Saturday, February 02, 2013

Rethinking - marriage/divorce


My musings are about monogamous Christian marriage in Britain and not inclusive of any other religion as they differ greatly, some allowing various partners.
It wasn’t until the second century (about 110) that bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna:
"It becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.”
So the whole idea of a marriage ceremony being connected with the Christian religion doesn't seem to have been the case in the first century church.  It wasn’t until the 16th century that parental consent along with consent from the church became a necessary requirement.  Nowadays parental consent is only needed when one or both parties are under the marital age stipulated by law.

Divorce has been around as long as marriage.  Originally, it was enough for a man to state that he divorced his wife for it to be so.  In Old Testament times, it was not considered to be God’s will but little was actually done about it as it was such a common practice.  Jesus did speak against divorce saying that it was not what God had intended but also recognised the fact that life doesn’t always go according to plan.  After the 10th century however, marriage was not available in this country until a few centuries later and then only for men of sufficient wealth to pay for the very expensive act of parliament required to grant the divorce. It wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century that divorce was open to ordinary people.  It was still difficult for women to apply for a divorce as they not only had to prove adultery of the husband but also other serious problems such as rape, incest or cruelty.  It is a recognised fact that divorce is more common now than ever before but this is probably in part to the laws being changed and the fact that both men and women can apply on equal terms. 

In a survey done in 2004, the main causes for divorce were: adultery, extramarital affairs and infidelity – 27%; domestic violence – 17%; midlife crisis – 13%; addictions e.g. alcoholism or gambling – 6% and workaholism – 6%.  In the survey 93% of the divorces were petitioned by women and very few of them were contested.  Modern life differs greatly from only a century ago.  Women have careers and work outside of the home and the roles of husband and wife are different for each family depending on their work situation.  This can cause added strain on relationships and the rules of yesteryear no longer seem so relevant.  In 2009 it was recorded that in Britain 45% of marriages end in divorce, the number rising for second marriages.  This leads to larger and more complex family connections with ex-partners re-marrying and having other children. 
Family life is no longer so straight forward.  Marriage for life is still the hope for Christians but circumstances can change until sometimes to continue in the marriage can become intolerable.  I was quite taken aback and upset only a few months ago when a relative said that she felt she was unable to share on a social network, photos of her son’s recent marriage as both he and his new wife were both divorcees and most of their congregation disapproved of this.  This is not the case in many congregations but it is a sad reflection on the church as a whole (whatever any individual opinion may be) that those who are not part of the church construct feel that it is judgmental, exclusive and unwelcoming.  Those who are Christian and divorced are sometimes made to feel guilty of their past and unaccepted within the life of the church.  They mention their marital status in rather apologetic terms.  Life happens!  I’m sure God’s love reaches out to those who find themselves in such situations – maybe more so as they have need of some tender loving care.

While I still accept that marriage for life is the best thing, I acknowledge that often this is not what many experience.  Should someone who has made a mistake in their choice of marriage partner be condemned to pay for it for the rest of their lives?  Are they not entitled to find happiness and love because of some past mistake?  I have come across many who remain desperately unhappy in their marriage out of a sense of duty as a Christian and so feel necessity of ‘staying together’.  Surely if about half (45% in 2009 as mentioned before) of the adult married population are divorced then the church needs to be more relevant to the needs of people in the situations in which they find themselves todayMaybe a little more tolerance, understanding, inclusive attitudes and a good dollop of mercy will help to show people that God does care about what happens in their lives. 

I must apologise for the way which this post looks. I wrote as normal but for some strange reason it has come out in white blocks!

4 comments:

Joanna said...

I agree on the need for sensitivity, I also think there is a big need for counselling. People shouldn't need to feel guilty forever over a mistake, there is a need in our communities to let people move on. While I don't advocate staying with an abusive spouse, I think people today need to know that it is possible to work though situations and come out stronger and just as much, if not more so, in love than before.

Mavis said...

Yes, I totally agree. Sometimes people give up at the first hurdle when they could work through it but similarly people stay when a situation cannot be repaired.

Liz Eph said...

Interested in the stats from 2004. I read that when Jesus spoke about divorce he wasn't making a statement but answering a question. The Jews had stoning for adultery officially but had moderated it to divorce and Jesus endorses that. He never mentions divorce for neglect and abuse which was taken for granted. Apparently there was a big debate going on whether the Jews should adopt the Roman idea of "any reason" divorce - ie our no blame mutual agreement. It's that which he says is completely not on. The phrase you shall not divorce for any reason has been taken on by the literalistic fundamentalists to mean something it was never intended to say and been used as a stick to beat the very people that divorce should be there to protect :-(

Mavis said...

Thanks Liz for that information - very interesting.