Can I Divorce and Remarry?

Reformed Answers ^ | Ra McLaughlin

[Frumanchu]

An abuser is ipso facto an unbeliever.

I don't believe that's necessarily true, x. It would depend largely on the circumstances of course, but to make the blanket statement that all abusers are necessarily unbelievers. Given that our sanctification is a journey and not just a destination, I would think it possible that one could be abusive while still being a believer, though obviously a believer engaged in disobedience and in sore need of repentance.

[Frumanchu]

Nobody said that, bannie, including the author of the article.

[milquetoastdog]

What if the husband is a believer? Believers do sin. And if you take the stance that he could not be a believer because of sin, then she probably isn't either, right? If it is a marriage problem between 2 unbelievers, then I have no opinion. It is hard to look at a problem like that knowing that neither would listen to scripture. Also, could someone give me the scripture verse offhand about abandonment being an "allowed" divorce reason. I recall the one about adultery but not abandonment.

[bannie]

I'm probably just sensitive.

You're right.

[xzins]

As you can see, I posted immediately BEFORE you revising my statement a bit. It shows us to be in agreement.

A "walk" in darkness is evidence that one is not of the Father.

[Frumanchu]

I don't understand why if the husband is a believer or not would be an issue. Our duty to God should not change based on our environment. Of course, this comes from my view that abuse is not a form of abandonment. That reeks of pop psychology, IMHO (got a useless degree in that field) :)

Scripture pretty clearly delineates a circumstantial difference with respect to whether or not the spouse is a believer (see 1 Cor. 7:15)

[milquetoastdog]

Are you a pastor marriage counselor or a licensed public marriage counselor? Just curious from which direction you are coming.

[Frumanchu]

"But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." - 1 Cor. 7:15 (ESV)

[Frumanchu]

Sorry...didn't see your second statement as I got pulled away while responding to your first.

I would agree that as a matter of practice one who confesses but is a chronic abuser would be considered an unbeliever.

[milquetoastdog]

I think I misunderstood your previous post #11. I thought you were saying that abuse would more likely constitute abandonment if the spouse was a non-believer versus if he was a non-believer. I realize the Bible says let an unbelieving spouse go if they want - I just don't believe that abuse is abandonment period. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[milquetoastdog]

Error. I meant non-believer versus a believer.

[Frumanchu]

That's ok. I don't believe Scripture allows for divorce between two professing believers in the case of abandonment, but I can see the case being made that at some point persistent unrepentance of the abandoning "believer" could signify a lack of true faith.

Always we have to keep in mind that when we are speaking of believers and unbelievers, from our perspective we go by their confession and behavior since we do not see the heart. A marriage which is ostensibly between two believers based upon their confession of faith in Christ may in reality be a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever who confesses with their lips while their heart is far from him.

[milquetoastdog]

Agreed. If a professing believer left another professing believer (abandonment) and later sought a divorce:
1. Do you think the abandoned believer should make it easy on the other one to get the divorce?
2. Do you think the abandoned believer, once divorced, should remarry before the other one does or remarry at all?

Just curious as it pertains to the discussion.

[jkl1122]

This verse says that the believer is not enslaved. Actually, the tense of this means that the person was never enslaved, nor is enslaved any longer. Therefore, this is not referring to marriage, but to the idea that the responsibility for the unbeliever's actions is not that of the believer.

[HitmanLV]

That book in incredible. I don't sign on to all of it but much of it does give a great framework to build a happy life.

[k2blader]

Bump for later.

God hates divorce.

[xzins]

I am a pastor and a marriage & family therapist and a family life educator. I worked in that capacity for years as a chaplain with the US Army.

[Conservative til I die]

May be goin' to hell for divorcing a drunk? Darn

I can only speak as a Catholic, but divorce is not the issue, since the divorce itself is not recognized (unless annulled for a legitimate reason). It's the remarriage that likely sends you to Hell since you're living as an adulter. Unless of course, one thinks Jesus was kidding around.

[Frumanchu]

1. The believer, knowing that God hates divorce, should put forth every effort to reconcile with their spouse. However, if the non-believer seeks divorce I don't think the believer is obligated to obstruct that action in whatever way possible. (keep in mind that religious covenantal marriage and legal/governmental marriage aren't always the same thing...you go to court to dissolve the marriage in the eyes of the state, not in the eyes of God)

2. I don't think it's so much a question of "should" as a question of "may" in this case. May the abandoned believer, onced divorced, remarry before their ex does (if at all)? Yes. They are no longer bound by that covenantal relationship, and thus entering into such a covenantal relationship with another is not a violation of the first because it no longer exists. It has been dissolved.

[jude24]

I think we lose sight of the forest from the trees when we get into debates about divorce and remarriage. Ultimately, C.S. Lewis' discussion on it, in my own opinion, is the most accurate - that the disagreements amongst Christians is only under what "extreme" circumstances justify what is, at its core, an unnatural, violent act, the tearing apart of what God has joined.

Myself, I would argue that Biblically, divorce is limited to cases where the marriage covenant has already been broken, either by adultery (explicit in the Biblical text), abandonment (also explicit), and abuse (implicit). I would also posit that, since the idea of a divorced woman living a life of singleness was unworkable in Biblical times - only in recent times could a woman have her own career and be self-supporting - a righteous divorce carried with it the implied right of remarriage.

These are my own opinions, and I believe them to be consistent with the text. However, this is in no way central to the Christian morality regarding divorce. Christianity teaches that divorce is an awful thing, only to be used in the most extreme circumstances. The central question is not what the exceptions are, but what the broad rule is.