Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
I've never heard of anybody doing a background check on a prospective spouse. Is this a thing? I'm asking in all seriousness.
Marriage Prenup
- Thread starter TheBoringBaptist
- Start date
- Status
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I dated someone once whose dad would do that if the relationship looked serious.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
I am a girl dad... guess it's time to start taking notes!
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I had a friend who found out that her boyfriend's parents hired a private investigator to check her out. That's the only case where I have personal knowledge.
One should at least check social media and public records these days. Professional background checks are probably only needed at the top 10 or 15% levels.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Don't mind me, I just get frustrated with what is often just divorce preparation.
However, as pastor Ben pointed out, an agreement could be utilized as a deterrent from frivolous divorce.
It might be worth considering three factors:
1. The ancient practice of the groom providing a bride-price was a sort of guarantee. It showed seriousness of intent, but also if things didn't work out there was a source of income for a discarded/bereaved bride (at least in theory).
2. It's a common observation that all marriages function under a prenuptial agreement. It may be a custom one designed for a particular couple, or the default one imposed by the state; but provision as to what happens if things don't work out is made, one way or another. You don't avoid contingency planning by skipping a prenup, you just accept the state's plan.
3. Prenuptial agreements are not always found to be binding. For instance, if there is inadequate disclosure or unconscionable terms they can be overturned (https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-fam/division-4/part-5/chapter-2/article-2/section-1615/).
1. The ancient practice of the groom providing a bride-price was a sort of guarantee. It showed seriousness of intent, but also if things didn't work out there was a source of income for a discarded/bereaved bride (at least in theory).
2. It's a common observation that all marriages function under a prenuptial agreement. It may be a custom one designed for a particular couple, or the default one imposed by the state; but provision as to what happens if things don't work out is made, one way or another. You don't avoid contingency planning by skipping a prenup, you just accept the state's plan.
3. Prenuptial agreements are not always found to be binding. For instance, if there is inadequate disclosure or unconscionable terms they can be overturned (https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-fam/division-4/part-5/chapter-2/article-2/section-1615/).
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
These are really interesting thoughts and further incentive to reconsider my previous position.
If prenuptials are to be a desired standard for marriages in this godless age, have any churches, denominations, or other ecclesial individuals or bodies published templates, guidelines, or the like?
Pictet
Puritan Board Freshman
It's not a denial of the stats: it's using them. The stats are actually very clear: people who say they are Christian but don't go to church have a higher divorce rate than the general population. Those who go regularly to church have a lower rate, substantially lower.
Indeed the same is true of domestic violence: the stats are clear that (in the USA) this is most likely to occur in nominal families - those who claim to be Christian, and particularly evangelical, but don't attend church. Rates here are worse than in agnostic/atheist households. But among those who claim to be Christian, and especially evangelical, and who also go to church, the rates are the lowest of all.
This isn't the same as saying that divorce (or domestic violence) aren't an appalling scourge on our churches and far more prevalent than they should be: of course they are! But it's just not objectively true that churches are as bad as the surrounding culture: that's a misleading stat that does enormous harm to the name and image of the body of Christ.
I doubt it is 'just statistical' for any of us who have been in ministry for long. It's awful - I'm in the UK, where things aren't quite as bad, at least statistically. But if you add follow-on problems from divorce and separation impacting broader family and the lives of believers whose parents split up, this probably makes up half my pastoral load. That's just not the same as saying 'it's just as bad as the world'. Even a fraction of the separations that occur in secular society are enough to cause awful damage in a congregation.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
What about writing into the prenup that the session of the church where the couple are members is given a say in the settlement? I would rather have a Church court decide things like fault (which is never 100% one-sided in my experience) and child custody than have the State do so. The lawyers could still do their part in writing up the post-marital agreement, but the session could set the parameters. I gave the Session such powers in my will when my children were minors in the event that the designated guardian/executor also passed away (they are not all minors now so that clause is no longer there). Yes, it's potentially a lot of work for a Session. This (Church involvement in ruling in financial/estate affairs) has been done before - the beginning of Acts 5 and throughout much of early European history, for example.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Oh that is definitely a thing. My soon-to-be father-in-law was impressed I already had criminal background check by NJ State Police to work security.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Or something like this.
People my age are slow to grasp at this idea of pre-wedding agreements in writing because this was simply unheard of when my wife and I married in 97.
But PA has "no fault" divorce laws throughout the State, meaning that no matter whatever case of adultery, assets will be divided 50%. The civil magistrate has dropped the ball when it comes to promising retributive justice on the party guilty of infidelity. And the agreement would be more like a re-institution of what once was universally understood when divorce courts would have punished adultery correctly (or at least nearly enough so that no spouse could just freely give themselves to the thought of the act with zero financial/stability consequences).
PA divorce law was this bad back when I get married but my wife and I just didn't think like that.
I could see being on board with a pre-agreed law between the two that the State will not have any say should either one of us fall into sin in whatever stage of our later lives in order to protect the sanctity of the bond and the marriage's true and lawful adjudication in all potential scenarios between two fallen people
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
What happens if the couple moves or changes churches?
What has stood out to me in this thread is the idea that marriage has been essentially abandoned at two levels: first, at the level of the civil magistrate; second, at the level of the social community. It prompted me to reflect on the fact that communal and legal bonds, pressures, and obligations played a significant role in preserving marriage and restraining licentiousness. In other words, it was a great example of the second use of the law in action.
Some of the comments from Ruben and Zack have helped me to see that a prenup might be one way to fill the void left by the loss of those constraints. It's definitely food for thought, that's for sure. To me, a prenup has always indicated a degree of mental reservation and mistrust, a conditionality incompatible with the Biblical idea of marriage. And at this point, I still tend to think that is how a prenup has often functioned. Unless I'm just oblivious to current trends in our society, it seems that what is being posited here is a relatively novel way of thinking about prenuptial agreements, albeit one that has some good arguments being made in its favor.
Last edited:
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Though not the same this discussion reminds me of some I have come across regarding living together. The rationale being that they can split without the nastiness of the courts.
Such a mess we live in.
Such a mess we live in.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Never thought of it like this, but this seems very true, especially the second point. As for the third point, that seems strange.
[automerge]1747154138[/automerge]
I think that would be something for churches worth looking into considering the conversation.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure how that changes anything. For example, in my will it was stated something like "the Session of the congregation where membership is held at the time of death." Again, that was in the context of the Session taking over if both of my children's parents died along with the designated guardian/executor. Of course, the Session's action could simply be to appoint a new person, but that's the point - I chose to put the temporal wellbeing of my children in the hands of those already in charge of their spiritual wellbeing.
I don't see how marriage would be different (again, the Session could choose to delegate the nitty-gritty of dividing an estate, especially in the case of extensive ones - if enough churches did this, there would probably be a para-church probate organization formed that could specialize in this for a fee taken from the estate).
I'm not sure a prenup agreement that doesn't involve the Church is wise - I think it affects the Christian witness and testimony of the couple (as well as the Church). Wouldn't the principles of Matthew 18 (if a fellow believer offends you and you cannot reconcile on your own, you take it to the elders) apply in the dissolution of marriage for situations not involving adultery?
What, if anything, can we draw from passages like Moses allowing for a bill of divorcement, and the financial compensation in marital relations covered in Deuteronomy 22?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
That might be their rationale (or the rationale of one of them) but it may not be what actually happens. Unless they have an air tight contract that's the equivalent of a pre-nup, it may well take legal process to untangle a long term relationship of living in sin. Anyone else remember Lee Marvin and the original palimony case? Even though Marvin won, the idea didn't go away.
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
Should I assume your speaking only of a prenup. Or does that include placing a hand on the Bible and taking an oath. Or a man and a woman confirming their wedding wows? Are those verbal agreements worthless?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Very few states these days recognize a verbal marriage contract. Most require a written document, witnessed and filed with the appropriate official. In a few states you can prove up a common law marriage court. Then, of course, there's a Louisiana Putative Marriage.
Do you really think putting a hand on a Bible is going to keep many, perhaps most, Americans from lying. Does anyone use Bibles for oaths any more except for ceremonial events? Even over 4 decades ago we didn't use them for oaths in court in the heart of the "Bible Belt", and they were never used for any oaths I took for federal jobs.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I haven't witnessed couples placing a hand on a Bible in their marriage ceremony, but (at least in the US) they have to acquire a (written) marriage license from the civil government. As for vows, the Westminster DPW pattern for solemnizing a marriage mentions (and requires) witnesses but not "vows," (using instead the terms "contract," "promise," and "covenant"). The DPW charges the couple and the congregation - my own opinion is that the failure of the latter to do their duty in sustaining marriages is a large reason Christian marriages fail at such an alarming rate. Perhaps the unBiblical use of "vows" gives the wrong impression of what is transpiring - a voluntary matter that one can later unvolunteer from. Maybe if treated as an oath the marriage "vows" would be taken more gravely by both the couple and the congregation. Or maybe it is simply that too much of our individualistic Western culture has seeped into our thinking in marriage as much as it has virtually every other aspect of our lives.
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
Friend that is not what I was implying. Edward got it right. My premise is that when a “Christian” makes a vow as unto the Lord they tend to keep it in the fear of the Lord in losing His blessings. What the state requires is just extra that unbelievers add in.
I’m uneducated and inferior in writing skills to probably everyone on this discussion board. I don’t have to convince anyone nor can I. I close in saying the that term Christian is used rather loosely these latter days. I say this thinking about myself and considering if it is truly God’s work within me or have I made the application unto myself. We can all sleep in the garage but that doesn’t make us a car.
Blessings,
michael_topple
Puritan Board Freshman
My wife and I had a difficult conversation about this when we were a few weeks away from being married. She was in the position of owning her own home (still paying the mortgage off), whereas I had lived with my parents until marriage (she is a few years older than me). Her non-Christian sister, and a few other friends, suggested that she "ought to have a pre-nup to protect her assets, just in case".
Both of us knew that, for a Christian, marriage in indissoluble apart from in the extreme cases that we can all think of, so neither of us had really considered a pre-nup until that point. When she brought it up with me, I was very uncomfortable with the idea: I think I recall myself saying, "Isn't a pre-nup just preparation for a divorce?" To be honest, I still hold to that view.
However I did not feel it was appropriate to refuse, or indeed to force her into something. So, instead, we prayed about it. Earnestly, and fervently. Both together, and separately. She consulted with her pastor and his wife, both of whom gave sage advice on the subject. I consulted with fellow members of presbytery whose opinions I respected. Together, in the Lord's leading, we recognised that this was not an appropriate thing for us to do. However, I did begin to make her a verbal promise (and I have read the foregoing, and the understandable claim that 'verbal promises aren't worth the paper they're printed on'), that if ever the unthinkable did happen, I would behave decently. However, half way through the sentence my (now) wife stopped me and said, "You don't need to say any more."
I realise that this is just one example of millions of marriages, but I would urge anyone who is seriously considering this to commit it to the Lord, and to faithful wise Christians, as I truly believe that the idea of pre-arranging the practicalities of a divorce strikes against the very heart of marriage which is, fundamentally, a sacrifice of one's own freedoms and liberties for the sake of the union. And, of course, from this 'sacrifice' can come great blessing.
As a follow up, a few weeks ago we purchased a house on the Isle of Lewis. We were in the blest position to be able to pay cash (having since discharged the mortgage on the house mentioned above). However, the bulk of the (previous aforementioned) house was paid for by Mrs T, before we married. The solicitor asked her whether she wanted us to have proportional ownership of the new house. This was not something we'd even considered until that point. The solicitor made very logical arguments for the suggestion, and my wife said she'd think about it. Afterwards we both committed the suggestion to prayer, and again the Lord clearly spoke into the situation for, arising from prayer, my wife exclaimed that "What's mine is yours, and what's yours is mine - therefore we can't possibly proportionally own the house" (I paraphrase slightly).
Now, don't get me wrong - our marriage is flawed in many ways, but I have noticed how over the last six or seven months (well, over the last few years of marriage to be honest) we have been drawing spiritually closer as a couple. I am now working as hard as I can to be worthy of the great trust she has placed in me, and the great love she continues to show me.
Sorry for the long message - it's just a topic close to my heart.
Both of us knew that, for a Christian, marriage in indissoluble apart from in the extreme cases that we can all think of, so neither of us had really considered a pre-nup until that point. When she brought it up with me, I was very uncomfortable with the idea: I think I recall myself saying, "Isn't a pre-nup just preparation for a divorce?" To be honest, I still hold to that view.
However I did not feel it was appropriate to refuse, or indeed to force her into something. So, instead, we prayed about it. Earnestly, and fervently. Both together, and separately. She consulted with her pastor and his wife, both of whom gave sage advice on the subject. I consulted with fellow members of presbytery whose opinions I respected. Together, in the Lord's leading, we recognised that this was not an appropriate thing for us to do. However, I did begin to make her a verbal promise (and I have read the foregoing, and the understandable claim that 'verbal promises aren't worth the paper they're printed on'), that if ever the unthinkable did happen, I would behave decently. However, half way through the sentence my (now) wife stopped me and said, "You don't need to say any more."
I realise that this is just one example of millions of marriages, but I would urge anyone who is seriously considering this to commit it to the Lord, and to faithful wise Christians, as I truly believe that the idea of pre-arranging the practicalities of a divorce strikes against the very heart of marriage which is, fundamentally, a sacrifice of one's own freedoms and liberties for the sake of the union. And, of course, from this 'sacrifice' can come great blessing.
As a follow up, a few weeks ago we purchased a house on the Isle of Lewis. We were in the blest position to be able to pay cash (having since discharged the mortgage on the house mentioned above). However, the bulk of the (previous aforementioned) house was paid for by Mrs T, before we married. The solicitor asked her whether she wanted us to have proportional ownership of the new house. This was not something we'd even considered until that point. The solicitor made very logical arguments for the suggestion, and my wife said she'd think about it. Afterwards we both committed the suggestion to prayer, and again the Lord clearly spoke into the situation for, arising from prayer, my wife exclaimed that "What's mine is yours, and what's yours is mine - therefore we can't possibly proportionally own the house" (I paraphrase slightly).
Now, don't get me wrong - our marriage is flawed in many ways, but I have noticed how over the last six or seven months (well, over the last few years of marriage to be honest) we have been drawing spiritually closer as a couple. I am now working as hard as I can to be worthy of the great trust she has placed in me, and the great love she continues to show me.
Sorry for the long message - it's just a topic close to my heart.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
This thread has been interesting (although it seems to have gone off topic a little). From the comments, it seems prenups would be up to the discretion of the couple getting married I guess. I don't really see what's unbiblical about them as prenups seem to way (especially in today's secular garbage of a society) of clarifying terms of the marriage. I guess another benefit would be that it protects the innocent party in case of divorce (which our government stinks at doing). Or maybe it's just the motivation behind it.
[automerge]1747244810[/automerge]
[automerge]1747244810[/automerge]
Long genuine messages are good.
darrellmaurina
Puritan Board Junior
Edward is right. (And yes, I know that Ploutos said he's reconsidering his position.) At an absolute minimum, any young man or young woman dating someone should be checking his/her social media and running a Google search.
Not every state makes court records easily available online, but Missouri does, and a young man or young woman in my state who isn't checking court records of someone during the dating process is making a huge mistake. Predators can be charming, but the probable cause statements filed along with criminal charges can pull the mask off that charm. Even if there aren't any serious criminal charges, it's probably important for a young man to know that his girlfriend has a lead foot that caused five speeding tickets, one of them for going 45 in a 25 mph zone. Same for legal problems due to unpaid credit cards, or a bad check case. Do you really want to find out two years after marriage that your wife declared bankruptcy to avoid paying bills she ran up during college? Or do you want to find out that your boyfriend got a driving-while-intoxicated case pleaded down to some lesser offense to avoid losing his license after a drunken party in college?
On pre-nuptial agreements, I think many of the people posting on this thread are thinking of a young couple, perhaps 18, 19, or 20, still living with their parents, or perhaps meeting in college, neither of them with significant assets, and neither with children from prior marriages or relationships. Like it or not, that's becoming less and less common as people get married later and later after finishing college -- and that's assuming the young man and young woman are both believers raised in godly homes. In dealing with adult converts, in today's American context, we can pretty much assume past moral problems and often that means child custody issues.
A more normal situation today, even in Christian circles, is two people dating and marrying in their late 20s or early 30s after establishing their careers. If one or both of the people in a couple moving from dating toward engagement have significant assets, or conversely, significant debt, they need to sit down and have a hard conversation, and that conversation may need to involve lawyers or financial professionals. If one of them has children, or is responsible for paying child support for children, lawyers need to be involved, even if it's just a matter of saying, "Please help us review the child custody paperwork and make sure we understand it." I have seen way, way, way too many people who didn't understand the details of their divorce decree until they found out the hard way what would happen following a remarriage. And that's in a "good" case of an uncontested divorce.
Things change radically with nasty divorces and custody fights. Imagine a woman whose elders have encouraged a biblical divorce of her as the innocent party due to a husband with multiple repeated affairs with multiple women, at least one of whom gave him a venereal disease that makes it physically dangerous for the victimized wife to be intimate with him. Now imagine that the wife went to court, obtained a large financial settlement, ownership of the marital home, and custody of their three children from a (now-ex) husband who is a very aggressive attorney who has made millions profiting off his legal competence, and decided to "pay off" his ex-wife with a sizeable settlement to prevent a divorce court from perhaps making him pay much more money.
If that woman doesn't get legal documents prepared prior to remarriage making clear who owns her home after marriage, and what happens to the special stock market investment fund she has established for her children's college education using the money from her ex-husband, she's likely making a huge mistake and risks serious legal consequences from her ex-husband.
Pre-nuptial agreements have a bad reputation for good reasons. However, sometimes they are the only legally enforceable way to protect one's children from an exploitive, abusive, or just generally irresponsible ex-husband or ex-wife in the event of death.
When a couple have significant assets or prior children being brought into marriage, consulting a Christian a lawyer and financial professional is prudent, and in some cases, absolutely essential.
I hope it's patently obvious that I'm not normalizing divorce. I take a harder line on that than most in the Reformed world.
What I'm saying is that because divorces do happen, and because we cannot trust the civil magistrate to protect the innocent party, even in a nasty divorce on biblical grounds, a legally binding contract can do what the civil magistrate should be doing, but refuses to do.
Practically speaking, I'm probably talking here mostly about couples with significant assets or debt, or who have children from a prior marriage. But in those cases, particularly with widows who have always been stay-at-home mothers and have no money, or older men whose wives have died and have children who they want to make sure inherit their assets, a pre-nuptial agreement can be a valuable tool to make sure that one's family is properly taken care of.
Last edited:
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
If a proposed spouse isn't honest with their disclosures, that's a bigger red flag than most thing that might be disclosed.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
You are very intelligent and thoughtful. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. This has helped me alot
darrellmaurina
Puritan Board Junior
We agree. My point was about dating, not so much about the later stages of moving toward engagement and marriage.
A woman, and if we're talking about someone in college or still living at home, also her father, have EVERY RIGHT to learn everything possible about a man with whom she is becoming emotionally attached and for whom emotions may begin to cloud her judgment, causing her to trust someone in some very important areas of her personal life at a level she wouldn't be trusting someone in business, or a classmate in school, or a co-worker.
Conversely, in the early stages of dating, I can fully understand why a young woman may not want to say that five years earlier, she made a horrible mistake with an ex-boyfriend and while there are no children involved, that was only due to God's grace. That better get disclosed BEFORE engagement, but it doesn't need to be said on a first date unless a person's past is widespread public knowledge. Same, of course, for a young man.
The sad reality in modern America is there aren't going to be very many couples who are not going to have to have some deeply embarrassing conversations before engagement. It may be as simple as saying, "I have significant student loan debt and I'm not going to saddle a spouse with it, so here are my plans to pay it off." Or it may be a lot more problematic.
Doing a check of someone's social media and court records early in the dating process, in today's world, is an important way to avoid serious pain down the road when things get found out later that should have been disclosed earlier.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'd say for anyone post college, it would be more noteworthy if they didn't have an indiscretion in their past. In some subcultures that might be more common than in others, but it's going to be a very small minority of the post college population.
darrellmaurina
Puritan Board Junior
Sadly true.
I understand the Dutch Reformed approach in which, even today, a common expectation is that many women and many men will be engaged by their senior year in college and married soon after graduation. Here in rural America where going to college is not the norm, I fully support the practice of young couples getting married shortly after high school, particularly if the man is joining the Army or has some other employment that can readily support a family.
The problem is that the divorce rate has gone sky high, parents have legitimate concerns about whether young people are mature enough to make a major decision about marriage that could destroy their lives, and the result has been that not just secularists but conservative Christians have been encouraging postponing of marriage to ages that would have been unthinkable for many in earlier generations. That raises very serious risks of immorality, particularly when a man and woman are no longer living at home with parents, which is often impossible even if desired because many young professionals will have to move to a new city for a job after graduation from college.
- Status
