Last year I came across an article about a proposed two year marriage contract in Mexico City. There is a fifty percent divorce rate in the city and on average these take place two years after the wedding. By having these two year contracts, couples can choose to either renew the contract or call it quits. Or so the idea goes. When I first read about this I was torn; on one hand it’s really rather practical as it forces couples to confront the practicalities of how, if they were to split, they would deal with finances, a home and any children they might have. On the other hand I could not understand why of earth anyone would get a two year licence if they thought that their marriage wouldn’t last.
A few weeks ago at a Bible Study a lady said that getting married was like a leap of faith. You had faith that the person you were going to marry and live with for the rest of your life, you would be able to live with for the rest of your life. What if you have made the wrong choice? What if you leapt and for whatever reason you found yourself in the middle of the ocean with not a shoreline, a boat or even a buoy in sight? Sometimes things just do not work out. Then what?
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say into you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matthew 5: 31-32).
I have a lot of trouble with this passage. What if it is the man who commits adultery? Does this mean that if there is a divorce, and the wife remarries, the wife and her husband are committing adultery? Then there are any number of reasons for divorce; violence, neglect and other irreconcilable differences to name but a few. Now, I understand that the reason why divorce is so frowned upon by the church and why these laws were imposed. It was far too easy for men to divorce their wives, leaving them destitute. But things have changed since then. While there is still a huge inequality in income between men and women, there is far more equality now, than there used to be even a hundred years ago.
Restricting divorce was a way of protecting women (certainly in the case of Christianity, at first), but it was also a way of binding them to men who were not always good to them. Now, arranged marriages are not the norm, but be that as it may, sometimes we make mistakes in the life partners we choose for ourselves. In India divorce is still quite shocking, even though divorce rates are much higher than they were even a decade ago. It is also a country where Christianity is a minority religion, so surely divorce cannot only be a subject of some difficulty in Christianity, but also in Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.
In North America and most of Europe divorce is not nearly as scandalous as it is in South Asia. It’s more commonplace, and perfectly acceptable. In communities that practice their religion, it may not be the case, but in general it seems to be. Now, is this acceptance due to an acknowledgement of human failings or something?
I often had it drummed into my head, as a kid, that divorce is wrong. You say your vows in Church, in front of God, your family and your friends, and that’s that! (Of course, swearing an oath in a church and in front of a priest was not practiced in the first two hundred years or so after Christ. But that, I suppose, is neither here nor there.) Jesus was against divorce of any kind, though the Church has given its parishioners some wriggle room. It is something I’m glad of, though it is also the cause of great anxiety; are we being true to the words of Christ? Or do we need to evolve and change with society?
© 2012 Zara Ramaniah, Ropra Ivy
Kurt Alderman
Anupadin
brakelite
chaiwala
ecopax
Eric Hyde
homophilosophicus
Art
notbymysilence
Ivy
southwerk
Tāṇḍava
Reblogged this on Ropra Ivy and commented:
Written for homophilosophicus.wordpress.com
No, we need to change. We need to be true to the words of Christ. But of course if one is into “interfaith” and doesn’t believe that we can really know the mind of God, that might seem ridiculous.
Interesting post!
Dear Andy, as a person who is ‘into interfaith’ (but in a more important way than being ‘into stamp collecting’), I am really suspicious of people who ‘can really know the mind of God.’ If you know such a person with such boundless understanding of the limitless mind of the author of the universe and all its parallels, maybe you would ask that person some important questions. Two things I would like to know in particular from the mind of God are:
1. What was the he/she actually thinking when the first thermo-nuclear bomb exploded over Hiroshima?
2. Are quarks and leptons actually fundamental, or are they made up of even more fundamental particles (I’d like to see a complete sheet of working on this – there would be a Nobel Prize in it)?
Hi Andy!
I’m glad you found it interesting.
As I mentioned, the reasons against divorce seemed to have first come as a way to protect women. Maybe that had nothing to do with it.
I like to believe that Jesus wanted to protect women who would otherwise have been cast out, and have very few options, if they were divorced, and that’s why he was so against divorce. But I cannot know that for sure. Which is why I wonder if we are doing a terrible wrong if we leave a spouse who is abusive. Is that person to never find happiness and love with someone else?
From your comment it seems like you do have it figured out. So then I would ask you this: Do you think that Jesus would want a child of his to live in an unhappy, and possibly dangerous and abusive marriage?
Also, Protestantism does not take as strict a stand against divorce like the Catholic Church, but neither, I believe, does the Eastern Orthodox Church. What do you make of that?
We may also have to consider that when Jesus spoke of divorce it may have been in reference to the marriage of the Lamb and his bride; the mystical union which is betwixt Christ and his Church. If we are prepared to read it this way (as many Bible studies do), then we are given a glimpse into the insoluble nature of Christ’s relationship as redeemer with his Church. On the more mundane practicalities of human relationships; every human being is obliged to leave any relationship which is abusive or violent. Sometimes such broken relationships can be healed — sometimes people are murdered as a result. I would disobey even Jesus if he dared to say otherwise, and I am sure that he would understand.
Fine, but don’t pretend you want to “be true to the words of Christ”. Why attend a Bible study in the first place?
Is it not the desire of all Christians to want to be true to the words of Christ? The problem that we face is in the interpretation of these words. I would really want that Nobel Prize for Physics, but there is no point pretending to be Stephen Hawking or ‘true to his words,’ but there is still every reason to attend physics lectures. Are you seriously suggesting that Bible study is only for them that ‘know the mind of God?’ Do you know any of these great spiritual lights?
On the difficulties of knowing the mind of God, you may want to read ‘Encountering the God of the Hebrews (homophilosophicus, February 29 2012).’
Sometimes I think it would be lovely and wonderful to know what it is that is expected of us by our gods or saints or icons or value systems. It is perhaps part of the brokeness of humanity that we can never be certain that we are fulfilling our purpose or on the correct path. The self assuredness that one is following a set recipe for success would be great… Or would it be boring and lacking in all challenge? One certainty is that neither life nor infact marriage comes with a manual. The breakdown of any longterm relationship is painful and the end of a marriage carries with it a great deal of grief. Considering this grief and the fact that it lasts regardless of any future loving relationships one may be blessed with i think compassion for all who hurt is most helpful.
What would our Lord know of divorce, or marriage for that matter? We are meant to believe that he was an innocent virgin and not married. If we are to believe the Apostolic Tradition then he did not have sisters, and the only woman he ever had a ‘relationship’ with was his Mother (Herself the Blesséd Virgin). You may want to say that he not only had an opinion, but he had the opinion; being God and all! The problem with this is that it ignores and, dare we say, contradicts his full human nature. What I would like to ask is what would you say to this ‘man’ if he told you (a woman) the ‘rules of marriage?’
My dear ‘Lord Blandamer,’ it is a privilege to have you with us. I would like to draw this take on the Apostolic Tradition of yours out a little. If we are to accept this man Jesus in your terms what are we to make of the Christ of faith who is the Pantocrator and God with us? Had he no insight into the hearts and minds of others?
The adoration of this Jesus of history is færy tale, and the acceptance of Holy Tradition and the humble worship of the Christ of faith is Religion. Once a little radical theologian told me — something I remember well — that “some men seek divinity, while others have it thrust upon them.” My compliments on your blog, ‘Homophilosophicus (some claim indeed!).’ In spite of the best attempts of the Church of Ireland Gastronomical College you have become quite the homo theologicus. One can only hope that your ‘dear friend’ JWN lives to regret your passing.
“What if it is the man who commits adultery? Does this mean that if there is a divorce, and the wife remarries, the wife and her husband are committing adultery?” Yes. Well, that’s what whoever wrote Matthew thought, evidently.
And also why I take that whole “Bible” thing with a grain of proverbial salt.
Also, in some cultures arranged marriages are, in fact, common. Certainly at the time the above passage was written arranged marriages would have been, and therefore would have been taken into consideration. “You were forced to marry someone you neither like nor previously knew and now he abuses you? Sure, you can divorce…and face social stigmatization for the rest of you life.” Ah, social normatization…
Here in Cambodia, divorce is absolutely legal and both parties are supposed to fairly share children, assets, etc. It rarely happens that way, though; in fact, men often leave their wives to start new families elsewhere, without legally acquiring a divorce. Polygamy is illegal, but men who have to families (which sometimes they continue to support their first family) are rarely if ever held accountable. It’s strange, but on my street I happen to have several female neighbors who don’t have husbands. Some of them have four or five children, but as far as I know they receive no support from their former husbands. A striking aspect of this is that they appear ashamed when the subject is brought up– they have been stigmatized. Why are their husbands not stigmatized?
Many people, Christians included, feel obligated to remain in abusive, harmful, neglectful relationship because they “honor” this conception of institutional marriage. I know many people who rushed to get married in order to remain virginal until the night of their honeymoon (another interesting concept), only to discover that they had married someone who made them feel degraded, worthless, and hopeless– both men and women (or boys and girls, as I prefer to say).
Yet to remove this dialogue about marriage and divorce from large social contexts (like gender, and class, etc.) is to view only a small part of the picture. So I question the limited perspective of someone like andydbrown– to inact the literal words of Christ is theoretically to cause worlds of harm. Which I really doubt Jesus would be happy about.
Interesting, though-provoking piece (brace yourself for marriage time requirement legislation to be proposed in the States, right?). Thank you for posting.
It’s really interesting, what you’ve said about Cambodia. Why is it that these women feel so ashamed? In India both men and women are stigmatized, and in some communities sons are disowned if they leave their wives for another woman, while the wife’s social status is undiminished, and is quite often looked after by her in-laws.
I don’t know anything about society in Cambodia, and would love to know more. What, in your opinion, would leave these women feeling ashamed? And it’s astounding, seeing as these women are raising families of four or five children with absolutely no support.
There is a popular proverb here: “Women are cloth, men are gold.” It is the idea that once a woman is “stained”, she is ruined forever– the cloth can never be as clean as it once was. Yet gold, no matter how dirty, can be cleaned and polished to shine even brighter than before. A woman’s history will haunt her for all of her days, but a man’s history is inconsequential, or at the least forgivable.
I’ve been here a short time, just shy of two years, so I can’t claim to know much about Khmer culture. Yet what I do know often times does not allow me to sleep; much of the Cambodian constitution is far more gender-equitable than the American constitution, but many women here will never experience the basic equalities granted to women in the States. There is the law, and then there is the Law, which is why, I think, I feel such irritation with Bible literalists– even if their words do not hold legal sway, they still have the power to dominate culturally. andydbrown probably is not aware of the ways in which his culture affronts the fundamental human rights of people around him. In that sense, neither is my own Khmer boyfriend who sees nothing wrong with a woman not being allowed to finish high school because she is getting married.
Skyride, I like this a great deal; “So I question the limited perspective of someone like andydbrown– to inact the literal words of Christ is theoretically to cause worlds of harm. Which I really doubt Jesus would be happy about.” It is difficult for many to distinguish between the concepts of what Jesus (or any historical figure) said, and what others say that he said. This is where the proverbial ‘grain of salt’ is most required, and for this reason the Gospel accounts are rightly called ‘accounts.’
One of the great benefits of Tradition is that it unfolds through time; while not changing its fundamental and meaning-bearing truth, mutates to meet the needs of each new generation. As an all-too-human institution, the Church (certainly in its social teaching) makes mistakes but has the great ability, as a living tradition, to learn from those mistakes. We live in hope.
homophilosophicus,
You may think it’s a “limited perspective” to believe in the Words of Christ and of the Holy Bible, but we’ll see just how wise you are in the end. Nice to see what you really think (not clouded like in your original post) has come out in the comments. Please don’t pretend to be a so-called enlightened one seeking truth. Just believe and stand for nothing. People like yourself are so full of themselves that there can be no room for God. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22)
Dearest Andy, I cannot understand where your sense of frustration comes from. Please understand that no one here means you any harm or offence. Contrary to what you have written, I do not think that a belief in the teachings of Christ and sacred scripture is a limited perspective. What Skyride wrote (and with which I agreed) was the literal reading of the texts in question. She is perfectly correct. Coming from the context of Ireland and many clerical sexual abuse scandals, I am all too aware of the harm caused by authoritarian, literal and dogmatic approaches to scripture and tradition. These are things which this dialogue is concerned with, and you are more than welcome to participate.
For your information, the ‘clouded original post’ was written not by myself, but by Zara Ramaniah; a very talented young blogger — and we are most pleased to have her as part of the team here at homophilosophicus. As to my being ‘foolish,’ thank you! It is all that I aspire to be.
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
— André Gide
Lee, it is very annoying that WordPress comments don’t have a ‘like’ button.
It has always been my contention that adultery ends the marriage, and the offended party be it husband or wife, is free to divorce, remarry, and no condemnation would be brought upon him/her. That said, he/she is also free to forgive, and continue in the relationship.
The above has its parallels in our spiritual relationship with God. Adultery on our part in the worshipping and acceptance of idols constitutes apostasy, which is derived from the Greek word which means divorce. Through unfaithfulness we divorce our Maker. Thankfully, He promises to never do the same, He is always more than eager to forgive and continue in the relationship. God is truly gracious and merciful, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.
As far as abusive relationships are concerned, I agree that it is inconceivable that Jesus intends that anyone should remain in a marriage where they are in physical, mental, and/or spiritual danger for the sole purpose of honouring an institution. Which is of greater value? The man or woman, or the institution established for them? I will confess however that in such a case I am undecided regarding remarriage. At present I couldn’t advise anyone in such a position, and would recommend that they be guided by their own conscience.
May one ask what it is, in the first place, that ‘makes’ a man and a woman married in your own opinion?
Pingback: God’s commandments are not intended to make us miserable–they’re meant for our own happiness « bummyla
Pingback: Why divorce is a great, great thing « Femination
Pingback: This Got Me Thinking – Part II « The Pertinacious Chase