would be in line with scripture?
Abnivah - I like a lot of that and in some situations I expect it would work. But I don't think it's an all-encompassing answer. Abuse takes many forms and abusers take many forms too.
47. Leah said the following at 9:42 AM on Aug 17:
47
AMarriedGal- most of Boundless's opinions on singleness are NOT that it is sin or a result of sin.
They quite confidently agree that everyone will have a time of singleness in their life, and that is good. They also quite confidently agree that for some people, they are supposed to be single for life, and that is good.
However, for a majority of people, we are supposed to marry, and if we put that off for selfish reasons, then that is sin.
There are many times that single contributors have shared stories about their life as singles, just do a bit of searching through the site :P
48. Leah said the following at 9:54 AM on Aug 17:
48
Holly- Jesus does not prefer that situation to divorce.
However, he would still tell the couple in question not to get divorced.
The mother should have told the authorities, and the father should have been tried through the justice system, then serve his penance.
He and his wife would then have to fix their marriage, and I daresay he would have a lot of fixing to do in regards to his r/ship with his daughter.
Divorce would not have helped the situation.
Jo (and others): If you are in an abusive relationship, then by all means, move out. But don't divorce. You did promise, with Jesus as your witness, that you would remain married to this person til death do you part. Not "til he starts abusing me" or anything else. But "til death do us part". A friend of mine once said "I look at marriage with the view that 'I am marrying you, and even if you are the biggest mistake of my life, I will not give up on you'." The only time Jesus permits divorce is if one spouse has been unfaithful (and even then the possibility of remarriage is hazy).
But by all means, move out, report the man to authorities, do whatever is required to bring justice to the perpetrator. But do not recant on the promise you made with Jesus as your witness.
49. Joe said the following at 3:38 PM on Aug 17:
49
"Joe,
Doesn't Scripture prohibit suicide? In an extremely abusive situation, where death is a very real possibility, if you were to stay in it you would be committing suicide. Any elders that would recommend you staying in the marriage would be sentencing you to death. I can't see how that's biblical."
No, even if death were almost assured, that would certainly not constitute suicide. If entering into a situation where death is a possibility were equivalent to suicide, all combat soldiers would be potentially guilty of suicide, as would martyrs for the faith. Doing what is right even in the face of stiff opposition, even sometimes to the point of death, is not suicidal, but noble.
Having said that, of course that would probably not be my recommendation for someone in an abusive marriage. Separation, legal action, and other steps are perfectly valid options. The key is to remember that you are still bound to your spouse, and the goal should be eventual reconciliation. Note Jesus's words when talking about divorce -- he is even more harsh about remarriage than divorce, which makes me think that though divorce might be acceptable in some situations, one is still bound to that person in the eyes of God, which is why remarriage (while the spouse is still alive) is tantamount to adultery.
50. Jo said the following at 1:52 PM on Aug 18:
50
I hesitate to repeat the mistake of assuming that some commenters have no experience of abuse, but it does seem to me that there are some situations where the lesser of many evils is divorce, or permanent separation which amounts to the same thing.
I absolutely agree that if a marriage is at all reconcilable, both parties should do everything possible to stay together. I would also agree that this applies in very many cases of domestic violence and so on, where Ahnivah's advice is very good. But if a person is living in fear of his/her life, and the spouse makes no effort to change and is not interested in making the situation better, I believe there is no other option.
On a related note, can anyone shed more light on the word 'unfaithful' in Matthew 5:32? I know that we generally take it to refer to adultery, but I'm interested to know whether the original language dictates that, or whether it's a more general term. I'd say abusing your wife is pretty unfaithful, personally. Does anyone know what the specific word used entails?
51. Jo said the following at 2:32 PM on Aug 18:
51
Another quick point: The pharisees accused Jesus of disobeying scripture by healing on the sabbath. They, as we know, were chastised by Jesus for being legalistic and forgetting the compassion which is the centre of God's law. By blanketly condemning divorce in the case of abuse, wouldn't we be risking making the same error? Matt 5:32 says a man may divorce his wife if she has been unfaithful. I think we all accept that this applies to unfaithful husbands as well, although it isn't said. The Bible is God's word and our ultimate authority, but God credits us with common sense to interpret his word. We have to balance 'problem verses' like this one with what God says in other places regarding the treatment of wives by their husbands, his view of violence, his view of commitment, his view of sex and all sorts of other related issues. I say again, God is black and white but because of sin we live in a grey world. There isn't always a clear right and wrong, even when we follow God. Sin has distorted things to such a degree that we sometimes have to choose between two wrongs. Look at Rahab. I'm not making excuses for sin, sin is always bad. But our world is very sick. Thank God that he is merciful, because we desperately need mercy, both to receive and to give.
52. k. said the following at 4:14 PM on Aug 18:
52
I guess I'm just more pragmatic...I say, if you're married to an abuser, get out of there, get a divorce, get counseling, and put your life back together, whether that means marrying again or not.
53. Leah said the following at 2:59 AM on Aug 19:
53
Jo, I'd like to make the point that divorce and permanent separation do not amount to the same thing. Divorce means you are no longer bound by the covenant you made with your spouse, before God as your witness. Separation means you are still bound by that covenant, but not living together. The two concepts are very different to each other.
54. Charles H. said the following at 8:46 PM on Aug 19:
54
I'm uncomfortable with telling someone else the right time to marry. Where does the Bible state an age at which I ought to marry? FWIW I'm 29 and engaged, so this isn't sour grapes on my part, but I was happily single until I met my fiancee. Same for her.
Raj, not to pick on you but your post seemed to highlight the general attitude I'm responding to. Pressure to marry is very much a bad thing IMHO, because in the absence of a suitable candidate it sends the message that getting married is more important than choosing a mate carefully. This is one way people get into the abusive situations mentioned above. We didn't waste any time once we discovered ourselves to be right for each other, but on the other hand, we'd known each other for years before our relationship turned serious -- so there weren't too many surprises. And thank God that nobody pushed us towards a serious relationship before we were ready! I think we'd have both resented the pressure, and this would have most likely had a deleterious effect on the relationship.
55. nikki said the following at 7:45 AM on Aug 20:
55
Ahnivah,
What if the abusive husband (whose faith is probably already in question) doesn't mend his ways and do his part to be reconciled to his wife? What if he moves away and wants nothing to do with his family anymore? Is the first scorned wife supposed to live the rest of her life as a single woman, just in case he might return?
56. Paul said the following at 4:47 PM on Aug 20:
56
Just my $0.02, but I believe that Jesus permits divorce only if the marriage is unlawful. In my church, if there is a situation of abuse, infidelity, etc. divorce is always permitted, but re-marriage is not always permitted. There needs to be discernment on whether or not the marriage was unlawful in the first place (although they're kinda lenient at times...)
That being said, Marriage is 'till death do us part. It's not something that can/should be given up upon quickly. Too many of us look for a "quick fix" and that's why there's a 50% failure rate in U.S. marriages...
57. Jo said the following at 2:37 AM on Aug 21:
57
Leah - Okay yes, I can see that distinction. 'My bad', as you Americans say. :) I guess my opinion is that it's wonderful and godly to take that standard for oneself. But I would hesitate to force it onto someone else who was in that situation. Either way, if this is the value that God places on marriage, it suggests to me that maybe delaying marriage until we are mature enough and discerning enough to make such a total commitment isn't such a bad idea.
58. Sara said the following at 10:03 AM on Aug 21:
58
re: the "single is wrong":
>> However, for a majority of people, we are supposed to marry,
I think it's this underlying thought that's kinda the problem. Statistically, there just aren't enough men. I know many great Christian women, in their 30s (myself included) who are unlikely at this point to get married.
I've tried various dating websites. Look at the content - so many more women than men.
So it really doesn't help to have this assumption that "it'll happen one day". And please don't tell me to "pray harder & trust in God more". Even if i do get me a man, there's many similar women who won't - mostly coz the modern church finds it easier to evangelise to women & children, and we just don't have as many men in the church.
Would you turn round to a widow, and say "well, being married is better". Think of that comparison (please) next time you say the same thing around single people. And singleness is not just a bereavement of the marriage relationship - it's also a lack of children, and then again with the absence of grand-children.
And yes, FotF does do separate "singleness" articles, but the attitude that i've seen in some articles for marrieds about how being friends with any member of the opposite sex is dangerous becoz it'll lead to an affair.... well great!? i'm now doomed to only be friends with girls for the rest of my days. I'll just get back to my convent then, shall I? :-)
please can FotF start doing more to talk to married & single people about how they can help each other out, and how marrieds can include singles in their "family". coz the loneliness is terrible sometimes...
59. Loris said the following at 1:14 PM on Aug 21:
59
In regard to the remarriage issue, my mother's first husband was a schizophrenic who hid his illness from her. Ten months into the marriage, he abandoned her and she discovered that he had a nineteen year old mistress in another town. She waited many years to divorce him hoping that medication and Christian counseling would help him and he would return to her, but she never heard from him again after he left and his own parents didn't know where he was. Twelve years after being dumped, she met my father. I believe she was entirely justified in marrying again.
60. Louise said the following at 6:36 PM on Aug 21:
60
Loris, judging from the other posts, several of Boundless readers would be of the opinion that you were conceived and born out of wedlock.
Unless of course your mother's first husband was actually deceased before she married your father.