"Evangelical Separation Anxiety"

[bookslover]

What do you think of this article which appears on the Wall Street Journal's website. It's called "Evangelical Separation Anxiety" and deals with Christian attitudes toward divorce.

Go to www.opinionjournal.com/taste and click on "houses of worship" to see the article.

I'm interested in PBer's opinions.

 

[Scott Shahan]

In modern life, of course, the reasons for divorce go well beyond adultery, and fairly rapid remarriage is common. Evangelicals are part of this modern trend: Many have privately abandoned the Bible's teaching on divorce. American law has pushed them along. For many years, divorce was a tort--legally possible only if one party to the marriage contract had violated it. Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, signed a no-fault divorce bill in 1970, and within 15 years every state in the union had a similar law. The cultural conversation shifted away from marriage's mutual obligations--codified in law--and toward personal fulfillment.

California's court system couldn't handle all of the divorces, they were being flooded with all of the divorces, so they had to get these divorces done as quickly and as easy as possible. I do not know what Reagan's religious beliefs were, but he certainly made divorce alot easier. Sin is now alot easier, and the state will aid you in sinning easier. No-fault divorce means irreconcilable differences, which is not a biblical grounds for divorce, but the States aren't interested in "biblical grounds". Divorce is a plag on this society, and it is Reagan's bill that assists in progessing that plag.

 

[beej6]

I have seen the no-fault divorce option argued as a positive for Christian divorce. There is of course much confusion over what is "legal" as opposed to what is "right," especially in the eyes of God.

Before no-fault divorce (you social historians, please correct me if I'm wrong), it was difficult, sometimes impossible, for an abused or neglected wife to divorce her husband who had abandoned her. Yet the ultimate goal of such divorce would still be reconciliation, as it is when the church excommunicates a person with the ultimate intent of winning back that wayward brother or sister.

Also, without no-fault divorce, I don't see how a marriage which became unequally yoked (and the non-Christian spouse unwilling to change) could be properly resolved should the believing spouse decide to divorce and, later, remarry.

 

[turmeric]

I don't believe the believing spouse is supposed to leave the unbeliever unless that one decides to leave. No-fault divorce makes that easier however.

 

[Chris]

In modern life, of course, the reasons for divorce go well beyond adultery, and fairly rapid remarriage is common. Evangelicals are part of this modern trend: Many have privately abandoned the Bible's teaching on divorce. American law has pushed them along. For many years, divorce was a tort--legally possible only if one party to the marriage contract had violated it. Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, signed a no-fault divorce bill in 1970, and within 15 years every state in the union had a similar law. The cultural conversation shifted away from marriage's mutual obligations--codified in law--and toward personal fulfillment.

California's court system couldn't handle all of the divorces, they were being flooded with all of the divorces, so they had to get these divorces done as quickly and as easy as possible. I do not know what Reagan's religious beliefs were, but he certainly made divorce alot easier. Sin is now alot easier, and the state will aid you in sinning easier. No-fault divorce means irreconcilable differences, which is not a biblical grounds for divorce, but the States aren't interested in "biblical grounds". Divorce is a plag on this society, and it is Reagan's bill that assists in progessing that plag.

Be careful blaming Reagan for divorce. Shifting the blame away from the parties involved isn't the solution.

 

[Scott]

Be careful blaming Reagan for divorce. Shifting the blame away from the parties involved isn't the solution.

There can be multiple causes and bad law is one.

 

[Scott]

I have seen the no-fault divorce option argued as a positive for Christian divorce. There is of course much confusion over what is "legal" as opposed to what is "right," especially in the eyes of God.

Before no-fault divorce (you social historians, please correct me if I'm wrong), it was difficult, sometimes impossible, for an abused or neglected wife to divorce her husband who had abandoned her. Yet the ultimate goal of such divorce would still be reconciliation, as it is when the church excommunicates a person with the ultimate intent of winning back that wayward brother or sister.

Also, without no-fault divorce, I don't see how a marriage which became unequally yoked (and the non-Christian spouse unwilling to change) could be properly resolved should the believing spouse decide to divorce and, later, remarry.

Abandonment was a legally acceptable reason to secure a divorce. If a woman was in that situation, she did not need no-fault divorce.

 

[Herald]

Actually it does come down to the person who chooses to sin. The desire to sin first comes from the heart. That said, laws that make sin easier exasbarate the problem, they don't cause it.

 

[Scott]

Actually it does come down to the person who chooses to sin. The desire to sin first comes from the heart. That said, laws that make sin easier exasbarate the problem, they don't cause it.

A failure to act can be a cause. This is nonfeasance. One who has a duty to act and fails to do so can be jointly responsible for wrongs done