# Is a newly divorced woman now under the authority of the elders?



## bfrank (Sep 28, 2006)

I honestly don't have a solid answer to this question. Widowed...I would say yes. Divorced...leaning toward yes without solid background...

lend some insight por favor...


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> I honestly don't have a solid answer to this question. Widowed...I would say yes. Divorced...leaning toward yes without solid background...
> 
> lend some insight por favor...



Question: Is a newly divorced woman now under the authority of the elders?

Is she a communicant of the local church? If so, the answer is "yes".


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2006)

Wouldn't she always be under the authority of the elders?


----------



## bfrank (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bfrank_
> ...



That's my "gut" feeling as well. What would be the scriptural defense?


----------



## satz (Sep 28, 2006)

I guess this has never been quite as obvious to me as it seems to be to others.

Where does the bible say a woman who loses her natural authority defaults to the authority of the elders? 1 Tim 5 talks about honoring widows indeed, but that seems more to have to do with financial support than an authority relationship similar to the one she just lost. 

Could anyone help?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Wouldn't she always be under the authority of the elders?



Correct Jeff; I believe the poster meant 'federal headship'.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Wouldn't she always be under the authority of the elders?



well...sure. However, she would be immediately under the authority of her husband...and that ship has sailed.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



yes


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



If it is "federal headship" in mind, then I would tend to say no. Her "head" has passed away in this regards. Federal headship is much more than "oversight." Remember, Christ is the federal head of the church, and the father is the federal head of the family. To say that the elders by default become the federal head of a widow seems to confuse these two. To become a federal head, a covenant is required.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 28, 2006)

Jeff,
I don't believe the 'federal head' in this case _died_.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> I don't believe the 'federal head' in this case _died_.



Good point. My fault. The reasoning still stands, depending on the circumstances. If the divorce is biblical, she is to reckon him as dead as far as the marriage is concerned.



> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIV
> Of Marriage and Divorce
> V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[10] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce:[11] and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[12]
> 
> ...


----------



## satz (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Jeff,
> I don't believe the 'federal head' in this case _died_.



Scott,

But how would this affect the answer? If there has been a valid divorce wouldn't the authority relationship be broken just the same so that the woman would no longer be under her (ex) husband's headship?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Yes. The question was, whom would her federal head be after the divorce.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 28, 2006)

Biblically, this is far from a valid divorce.

It is however a divorce nonetheless.


----------



## satz (Sep 28, 2006)

I guess what i don't understand, which i alluded to in a post above, is where does the presumption come from that she must always have a federal head? If a woman loses her federal head legitimately, wouldn't the case be that she has no head now? 

Genuinely trying to understand.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> Biblically, this is far from a valid divorce.
> 
> It is however a divorce nonetheless.



Then I take it she is at fault (other wise it would be allowed on the basis of 1Cor. 7 for desertion or Matt. 19:9 for adultry). If this is the case, then she needs to be reconciled to her husband (if he is a believer). If she is unwilling, the church censures should be utilized. If he is not a believer, she is to take the following steps according to Jay Adams:



> 1. She informs him of her dilemma. He, seeing her repentant allegiance to the Lord may be led to consider Christianity anew. But beware of a false profession on his part, if he deply wants his former wife to return.
> 2. Continue to pray for his salvation.
> 3. Evangelize him.
> 4. Refrain from dating or marrying another.
> ...



I would say that in either case, her federal head scripturally is in the covenantal family unit. If the family is disolved (which it is by divorce), then so is her head. Thankfully, if she is a believer, she will always have Christ as her head, and that cannot be broken.

P.S.
See Resources on Divorce and Remarriage for more info on divorce.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 28, 2006)

> Then I take it she is at fault



Divorce is a two way street. She has some fault in it. Is she the one who left? No. However, now that she is divorced she is seeing that there was an unrepentent spirit about her that brought about the divorce.

Anyway, as far as 1 Cor 7 one would have to make the assumption that he who left was an unbeliever...which, I can see some merit in. However, just because one was willingly disobedient doesn't necessarily speak to his unbelief....even though he is acting like an unbeliever.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> Divorce is a two way street. She has some fault in it. Is she the one who left? No. However, now that she is divorced she is seeing that there was an unrepentent spirit about her that brought about the divorce.



I don't know the situation personally, I am just commenting on my reasons for saying that if she is at fault for the divorce (i.e. she filed for unscriptural reasons), then the point that the elders are her head SHOULD be moot point unless she repents of her actions (because she should be under church censures, i.e. cast out). But your second statement nulls this scenerio.



> _Originally posted by bfrank_
> Anyway, as far as 1 Cor 7 one would have to make the assumption that he who left was an unbeliever...which, I can see some merit in. However, just because one was willingly disobedient doesn't necessarily speak to his unbelief....even though he is acting like an unbeliever.



My point in bringing this up is this:

If both are professing believers, and they divorce on unscriptural terms, church censures should be performed and the guilty party cast out of the church (and hence treated as an unbeliever). If the guilty party repents, then the two should be reconciled. 

If it was a mutual decision to divorce on unscriptural terms, church censures should be performed on both parties until 1) they repent and are restored, or 2) they are cast out of the church and considered unbelievers for all practical purposes.

Divorce is a mess!

Getting back to the topic, federal headship is a God-given role. People are represented by their federal head. In the church unit, Christ is our head. In the state unit, the governement is our head (i.e. representative form). In the family unit, the husband is the head.

It is interesting to note that one of the duties of a husband is to provide for his wife, which on the account of his death is taken over by the church.


----------



## bfrank (Sep 28, 2006)

Jeff, 

I re-read my last post and hope I didn't come across..."snippy". It's a lovely thing when you can type thoughts quicker than you can think them.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments.

The long and short is this: She wasn't "meeting his needs" anymore. He wanted a divorce. He was disciplined/excommunicated. He filed and it is final.

The whole time his argument to the elders was that no one was even looking at her part in it. I argued that until he took the divorce card off of the table, they needed to deal with him...to no avail. Everyone knew she had a part in it. Yet, divorce is not the answer.

Now, she has met another guy...2 months later...and came to my wife and says that she didn't realize she could "feel" again. She said that she was harboring bitterness and her ex-husband never got the real her.

So basically I sent my wife to speak with her and tell her that first of all, that she is in a relationship so quickly is ridiculous. Secondly, that until she repents of her sin and asks forgiveness of her ex-husband she is in no position to even consider another relationship/marriage. What if he decides to take her, the repentant her back? She should be willing to reconcile if the Lord softens his and her heart to it.

Now, I don't know if you even care about all this or not...but you are right it is a mess!

Oddly, he was my most "Reformed" friend. He is the one that years ago argued calvinism against my amyraldism. He is the one who challenged my classical dispensational eschatology beliefs. He is the one that one year ago said there is never a good reason for divorce in a believing couple...period, which I firmly agreed with him. I still hold that though there is provision for adultery...adultery can be overcome and divorce should never be the first means of dealing with the situation.

Sin is a formidable foe...it must never be our master!


----------



## Hungus (Sep 29, 2006)

Forgive my intrusion but I have a question:

Why would headship not revert to the father in the case of a legitimate divorce (assuming she is of marriageable age and her father is still alive)?


----------



## BJClark (Sep 29, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel,




> To say that the elders by default become the federal head of a widow seems to confuse these two. To become a federal head, a covenant is required.



IF she is a covenant member of the church body, then yes the Elders and Pastor would be her authority, to a degree.

If she is a member of the church body, did she take a membership vow agreeing to be held accountable to the elders, session, pastor, and that group of believers?

If so, then that vow still holds true, does it not? That does not end just because the marriage ended, if she is still a member of the congregation.

If she is repentant, then they need to go through the Matthew 18 process with her as well, to where she needs to go to her ex-husband and at least try and reconcile, IF he still refuses to reconcile, then that is on him.

There are actually a lot of people who have a problem with ONLY the husband being held accountable, and called to repentance when the wife is also at fault. 

Church discipline should be for BOTH parties, if he is asking that she be held accountable as well, then the elders should probably look at that.

I have a friend who went through this, his church wanted to hold him accountable, but refused to address the wife, who was actively in an adultress relationship. They basically told him, we can't address her because she's not here, but they didn't even TRY to contact her and call her into account, even though she was also a communicate member of the church.

Consider if it were your spouse who was desiring to leave you, and your church did nothing to call her into account for her sins, but because you were the man, they wanted to address yours,
it wouldn't matter if you were disciplined, because it wouldn't address the problem, which is the wife, who was leaving.

So most certainly addressing her would also be required.






[Edited on 9-29-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> Jeff_Bartel,
> 
> 
> ...



The church is to exercise this kind of authority over it's congregation at all times, married or divorced.

The question at hand is if there is an *extra* authority (i.e. that of a husband) given to the elders in a divorce situation. Do the elders become the default "federal head" of a woman just because she has been divorced?


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> What would this practically look like?
> 
> 
> ...



Great questions!


----------



## Ambrose (Sep 29, 2006)

*2 Questions*

1. If the husband sues for divorce and leaves, how is that different from "abandonment"?

2. If the husband did not repent and was excommunicated, what more evidence do we need to call him an "unbeliever"?


----------



## BJClark (Sep 29, 2006)

trevorjohnson,



> What would this practically look like?



If she is dating, then they should make it a point to get to know the man, just as her family should, as they are HER Christian family.

Is he a Christian? is he an active member of a church? What type of church?

If they claim to be her spiritual authority, then they should help ensure she isn't going to be led astray, and led out of the church altogether and they really can't do that UNLESS they get to know the man she is dating on a personal level.

but then, I am sharing from the aspect of having been there and how it truly blessed me having pastors who took an active role in getting to know the man I was looking at marrying.

It gave me a sense of security knowing they cared enough about me as a member of their congregation and as their sister in Christ to watch over me and protect me from being led astray. 

It also showed both of us that they were willing to address any issues they seen that may cause a problem within a marriage and called us to work on those before marriage. 

It gave us assurance that if we ever had a problem in our marriage either one of us could go to them and talk openly, and we could trust them to ungird our marriage, no matter what we will go through.

One of my best friends had the same thing, not only from our church, but the church her now husband was a member of, so she had two church families holding them both accountable before they married. And she's told me the same thing, it gave her such a sense of peace knowing the pastors and elders cared enough about her and her kids to ensure the man she was looking to marry would treat her with love and care.

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> Forgive my intrusion but I have a question:
> 
> Why would headship not revert to the father in the case of a legitimate divorce (assuming she is of marriageable age and her father is still alive)?



Did anyone ever answer this question, I was thinking the same thing.

It seems that throughout scipture, all women have federal heads over them, typically the father or husband, in other cases it is the church (elders).


----------



## bfrank (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Hungus_
> ...



I actually thought about that as well. However, in this case the father is deceased.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2006)

My understanding is that women had federal heads, except in the case of being a widow/or divorcement. I can see the church acting as extended family, but I have a problem with them making personal decisions for her.

I've seen this in action in this manner...a recent widow had the pastor tell her that she needed to turn over her checking account to the church and then the church would "take care of her as the NT states they should for widows" by managing her money and bills for her (this woman was ONLY 40-50 something, still working, AND had adult children!). Abuse in action (of course that doesn't nullify the question, but I sure would like to write my own checks and not ask an elder if I could go out for coffee).


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> My understanding is that women had federal heads, except in the case of being a widow/or divorcement. I can see the church acting as extended family, but I have a problem with them making personal decisions for her.
> 
> I've seen this in action in this manner...a recent widow had the pastor tell her that she needed to turn over her checking account to the church and then the church would "take care of her as the NT states they should for widows" by managing her money and bills for her (this woman was ONLY 40-50 something, still working, AND had adult children!). Abuse in action (of course that doesn't nullify the question, but I sure would like to write my own checks and not ask an elder if I could go out for coffee).



What does Scripture say concerning this?


----------



## BJClark (Sep 29, 2006)

LadyFlynt,




> My understanding is that women had federal heads, except in the case of being a widow/or divorcement. I can see the church acting as extended family, but I have a problem with them making personal decisions for her.



I'd have a problem with that as well, I mean, my husband doesn't make personal decisions for me now. Sure I discuss things with him and get his input, but ultimately I make the decision for myself. 




> I've seen this in action in this manner...a recent widow had the pastor tell her that she needed to turn over her checking account to the church and then the church would "take care of her as the NT states they should for widows" by managing her money and bills for her (this woman was ONLY 40-50 something, still working, AND had adult children!). Abuse in action (of course that doesn't nullify the question, but I sure would like to write my own checks and not ask an elder if I could go out for coffee).



Personally I think this is a tad extreme, okay more than a tad, but hey.

However, our church does have CPA's and lawyers within the congregation and who are elders who volunteer time to help widows with any thing they may have questions about. 

Within the past year we've had two women whose husbands died, where neither of the women had any idea what life insurances policies their husbands carried, nor what their financial situation truly was. 

One of the women lost her home because she didn't know her husband had life insurance. The other didn't even know how to write a check or balance a checkbook.

The CPA's and Lawyers were able to help both of them get things under control, locate the life insurance policies and assist them in getting the money. They even taught the one how to write checks and balance her checkbook. But the church didn't take over their finances. 


Even in cases of divorce, they help out if it's needed, not taking over, but just ensuring she has the tools necessary to take care of her family. If she needs help locating a job, they keep an ear out for openings she may be qualified and pass the information along, if she needs help with car/house repairs they help locate a reputable person to help. It's just little things like that I am refering too.


----------



## satz (Sep 30, 2006)

I'm still unsure where exactly the idea comes from that the elders can act as a surrogate federal head for a woman who has lost hers. Scripture is explict about a woman being under the authority of her father and husband, but where does it show her to be under the authority of the church elders in a way that differs from a man?

A woman, like all church members, is always under the authority of her church, and if she is deprived of her father/husband they will need to pay more attention to her but I don't see how the church is called upon to act as a husband/father figure to her.


----------



## Lauren Mary (Oct 1, 2006)

Where is the Biblical substantiation for The Westminster Confession statement relative to remarriage, (shown below) that includes "... as if the offending party were dead." (?) That the offending party may be considered as dead is not substantuated by any of the scripture references listed after the Westminster Confession statement below. 

That divorce is allowed is clear. But the innocently divorced appears only to be free from the obligations of the union and the authority of offending party, but not necessarily free/ nowhere clearly stated to be free to remarry, at least not so long as the former spouse still lives. But to the greater point, where in the scripture (sola scriptura please) is it taught or disclosed that the innocently divorced may consider the offending party as dead? 

Thank you ahead of time for your insights.
Lauren


------------------------------------------------
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIV
Of Marriage and Divorce
V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[10] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce:[11] and, after the divorce, tomarry another, as if the offending party were dead.[12]

10. Matt. 1:18-20; see Deut. 22:23-24
11. Matt. 5:31-32
12. Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3
--------------------------------------------------


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 1, 2006)

Lauren,

The statement in the WCF "after the divorce, to marry another" is substantiated cheifly by our Lord's words in Matthew 19:9"



> And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.



Now the exception clause (underlined) applies not only to divorces, but also to remarrying. In other words, the only permissible time for the innocent party to divorce AND remarry is in a situation of adultery.

I would recommend reading this fairly short excerpt from John Murray on divorce where he addresses the exception clause, and in my opinion successfully argues that it MUST apply to both "divorce" and "remarry" in Matt. 19:9.

Divorce by John Murray

The statement in the WCF "as if the offending party were dead." is substantiated by Rom. 7:2-3. They are not using this verse as proof that one MAY remarry after a legitimate divorce (they did that using Matt. 19:9), but assuming they have already proved that, they proceed to compare exactly HOW legitmate the remarriage is. In other words, the divines are saying that remarriage after a lawful divorce (adultry) is SO valid, that one could say it is as the offending party was dead.

For more resources on divorce and remarriage see also Resources on Divorce and Remarriage.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 1, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel,

Could we not also look to Matthew 18:15-17

If the spouse who left the marriage is unrepentant, are we not to look at them as a heathen (or unsaved person) at that point? And we could then refer to 1 Corinthians 7:15 about the unbeliever leaving the marriage. 





> The statement in the WCF "as if the offending party were dead." is substantiated by Rom. 7:2-3. They are not using this verse as proof that one MAY remarry after a legitimate divorce (they did that using Matt. 19:9), but assuming they have already proved that, they proceed to compare exactly HOW legitmate the remarriage is. In other words, the divines are saying that remarriage after a lawful divorce (adultry) is SO valid, that one could say it is as the offending party was dead.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> Jeff_Bartel,
> 
> Could we not also look to Matthew 18:15-17
> ...



My points above are in the context of the exception clause (except in the case of adultery), not desertion by an unbelieving spouse. Two seperate acceptable means of divorce, both with different rules.

Christ allowed for divorce when adultery had been committed because the adultery itself is a breaking of the covenant.


----------



## satz (Oct 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Lauren Mary_
> Where is the Biblical substantiation for The Westminster Confession statement relative to remarriage, (shown below) that includes "... as if the offending party were dead." (?) That the offending party may be considered as dead is not substantuated by any of the scripture references listed after the Westminster Confession statement below.
> 
> That divorce is allowed is clear. But the innocently divorced appears only to be free from the obligations of the union and the authority of offending party, but not necessarily free/ nowhere clearly stated to be free to remarry, at least not so long as the former spouse still lives. But to the greater point, where in the scripture (sola scriptura please) is it taught or disclosed that the innocently divorced may consider the offending party as dead?
> ...



Hi Lauren,

You question seems to be where does the assumption come from that a (legitimately) divorced person is free to marry. But couldn't the question be turned around so we would ask 'why wouldn't a lawful divorced person be free to remarry?' 

Where does the scripture say at a lawfully divorced person is only free from the practical duties of the marriage and not from the entirety of the marriage itself? And if the scripture does not explicitly say a divorced person is free to remarry (which i disagree with, personally) but also does not say such a person is forbidden from remarrying, shouldn't we follow proverbs 21:3 and Hosea 6:6 and take the merciful interpretation rather than a harsh one ?


----------



## Lauren Mary (Oct 2, 2006)

It is an excellent observation that "Christ allowed for divorce when adultery had been committed because the adultery itself is a breaking of the covenant." 

However, to use the verses of Romans 7:2-3 as a proof (as used by the Westminster Cofession and reiterated by John Murray), that the adulterer may be considered as dead, is a stretch. If they had even used Romans 7:4 as their proof, ("Wherefore, my bretheren ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;") there might be a hint of license for us to consider an offending party as dead even though they still live, but the Westminster Cofession and John Murray don't reference verse 4, they reference verses 2-3.

Moreover, with Romans 7:2-3 taken in its full context of Romans 7:1-6, Paul appears to be using a metaphor of woman (the bride, the church) bound by the law (in bondage to the law) but released from this bondage through the death of the husband (the groom, the Savior). That this is a metaphor is further supported by Paul's "Wherefore" that begins verse 4 and continues its explanation through verses 5 and 6.

While 1 Corinthians 7:39 does not appear to be a metaphor, it does however (also) clearly state the woman is at liberty to remarry, only in the Lord, but not so long as her husband lives. 

God's mercy and ways sometime seem severe, but the horrid mess of the majority of divorces and remarriages is so much more severe.


----------

