# Justifiable Divorce in the Case of Child Abuse



## Zenas (Mar 4, 2009)

Is there a justifiable case for divorce in the case of child abuse of a step-child? If so, and I assume there is , what is it?


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 4, 2009)

My argument would go like this:

A believer is justified in allowing an unbelieving spouse to divorce/leave him/her if the unbeliever no longer consents to the marriage, especially after all attempts at reconciliation.

When an unbeliever repeatedly abuses the child or the spouse (edit: and anyone who does that IS an unbeliever), that unbeliever has declared himself unwilling to live in marriage peacefully. That _is_ a de-facto declaration of divorce or non-consent to be married.

If elders, police, counselors, etc. can make no progress with this man, then the believer should essentially recognize that the unbeliever has initiated divorce. If the believer then decided to formalize the facts that already exist by way of legal paperwork, then so be it.

Either way, what tragedy.


----------



## HokieAirman (Mar 4, 2009)

Abandonment, fornication (i.e., living in sin/adultery with God) Those are divorcable offenses.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 4, 2009)

By the way, I should add that I make the allowance in this case, even though I do not recognize adultery as a justifiable cause by itself.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 4, 2009)

If someone abuses a child they ought to be in jail. How can a parent live in a house knowing their offspring is being abused and only think about "divorce". Jail the sicko or the sickoette. Have them dragged away in cuffs and be publicly shamed. That alone should temper their behavior in the future.


----------



## Grace Alone (Mar 4, 2009)

I certainly would not stay with someone who abused a child. I cannot imagine a church requiring someone to stay in that situation.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 4, 2009)

> I certainly would not stay with someone who abused a child. I cannot imagine a church requiring someone to stay in that situation.



This is part of why I admire the asking of the question in the opening post: why?

The fact that it is heinous, deplorable, and worthy of condemnation by God and the civil authority....doesn't necessarily mean it's justifiable cause for divorce. To have that, we need more than just revulsion at the sin.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 4, 2009)

If its sexual abuse, that counts as adultery. The person deserves to be divorced. If its physical abuse, that's assault the person is to be handed over to the law for the proper justice to be extracted.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 4, 2009)

The PCA has an excellent position paper on this, with a lot of biblical research in this difficult area (scroll down there are about 6 parts):
PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America

Basically, the answer is "no" it is not a grounds, but separation may be necessary. It can eventually, however, become an irremediable abandonment situation. This illustrates the benefits of church discipline as well.

Strictly speaking, there are only two grounds biblically (the option of the innocent party):
1) adultery
2) abandonment of a believer by an unbeliever that cannot be remedied by church or magistrate



> Chapter XXIV
> Of Marriage and Divorce
> 
> VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[14] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[15]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 4, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> The PCA has an excellent position paper on this, with a lot of biblical research in this difficult area:
> PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> Basically, the answer is "no" it is not a grounds, separation may be necessary. It can eventually, however, become an irremediable abandonment situation. This illustrates the benefits of church discipline as well.
> ...



Just to be fair, would not physical abuse count if one counts abandonment? If you go by the lesser to the greater principle?

CT


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 4, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > The PCA has an excellent position paper on this, with a lot of biblical research in this difficult area:
> ...



This is not the kind of thing for which a quick answer is sufficient- there is a lot to consider biblically so it is worth studying this out and the study report does an excellent job examining these issues in light of God's Word, and even clarifying our confession.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 4, 2009)

Oftentimes a separation on the part of the offended spouse will give the other
1) Time to repent or
2) The chance to actually commit adultery or desert the believer


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2009)

It depends on what the sort of abuse is. The Session, board of Elders, whatever will often have to make hard decisions. 

So, a guy spanks his kids more than the mother in law who attends the church thinks is proper. And another guy sexually molests a step daughter. They are both abuse.

There's not near enough information in the OP to say yes or no.


----------



## satz (Mar 4, 2009)

I believe that if the abuse is severe enough, and I understand qualifying this can be difficult, there could be a biblical grounds for divorce for sustained, unrepentant abuse.

At present, I do not believe that Jesus or Paul meant to limit the occasions for a lawful divorce to just the two specific fact situations of adultery and desertion. Rather, Jesus and Paul were giving examples of severe breaches of the marriage covenant which would allow for a divorce if not repented of. This approach is similar to the way we do not limit acts of necessity and mercy for the sabbath day to those specific acts mentioned in the gospel (picking corn, healing, helping your ox) but use them as _examples_ of the kind of acts falling under God's principle.

For what its worth, I also agree with Jeremy that for all practical and biblical purposes, there is no difference between someone who is an unrepentant physical abuser but wants to remain in the same house, and someone who just walks off. Both have effectively forsaken the marriage covenant.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 4, 2009)

There is a difference between staying in the house with the offender and openly dissolving the union. The person who is suffering abuse, or whose child is suffering abuse, should leave (i.e. separate, not divorce), and leave the possibility of repentance and reconciliation open to the offender. The victim may not remarry, because he/she has made a vow to God with respect to the offender, even if the offender is in a time of sin. According to scripture, the victim should only be allowed to remarry if the perpetrator proceeds to violate the marriage covenant through adultery, or if he/she dies.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 5, 2009)

This question simply cannot be answered unless the type of abuse is specified. If it is sexual abuse (incest or not) it would clearly be Biblical grounds for divorce. I would be stunned if anyone disputed that. Matt 19:9 

As for other types of abuse, it will take someone wiser than I to answer that


----------



## Brian Withnell (Mar 5, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Is there a justifiable case for divorce in the case of child abuse of a step-child? If so, and I assume there is , what is it?



This would lead to a conviction of a crime, and imprisonment. That would be abandonment, even if the "accuser" was the spouse. If CPS forced the accused to leave the house (they are not allowed around the child) that would also constitute abandonment.

The harder question is if the person is abusing a child, but the government turns a blind eye to the abuse. This is were having elders confront the spouse would be useful.

I know arguments about abuse being a violation of the covenant of marriage, but I also know the standards do not mention abuse. It is really difficult if the civil magistrate is incapable or unwilling to do their duty.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 5, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> By the way, I should add that I make the allowance in this case, even though I do not recognize adultery as a justifiable cause by itself.



You really do not recognize adultery as a justifiable reason for divorce? Can you explain?


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 5, 2009)

> You really do not recognize adultery as a justifiable reason for divorce? Can you explain?



I'll explain my position, but not necessarily argue it so I don't take the thread off-track. If this doesn't satisfy, we can PM or start a new thread.

The words "by itself" in my post are very important. That is, I do believe there are situations in which adultery does not mean a divorce is justified.

Most importantly, if the offender is seriously repentant, then the offended spouse, in my view, has an obligation of the highest order to forgive and reconcile with the offender. "I just can't deal with it" or "I can never forget what he/she did" are not excuses to be used against a penitent spouse, and cannot justify divorce. 

If the offender is an unbeliever, yet is penitent about the adultery, the believing spouse must honor that.

If the adultery is ongoing, and the offender unrepentant, flaunting his or her sin, then I believe divorce is permissible. But _not_ on the grounds that adultery is committed, rather on the basis that such continual betrayal in the face of rebuke (by elders, brothers, etc.) constitutes an unwillingness to stay married, and is rightly compared to the unbeliever in I Cor. 7 who simply leaves the relationship. That continual offense is a "leaving," and thus allows for divorce.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 5, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > You really do not recognize adultery as a justifiable reason for divorce? Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I appreciate you taking the time to respond... I will send you a PM and you can let me know if you are interested in continuing discussion.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

Abuse is abuse no matter what kind. Spankings are not abuse unless you're leaving marks. Even verbal abuse is abuse. If it were verbal abuse, I would demand the guy get help with anger management. If he didn't, he's out. If he did, then I would work with him. Anything above verbal abuse, I call the police and have him jailed and I would not take him back period.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 5, 2009)

If someone is a regular wife or kid beater, we are to treat them as an unbeliever and we are to treat the act of abuse as "desertion" even when it is the believer who flees.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 5, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



Even after reading, the excellent position paper, I think my question still stands. If unrepairable abandonment counts as grounds, then unrepairable abuse has to count because the second is worse than the first.

CT


----------



## satz (Mar 5, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Even after reading, the excellent position paper, I think my question still stands. If unrepairable abandonment counts as grounds, then unrepairable abuse has to count because the second is worse than the first.CT



I would agree, and I think that CT's reasoning is in many ways an application of the Lord Jesus' in Mark 2 when he reasoned "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". It is the spirit of the law, not the precise letter, which should be followed in dilemmas like these.

It makes no sense, biblically, to limit the lawfulness of divorce to two specific cases (adultery and desertion) while excluding situations which are arguable worse than either of them.

Of course, as was already noted in this thread, the principle would generally only apply, I think, to unrepentant sin where the offender could not be recovered or brought to repentance. There is not a "once strike and you are out" application.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 5, 2009)

> *sjonee*
> 
> Even verbal abuse is abuse. If it were verbal abuse, I would demand the guy get help with anger management. If he didn't, he's out.



This is a difficult issue, and especially difficult to see clearly. (I'm not addressing this at you specifically, only making a general observation that includes all of us).

While "anger management" may be a [humanistic, pop culture] "solution," it may sound like the solution, it is a very superficial assessment of the problem. It does not really even address the problem, let alone the solution. 

Scripture tells us there are times indeed to be angry, but sin not.


> Ephesians 4:26
> 
> 26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:



Defining "abuse" will be subjective- and can be defined quite broadly, especially by one who feels they are receiving it.

And let me also add this kindly, Sarah, I'm not trying to shatter illusions of marriage, but you will commit "verbal abuse" (what your spouse considers that) and your spouse will also. It's part of living in a fallen, sinful world and becoming intimate with an imperfect spouse, who though marvelously wonderful in many ways, is not perfect.

God even puts together sinners like this in marriage to "grow" them toward each other and toward Him. It is a marvelous thing to see a profane, self centered, and overly critical and ungrateful person grow to be more outwardly seeking, loving and serving, generous, and forgiving. This really happens by God's grace ( I know some of this in myself). And, by the way, you will find that few things are more repulsive to another person than freely seeing that other person's (verbal) sin, conditioning love based on it, and not seeing your own. 

To whom you vow "for better or worse" and you to them. It is not conditional, as is the (self-centered) pop culture view of it.

One of the reasons marriage is both difficult and wonderful is overcoming sin daily, together, by God's grace. That's front and center in every marriage, and in every significant relationship (even amongst brothers and sisters at church). Learning to forgive and overcome it are part of the witness God is working in your life- constant faith and repentance. It also helps builds really solid relationships between people because as self-interested sinners we constantly demand a standard we do not demand (or are blinded by sin and cannot see) of ourselves.

Down deep, God has made us to respond to unconditional love. Loving us even though we are, at times, "un-loveable." That's why God has set the protection of marital union so high. This is why God's love is indeed marvellous. And we must try, by His grace to mirror it to others, beginning with our spouse.

Any expectation less than that is uninformed biblically (and practically uninformed).

No wonder our confession 350 years ago said...



> VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church,



Frankly, I receive what I consider "verbal abuse" fairly frequently- from co-workers, in public, from the President when he bears false witness, and even ocassionally from family.

Verbal anything is is not a grounds God has provided (if He did probably there would be no marriage and no close relationships of any kind). It is part of a biblical "sin management" program that is front and center in our sanctification, and only even possible by God's grace. Without it, one will find himself isolated and unhappy in this life.

One of the many deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil is an expectation that other people, relationships (e.g. marriage) are to be perfect and easy. If ever not, there must be something wrong.

But no, reformed theology teaches us God's revealed will- He takes all things (even bad things like sin) and works them together for good, for His Honor and His Glory!


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 5, 2009)

> If someone is a regular wife or kid beater, we are to treat them as an unbeliever and we are to treat the act of abuse as "desertion" even when it is the believer who flees.



I hate it when someone says in one sentence exactly what took me multiple paragraphs. Well-said.


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

And we still have to define kid beating.



> Pro 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.



Spankings sometimes leave marks, and just because a law might say it's child abuse doesn't make it so.

I wish Glenn Ferrell would post more often. He explained it once really well, about using the principles in the WCF in those cases. The church deals with the offending spouse, works with him or her, and if they won't listen brands them an unbeliever. 

There is leeway given to individual Sessions in the PCA, and I assume the OPC as well, to interpret the WCF differently on the issue of abuse by a husband. They will, after all efforts have failed, brand him an unbeliever and allow the wife to divorce him. But the harder thing is whether to allow the woman to get married again. In some cases they won't and in some cases they will. The PCA position paper in it's entirety should all be read by those interested in the subject.


----------



## satz (Mar 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> But the harder thing is whether to allow the woman to get married again. In some cases they won't and in some cases they will. The PCA position paper in it's entirety should all be read by those interested in the subject.



Tim,

I really do not see why this would be an issue. 

Once the session has decided that the "abuse" represents a legitimate grounds for divorce, I don't see what reason there is to prevent remarriage. As you have been saying, what really constitutes "abuse" is a sticky issue, and when abuse is sufficient to warrant divorce is probably stickier still. 

However, once the church has made a decision that a divorce would be lawful, I don't see that biblically there is this "halfway state" where someone can be divorced yet unable to remarry. If someone is lawfully divorced, the old covenant is broken in God's eyes and they are free to remarry. Am I missing something?


----------



## Skyler (Mar 5, 2009)

satz said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > But the harder thing is whether to allow the woman to get married again. In some cases they won't and in some cases they will. The PCA position paper in it's entirety should all be read by those interested in the subject.
> ...



Well, if I remember correctly, Jesus did say that whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery...

EDIT:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NIV)
"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. *But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.* And a husband must not divorce his wife. "


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > *sjonee*
> >
> > Even verbal abuse is abuse. If it were verbal abuse, I would demand the guy get help with anger management. If he didn't, he's out.
> 
> ...



Scott,
I think you are speaking of people arguing and even shouting at one another over disagreements. That isn't what I'm talking about when I speak of verbal abuse. When I speak of verbal abuse I'm talking about one person constantly degrading the other in a foul and vicious manner. Tearing them apart mentally and spiritually. I've been in a room with a man like that who treated his wife that way and he wasn't even talking to me and I can't tell you how it made me feel. Frankly, I have to say that if I were married to someone like that and they didn't get help then I would help them to the door.


----------



## satz (Mar 5, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Well, if I remember correctly, Jesus did say that whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery...



Which verse are you referring to? I believe that when looked in context Jesus is speaking of a woman who has not been properly divorced, who has been divorced for frivolous reasons, i.e. her old marriage was never really broken. And, Jesus gave an exception for fornication.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

A man who puts away his wife _for fornication_ and marries another does not commit adultery. Logically the same should apply to a woman divorcing a fornicating husband.




> EDIT:1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NIV)
> "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. *But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.* And a husband must not divorce his wife. "




But, if we look at a bigger chunk of the passage,



> 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 _And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. _But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. _But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. _ For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?



I believe Paul first gives instructions about a woman leaving her husband for no good reason, or insufficient reason. She needs to reconcile with her husband. If she does not, she must remain unmarried, for she is still bound to her husband in marriage for she forsook her marriage covenant for no good reason. 

Later on, in v15 Paul gets to someone with a legitimate reason; he or she has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse who will not live with a christian. And Paul says there is no more bondage for the abandoned spouse.


----------



## Honor (Mar 5, 2009)

I don't think divorce would be nessisary if I was in a marriage where the husband abused (not spanked which is NOT abuse) my children.... I think I would need a shovel and some nice tomatoe plants. I think Child abuse in all it;s forms is one of the most awful crimes in our fallen world today. I also believe that once an abuser always an abuser. As a parent we are given a duty and responciblity to protect the littlest image bearers of Christ. I would not stand by and allow or be passive IN ANY WAY if I saw my Lord being physically abused. why would I be passive if I saw a child (especially MY child) abused.

and just to show that I put my money where my mouth is ... both my husnand and I have been arrested because we interviened when a woman was being abused by her husband. (we were aquitted, Praise God)


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

> However, once the church has made a decision that a divorce would be lawful, I don't see that biblically there is this "halfway state" where someone can be divorced yet unable to remarry. If someone is lawfully divorced, the old covenant is broken in God's eyes and they are free to remarry. Am I missing something?



There are a number of things to take home from this thread.

One, is that complicated questions seldom have uncomplicated answers. I can appreciate that you can't "see" that in some cases an abandoned spouse couldn't get married. I can't "see" it either. But I'm not arrogant enough to brush off what hundreds of people smarter and more learned than me have said about the subject. My Session tried to reconcile things as recently as a few months ago, and after talking to her said that I was abandoned and could remarry. But if they'd said no, I'd like to think that I'd go through proper channels if I disagreed rather than to walk away from the church.

Another thing we should take away from this thread is that it's not SUPPOSED to be our responsibility to intervene in this areas. In a perfect world people would be members of a strong church, and proper authority would decide these issues. In a fallen world things get complicated, though (good job, Jessica!) and if proper authority isn't in place sometimes non-optimal action is necessary. So, let's remember solving these problems begins with building up our churches! Where ever possible, go to the leadership of any church involved with the family, and HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE to do their jobs, and be there to support them in any way they ask you to.



> I also believe that once an abuser always an abuser.



If it's sexual I agree, and one of the reasons I think the civil penalties for sex crimes are part of the moral law. If it's other types, remember that Paul was a murderer of Christians.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 5, 2009)

What if a husband spanks his wife?


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 5, 2009)

I think that in all likelihood those who would help a husband to the door if he were abusive to them/their children are far less likely to actually be in an abusive relationship (praise God). 

This sort of thing does happen in Christian homes, and even in loving families. And yes it leaves debilitating scars. An abusive Christian _can_ repent and change by the grace of God, but they need to be confronted by an authority figure, and woken to the consequences of their sin. Something like this does not just 'go away' unfortunately for the spouse who doesn't want to trouble the waters: the spouse that refuses to trouble the waters in such a situation is to some degree responsible for the ongoing abuse of their children.

I would advise any Christian experiencing abuse themselves or having their children abused to go to their elders: if they can't trust their own elders, then to contact an elder they can trust who can get them help and advice. It may indeed involve separation or intervention by the police but an abused person or a person in a mindset that has tolerated abuse from a loved one (esp. someone they truly believe to be a Christian brother or sister) is probably not able or perhaps willing to make a decision about calling in police etc. They will need some help from the church to make the decisions about this, and to deal with the spouse who is likely to be enraged at least at first, if they take any steps at all. 

If the spouse remains unrepentant of sin which makes it unsafe for others to abide with him or her, and refuses to live peaceably then yes, as others have stated, that is abandonment on their part.

(Or, having posted this and seeing what was said in the meantime -- what TimV said)


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 5, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> What if a husband spanks his wife?



McClintock?


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> What if a husband spanks his wife?



WHAT?? What does that mean?


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 5, 2009)

> sjonee
> 
> Scott,
> I think you are speaking of people arguing and even shouting at one another over disagreements. That isn't what I'm talking about when I speak of verbal abuse. When I speak of verbal abuse I'm talking about one person constantly degrading the other in a foul and vicious manner. Tearing them apart mentally and spiritually. I've been in a room with a man like that who treated his wife that way and he wasn't even talking to me and I can't tell you how it made me feel. Frankly, I have to say that if I were married to someone like that and they didn't get help then I would help them to the door.



Yes,
this even illustrates all the different kinds of things people think of when they use that term. It really means misuse.

It certainly is understandable, nobody wants to be married or even be friends with someone "like that."

But, there is more to it. We do things like this to others, or have done them, and often, we do not see our sin clearly. We demand perfection and condition love on others' behavior but will not (and cannot) hold ourselves to the same standard. Indeed, the Lord even said being angry with our brother without a cause is a sixth commandment violation!


> Matthew 5
> 
> 21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
> 
> 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.



But vows, marital union, and God's requirement to forgive are not based upon it. That's why "for better or for worse" are part of the vows. Vows are not to be broken, without great consequence. Paul even tells believers they must remain married to an unbeliever (except if the unbeliever irretrievably departs). This is not easy as we all are very good at imagining reasons to escape our promises, and particularly the suffering that is required to keep them. (Every good relationship knows this, it's not the deceitful imagination of the world system, but it is what God requires of us, though we cannot perfectly keep it.

If we could rightly see our sin, we would understand we "verbally abuse" our God and our neighbor, and we do so constantly. And it offends Him and we must repent of that and have faith in His promises to forgive.

A whole other thread could be dedicated to this- we are sometimes called to suffer, inconvenience, pain and loss for the sake of Christ. That's not popular to self-centered human beings, but it is central to the Lordship of Christ. 

Bad as it is, it is no way biblical grounds to dissolve marital union, not any more than it is grounds for God to dissolve His relationship with us over the same issue.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 5, 2009)

Skyler;



> 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (NIV)
> "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. *But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.* And a husband must not divorce his wife. "



In which case, neither would/should the husband be able to remarry...unless he is also reconciled to his wife, because separation and divorce are two different things..and if either one were to marry, they would be committing adultery.


----------



## satz (Mar 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> There are a number of things to take home from this thread.
> 
> One, is that complicated questions seldom have uncomplicated answers. I can appreciate that you can't "see" that in some cases an abandoned spouse couldn't get married. I can't "see" it either. But I'm not arrogant enough to brush off what hundreds of people smarter and more learned than me have said about the subject. My Session tried to reconcile things as recently as a few months ago, and after talking to her said that I was abandoned and could remarry. But if they'd said no, I'd like to think that I'd go through proper channels if I disagreed rather than to walk away from the church.



Thanks, Tim. I understand that this touches close to home for you, and I hope you will forgive me if I say something offensive.

I guess from my perspective I don't really see that it is a complicated question, when looked a biblically. The complicated part is, I believe, the question expressed in the OP, namely if abuse can constitute a legitimate grounds for divorce. Or, put another way - just as the PCA paper did - if abuse can fall under one of the two grounds of adultery or divorce listed in the WCF. Although I have written, and am for the moment confident, that the answer is "yes" I understand having to make such a determination is an incredibly weighty matter. 

However, once the it is decided that the abuse that is occurring is a form of abandonment (which the conclusion of the PCA paper at least considered as a possibility), than I do not see how there are any more complications. The WCF itself seems clear that in the case of adultery or desertion, the innocent party can remarry. So again, it seems either a person is lawfully divorced, in which case he or she can remarry, or that person is wrongfully divorced, in which case any remarriage is adultery, as Jesus warned. 

I honestly see no third category where a person can be divorced yet unable to remarry. To use the language of the PCA paper, either the abuse is desertion, in which case the spouse is free to remarry, or it is not, in which case I assume further attempts at reconcilliation and the recovery of the offending spouse must occur.

I honestly don't think this is a matter of being arrogant. The bible should give us sufficient guidance so that we can say with confidence what God would have us do in a situation. You say you "can't see it either". But if that is the case, why is it even an issue? If there is some verse or passage that disturbs you, that is one thing. But if not, why is there any doubt?


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > sjonee
> >
> > Scott,
> > I think you are speaking of people arguing and even shouting at one another over disagreements. That isn't what I'm talking about when I speak of verbal abuse. When I speak of verbal abuse I'm talking about one person constantly degrading the other in a foul and vicious manner. Tearing them apart mentally and spiritually. I've been in a room with a man like that who treated his wife that way and he wasn't even talking to me and I can't tell you how it made me feel. Frankly, I have to say that if I were married to someone like that and they didn't get help then I would help them to the door.
> ...



Well, it's just a good thing that I don't have this problem I guess. You're probably right but I just couldn't stay with someone like that unless I was taking Ativan and could sleep through everything he said!  I really would have to be heavily medicated and not care about anything he said....I guess that's possible.


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

> I honestly don't think this is a matter of being arrogant. The bible should give us sufficient guidance so that we can say with confidence what God would have us do in a situation. *You say you "can't see it either". But if that is the case, why is it even an issue*? If there is some verse or passage that disturbs you, that is one thing. But if not, why is there any doubt?



Because the people involved can be clouded by emotion, and it is best to put them under authority. The Bible does give us sufficient guidance, and the WCF sums this guidance up by requiring the remedy come from the Church.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 5, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What if a husband spanks his wife?
> ...



As head of his household, if the wife disobeys, then the husband disciplines his wife by physical punishment to remin her of her sins and as the leader of his family.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 5, 2009)

> sjonee
> 
> Well, it's just a good thing that I don't have this problem I guess. You're probably right but I just couldn't stay with someone like that unless I was taking Ativan and could sleep through everything he said! I really would have to be heavily medicated and not care about anything he said....I guess that's possible.



I know this is very hard to accept, Sarah. I don't "want" (natural man) to accept a lot of what God requires in His Kingdom.

And please don't take away a negative view of marriage from this- it is one of the most wonderful things God has created as one place two sinners get to experience something of the unconditional love God has for us! There is nothing more powerful than getting a sense that someone's love and commitment to you is unconditional, even as, by God's grace, you see how really, really bad and "unloveable you are.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I'm going to laugh now because I know you are joking.  You shouldn't be such a joker!


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

> As head of his household, if the wife disobeys, then the husband disciplines his wife by physical punishment to remin her of her sins and as the leader of his family.



Those issues are addressed the the position paper linked to earlier in the thread.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 5, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > sjonee said:
> ...



I am responding to a real-life scenario.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > sjonee
> >
> > Well, it's just a good thing that I don't have this problem I guess. You're probably right but I just couldn't stay with someone like that unless I was taking Ativan and could sleep through everything he said! I really would have to be heavily medicated and not care about anything he said....I guess that's possible.
> 
> ...



I'm sure it is and I'm glad that marriage is good for most people.

-----Added 3/5/2009 at 10:57:54 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



Wow! I just live in a cave I guess. Hmmm, does this just happen in the south or is it common in the north too? 

-----Added 3/5/2009 at 11:07:10 EST-----



TimV said:


> > As head of his household, if the wife disobeys, then the husband disciplines his wife by physical punishment to remin her of her sins and as the leader of his family.
> 
> 
> 
> Those issues are addressed the the position paper linked to earlier in the thread.



Which link?


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America

Scroll down to the Divorce section. It's long but very detailed and I've found it helped me understand the big picture.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> Scroll down to the Divorce section. It's long but very detailed and I've found it helped me understand the big picture.



I will read it...but for now are they saying that husbands should spank their wives? I honestly have never heard this in my life.


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

> I will read it...but for now are they saying that husbands should spank their wives? I honestly have never heard this in my life.



You should have looked into it before you joined our crowd, Sarah. Naturally a woman needs to be........

No!


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I will read it...but for now are they saying that husbands should spank their wives? I honestly have never heard this in my life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow! I was getting kind of nervous there for a sec! I thought I had joined a cult and didn't know it until now!!! Ok! Let's move on! Put the belt away folks!


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 5, 2009)

> Wow! I just live in a cave I guess. Hmmm, does this just happen in the south or is it common in the north too?



No, ma'am. We cherish our women in the South. You really don't want to know what happens to men who strike women down here. It ain't pretty. That is if we can get a hold of them before the liberal lawyers are involved. Hogs and gators are really good at destroying evidence.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 5, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> > Wow! I just live in a cave I guess. Hmmm, does this just happen in the south or is it common in the north too?
> 
> 
> 
> No, ma'am. We cherish our women in the South. You really don't want to know what happens to men who strike women down here. It ain't pretty. That is if we can get a hold of them before the liberal lawyers are involved. Hogs and gators are really good at destroying evidence.



I rather like your answer.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 5, 2009)

TimV;



> Because the people involved can be clouded by emotion, and it is best to put them under authority. The Bible does give us sufficient guidance, and the WCF sums this guidance up by requiring the remedy come from the Church.



I agree, emotions can cloud our decisions, which is where the fruit of the spirit self control comes in, so that we are not controlled by our emotions.

When someone is in the midst of such a situation, they typically react to the hurt they are feeling inside, and let the hurt control them.

not directed to you specifically Tim, but just speaking in general...

Having lived it both as a child and a wife..I could give either perspective..and in neither case do you *want* the marriage to end in divorce..you'd rather see the abuser dead..so that they can not abuse anyone else..but at the same time, as a Christian, you realize that, if you desire them dead for their sins, then God should judge you in the same way, and you begin to see separation and/or divorce is much more merciful in such cases...because in such cases, there is always room for repentance...

A child who is abused and watches their parents divorce, take on the burden of assuming they are the cause of their parents divorce..they do not grasp it was the abusers actions that brought about the divorce...and they begin to think "if I was just good enough" or "if I just cleaned the (whatever) good enough" "if my grades were just good enough" then these things wouldn't have happened..where they begin to have a view of God, that they must be 'good enough' for God to love them..."I can't come to God until..." "I can't go to church until..." 

And it's not just the person who is abused that believes lies, it is the abuser as well, "they can't love someone until the person is good enough", nor can they show love until the other person is good enough..and deep down, they themselves have a wrong view of God, and His love...basically they believe the same lie.."God can not love them until they clean up their own act." they have unreasonable expectations...just as they assume God has unreasonable expectations of them. Thinking they must live a perfect sinless life, just as Christ did..before God will love them, and in order for Him to continue loving them..

Neither one understands the grace and mercy of God's love towards His children--they believe a lie...and it can take years of working through those lies..by hearing the truth...sitting down and looking at the lies they've believed for so long and holding them up in some cases one by one..to the truth of God's word, before they can fully get out of that mindset..even after they have become Christians..it can still take many years to work past the lies..


----------



## Skyler (Mar 5, 2009)

BJClark said:


> Skyler;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You would differentiate between "separation" and "divorce", then?

Just asking. Because Jesus makes a parallel statement in Matthew 5: "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." (Matthew 5:32 NIV)

I agree that the restriction on remarriage applies also to the husband. No disagreement there, I hope.


----------



## satz (Mar 5, 2009)

TimV said:


> Because the people involved can be clouded by emotion, and it is best to put them under authority. The Bible does give us sufficient guidance, and the WCF sums this guidance up by requiring the remedy come from the Church.



Seriously, I generally agree with what you are saying, assuming I understand you correctly. I initially responded to this passage you wrote:



> There is leeway given to individual Sessions in the PCA, and I assume the OPC as well, to interpret the WCF differently on the issue of abuse by a husband. They will, after all efforts have failed, brand him an unbeliever and allow the wife to divorce him. *But the harder thing is whether to allow the woman to get married again. In some cases they won't and in some cases they will. *The PCA position paper in it's entirety should all be read by those interested in the subject.



It seemed to me you were saying that there are two decisions a session must make, 1) if a divorce is allowed, and 2) if the woman can marry again. 

I would disagree that there are two seperate decisions. Once a divorce is allowed - and I assume the session would only allow it if it came to the conclusion that the divorce was lawful by God's word - then the innocent party is free to remarry.

Yes, the emotions of parties can be clouded, but that is why the church should be invovled in determining if this is truly legitimate grounds for divorce, or if more efforts toward reconciliation should be made. But once the church gives its "blessings" to a divorce, I don't see how there is biblically any more scope for the church to interfere in the innocent party's choice to remarry or not. 

The portion of the WCF you referred to I assume is XXIV.VI
But this is talking about people not being left "to their own wills and discretion" in the context of "dissolving the bond of marriage", i.e. the decision of whether this is a grounds for divorce, as I stated above. Once divorce is granted through due process of the church, I see no reason for forbidding remarriage, nor does the WCF seem to give the church this additional role. In fact, para V seems fairly clear that once someone sues out a divorce, they are free to marry again.


----------

