# Permanence of Marriage Movement



## bookslover (Jul 24, 2016)

Has anyone heard of the "Permanence of Marriage Movement"? Apparently, it believes that there are NO biblical grounds for divorce, that you have to stay married no matter what the circumstances. A pastor friend is looking for information about this, and I thought I would check around here.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 24, 2016)

I don't know if he is part of that movement, but doesn't Piper hold those views?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 24, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> I don't know if he is part of that movement, but doesn't Piper hold those views?



Piper and Voddie Baucham both do. I have not heard of the movement itself but, I do not find it surprising.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 24, 2016)

This seems to be a small but growing movement among Baptists, some Calvinistic and some not. (I believe that this is basically also the view of the Protestant Reformed Churches and the Netherlands Reformed Churches. But my understanding is that most Presbyterian and Reformed churches have affirmed what is taught in the WCF.) 

Jim Elliff and his fellow elders have published a book defending this view. I think Nancy Leigh DeMoss also teaches this. Charles Ryrie believed it and lived it.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 24, 2016)

The Permanence of Marriage Movement seems different than merely some of our pastors believing in a permanence view of marriage. Since they call themselves a "movement" this means their aim is to spread this view.

http://www.marriagedivorce.com/Permanence-of-Marriage-Movement.pdf

They seem to have a Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/1Man1Wife4Life/

https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2014/07/21/good-men-please-start-denouncing-the-permanence-view-of-marriage-that-denies-any-reason-for-divorce/

Just like teetotallers who see the abuse of alcohol and so prohibit its use totally, this permanence view sees the sinful divorces in our land and so concludes that NO divorce is permissible.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 24, 2016)

This is a teaching that is increasing in prominence in "family integrated" circles (and thus among homeschoolers) and among some complementarian teachers, both men and women.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jul 24, 2016)

Our church holds to the permanence view, however I would not call this a movement. The term movement gives the impression that it is fast growing. I don't think that is the case. It is a minority view in most denominations and even in most family integrated churches.


----------



## Nate (Jul 24, 2016)

Pilgrim said:


> I believe that this is basically also the view of the Protestant Reformed Churches



The Protestant Reformed Churches allow for divorce in the event of adultery.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 24, 2016)

puritanpilgrim said:


> Our church holds to the permanence view, however I would not call this a movement. The term movement gives the impression that it is fast growing. I don't think that is the case. It is a minority view in most denominations and even in most family integrated churches.



So, your church doesn't believe that there are two legitimate grounds for divorce: (1) sexual immorality and (2) the departure of an unbelieving spouse? Those are the two biblical allowances. Just asking.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 24, 2016)

Nate said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that this is basically also the view of the Protestant Reformed Churches
> ...



But does that imply remarriage? Looking into the view it seems while for some it may be a ground for divorce and subsequent remarriage it remains largely ambiguous or at least cryptic.
Not that I am criticizing the PRC, I have just noticed the view states "we allow divorce." But most believe it implies remarriage where those who hold that view believe that it is a no. Silence is a double edged sword.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 24, 2016)

It seems that defining terms would be helpful. Anyone who holds to Biblical marriage holds to marriage permanence. The question comes in what breaks that marriage: historically, I'd say the scriptures address death, infidelity and desertion by a nonbeliever.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 24, 2016)

jwithnell said:


> It seems that defining terms would be helpful. Anyone who holds to Biblical marriage holds to marriage permanence. The question comes in what breaks that marriage: historically, I'd say the scriptures address death, infidelity and desertion by a nonbeliever.


Those holding to the view under examination here believe that only death can break the marriage bond. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## yeutter (Jul 24, 2016)

What is the official position of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations on this issue?


----------



## Nate (Jul 25, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...



You are correct: the PRC does not allow for remarriage while the former spouse remains alive. To be fair though, I was not trying to be cryptic, but simply responding in the contex of the specific OP statement regarding "NO biblical grounds for divorce" and the subsequent suggestion that the PRC held this view.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Jul 25, 2016)

This is also the Roman Catholic view. However, they have a way out through the annulment process (i.e.they will look at the circumstances surrounding the wedding ceremony and may come to the conclusion that no valid marriage ever took place, thus leaving the couple free to remarry).

To PuritanPilgrim and others who hold the permanence view, what do you do if a divorced and remarried couple start addressing your church? Also, do you believe that those who got married and divorced before getting saved are free to remarry in the church?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 25, 2016)

Rome has historically permitted bed and board separation in the case of adultery (and desertion, in which the remaining party has no choice in the matter).

The key here is whether remarriage is permitted. If remarriage is not permitted to the innocent party after adultery, for instance, then there is no biblical doctrine of divorce present. This is because if the divorce is biblically lawful, then the remarriage is lawful. 

If remarriage is not considered ever lawful, then there is no true doctrine of divorce: this is patently unbiblical, whether practiced by Rome or some Protestant groups. 

Let me be painfully clear: if the right of remarriage for the innocent party after divorce or the remaining party after desertion is denied, there is no biblical doctrine of divorce and remarriage present and God's Word has plainly been denied, no matter how pious those holding such appear to be. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 25, 2016)

Thank you, Rev. Strange. I was stopping by to suggest that we cannot give definition to language that is not squared by what the Bible teaches. You're consideration in terms of remarriage is far more cogent! We may be able to place upon ourselves more stringent requirements than the Word requires but Christian liberty does not allow us to place that requirement on others. Such fencing of the Biblical requirements was soundly refuted by Jesus himself and oddly echos the first century rabbinic compass.


----------



## chuckd (Jul 25, 2016)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The key here is whether remarriage is permitted. If remarriage is not permitted to the innocent party after adultery, for instance, then there is no biblical doctrine of divorce present. This is because if the divorce is biblically lawful, then the remarriage is lawful.



Why the innocent party only? The divorce would be lawful for both parties.

To the OP, my previous church's pastor held this view (Calvinist, but not confessionally Reformed). He took the passages on divorce in the case of adultery as addressing breaking of an engagement, not marriage.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 25, 2016)

Chuck:

I grant you that there may be mitigating circumstances for the guilty party in adultery and for the leaving party in desertion (conversion, for example), as well as disputes about what precisely constitutes desertion, all of which impact the consideration of remarriage.

However, those disputes are properly internecine ones among those who hold to the Bible and the WCF. Whether there is a right of real divorce and remarriage for the innocent and remaining parties is not a matter of dispute, but settled doctrine (v. WCF 24).

To address your question now more decidedly, let's take the adultery exception. The reason that the guilty party has no right of remarriage ordinarily (notice that word) is because the guilty party has no right of divorce. Only the innocent party has such a right. And thus the right to remarry. One may not, in other words, commit adultery and say "Well, I've committed adultery and I now have the right to divorce and remarriage." No, only the innocent party has the right of divorce and remarriage. 

In the desertion case, the unbeliever may well get remarried, not thinking that they are bound by God's law at all. That does not mean that they are not, however. They are and they have no proper right of remarriage, because they improperly and unlawfully left their mate. 

So, no, ordinarily all the rights accrue to the innocent and remaining parties. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## chuckd (Jul 25, 2016)

Alan D. Strange said:


> To address your question now more decidedly, let's take the adultery exception. The reason that the guilty party has no right of remarriage ordinarily (notice that word) is because the guilty party has no right of divorce. Only the innocent party has such a right.



Thanks for your response. I'm asking more to the case of the innocent party divorcing. The guilty party is also divorced, correct? In which case they are no longer married. Why cannot they also remarry? I'm not in this situation, nor have I ever been (or anyone I know). I'm just curious.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 25, 2016)

Chuck:

Because the right to divorce and the right to remarry are inextricably linked. Only one possessing the former also enjoys the latter.

If one committed adultery and that led to divorce, one has no ordinary right of remarriage thereafter. The right of remarriage is not a reward for committing adultery. It only pertains to the innocent party. 

What the guilty party should do is repent and recognize that he has no ordinary right of remarriage (which is part of the repentance in this case). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jul 25, 2016)

> So, your church doesn't believe that there are two legitimate grounds for divorce: (1) sexual immorality and (2) the departure of an unbelieving spouse? Those are the two biblical allowances. Just asking.



We do not hold those as biblical allowances. The Westminster speaks on this topic, however the writers of the 1689 choose to remain silent on the topic.




> To PuritanPilgrim and others who hold the permanence view, what do you do if a divorced and remarried couple start addressing your church? Also, do you believe that those who got married and divorced before getting saved are free to remarry in the church?



We have divorced and remarried people who are members of our church. It's not a unforgivable sin. We tell them, whatever marriage you are in is the one that you should stay in. Divorce is messy. Additionally, we understand that within the reformed community we are in the minority. If one of our members were seeking divorce under one of the two "exception clauses" we would not excommunicate for that reason. However, we would be encouraging them to be reconcile with their spouse. However, as elders we will not perform a remarriage for someone who is divorced if their spouse is living. Marriage is a picture of Christ and his church, Christ will not leave or forsake his church.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 25, 2016)

puritanpilgrim said:


> Marriage is a picture of Christ and his church, Christ will not leave or forsake his church.


.

This is thought to be sound-reasoning, doubtless; but it is, in fact, specious. 

It is quite true that Christ will never leave nor forsake his own. It is not the case, however, that Christ will not withdraw the candle-stand, and thus his blessing and presence, from a church that has shown itself to be, as a visible church, not his own.

Similarly in terms of the church discipline of individuals: The above-stated position would suggest that Christ will not put someone out whom he has claimed by baptism and who has professed his faith and interest in Christ. But we know, of course, that those who by their life show themselves to be no true disciples, are indeed to be put out of the congregation. It is simply not the case that Christ will not disown those who, though having professed him, refuse to follow him. Do we need to give all the biblical citations for this? 

One who sins against the marriage, who breaks the marriage vow by outward and actual adultery, is liable to be put outside the marriage, by a proclamation that no true marriage any longer obtains. The innocent party is not obliged to divorce the guilty but may do so, and in some instances, should likely do so (to maintain the institution of marriage that the guilty party has so badly besmirched). 

To confess the permanence of marriage in this life is to make an idol of marriage, just as to confess that civil rebellion is never warranted under any circumstances is to make an idol of the state (or that the church must always be obeyed: that makes an idol of the church). All institutions given by God are relativized by our sinful estate and the commands of God for our relief in such. Only God is absolute and only he is to be obeyed at all times without qualification. Civil governors, ecclesiastical officers, and husbands do not enjoy inviolable authority. States, churches, and marriages may be dissolved in the proper circumstances. To teach otherwise is to establish a tyranny unrecognized by God's Word.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 25, 2016)

Dr. Strange your reasoning is such a breath of fresh air!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 25, 2016)

puritanpilgrim said:


> Marriage is a picture of Christ and his church, Christ will not leave or forsake his church.



The analogy is not an exact one. The likeness between a marriage between a Christian man and his wife and Christ and the Church is an analogical likeness, not a univocal one. Otherwise, one would have to assume that the marriage between a husband and wife goes on throughout eternity, which is obviously unbiblical and unconfessional, as marriage is only for the present life.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 25, 2016)

The PCA also wrote a good position paper on the subject of Divorce and Remarriage found here: http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/divorce-remarriage.pdf


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jul 26, 2016)

Dr. Strange,


Does the offended party in the case of sexual immorality have the right to divorce or the requirement to divorce?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 26, 2016)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The innocent party is not obliged to divorce the guilty but may do so



brother. Wright:

As I noted above, the innocent party has the right to sue out a divorce (in the language of WCF 24.5).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jul 26, 2016)

> brother. Wright:
> 
> As I noted above, the innocent party has the right to sue out a divorce (in the language of WCF 24.5).
> 
> ...




Yes, I understand the WCF says they have the right to sue according to 24.5. I am asking on what basis would someone determine whether or not to sue. If it's not required, but merely a choice, on what basis do they make that choice?


----------



## Edward (Jul 26, 2016)

puritanpilgrim said:


> If it's not required, but merely a choice, on what basis do they make that choice?



Reference was made upthread to the PCA study report by the Baptist missionary. 

I would highlight this portion:

"i.	That in matters pertaining to sexual immorality and desertion, the pastor and Ruling Elders are responsible for providing counsel, direction and judgment, according to the Scriptures and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America."


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 26, 2016)

puritanpilgrim said:


> Yes, I understand the WCF says they have the right to sue according to 24.5. I am asking on what basis would someone determine whether or not to sue. If it's not required, but merely a choice, on what basis do they make that choice?



brother. Wright:

I would say that many factors would go into determining whether or not one would sue out a divorce, including what Edward notes immediately above (carefully considering the counsel of the Session).

Having dealt with a number of adultery cases before, I would say that the chief factors in my counsel are both the nature and degree of the sin(s), the nature of the repentance and sincere seeking of reconciliation. These things all very widely and one has to take each case and all its details into account. 

I do believe that the language you employ ("merely a choice") prejudices this in a way that neither the Scripture nor the Standards do. The Standards say "it is lawful," meaning that it is in keeping with God's law, and is not a violation of God's law, to do so. This is all quite a bit weightier than "merely a choice" suggests (vanilla or chocolate is merely a choice; this is far more serious). I think that all the sorts of things that I mentioned above would (the details and circumstances of the case) suggest when one might refrain from divorce in such cases and when one should engage in such. 

For example, and this is the "easy case," a party that has committed and continues impenitently to commit adultery should not be allowed to continue on as if there is any longer a meaningful marriage here. These sorts of observations could be multiplied many times over but I wouldn't think that would really be necessary. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jul 27, 2016)

au5t1n said:


> It sounds like a couple of guys made a website and a Facebook group and declared themselves a "Movement." This seems to be a popular thing to do nowadays.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 27, 2016)

puritanpilgrim said:


> > So, your church doesn't believe that there are two legitimate grounds for divorce: (1) sexual immorality and (2) the departure of an unbelieving spouse? Those are the two biblical allowances. Just asking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"We do not hold those as biblical allowances." Sorry, but you are _required_ to hold those as biblical allowances because Jesus Christ explicitly said that they are (Matthew 5.31-32, for His allowance regarding divorce, and 1 Corinthians 7.15 for His allowance in the case of desertion by an unbelieving spouse).


----------

