Married by the church divorced by the State.

[Woody]

Be gentle with me folks ... but this is something I don't understand. Why is it that one gets married by an Adventist Minister in an Adventist Church ... but when it comes to divorce ... the church has no role?

When one gets a divorce ... you go to the court. Not a church. Not a minister. Just a nonChristian Judge.

I am not suggesting anything by this post. I am just asking questions. Should the chruch be involved in divorces. Perhaps the church could save a few marriages if they were. Would the outcome of custody be better if the church was granting the divorce? Would people think twice before rushing to divorce if the church was the one they had to go to?

I am sure there are many consequences that I may not be aware of. But should the church be involved or not?

[Stan]

You are kinda right...

If I was to marry I would end up saying "By the power invested to me by the Province of British Columbia I now declare you man and wife", I would perform that ceramony on behalf of the province/state/country that I live in.

some would say "By the power invested to me by the Province of British Columbia and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I now declare you man and wife"

[Woody]

Okay ... in trying to answer my own question ... I came across this:

Quote:

"Still Married in God's Sight, Although Divorced.-- A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God." {AH 344.2}

What are the implication of this quote?

[olger]

Very solemn. Anabaptists understand the Scriptures to say that marriage is for life. If someone divorces and marries another they are living in a state of adultery. Thus you cannot join the more conservative anabaptist fellowships if you have a living spouse and are married to another person.

Ellen seems to concur in the aforementioned quote. Paul also plainly states that we are married to that person as long as they live (Romans 7:3). So how do we turn this around in our church?

Require a divorced person to live single until they or their spouse dies? Ezra 10.

Initiate a strong anti-divorce campaign in our church. (should be doing this already to children & adults alike).

Let it drift, and mirror the world in abortions, divorces, etc..

olger

[Woody]

Okay ... in trying to answer my own question ... I came across this:

Quote:

"Still Married in God's Sight, Although Divorced.-- A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God." {AH 344.2}

What are the implication of this quote?

How does one relate to a spouse who is unBiblically married to another when they are Biblically married to you? I am sure that this must happen frequently. Does the church make any kind of stand on this or just keep silent?

[nuff sed]

"How does one relate to a spouse who is unBiblically married to another when they are Biblically married to you? I am sure that this must happen frequently. Does the church make any kind of stand on this or just keep silent?"

[phkrause]

I've always got the feeling that when one has sexual relations, that they are considered married to that person. Didn't Jesus when talking to the woman at the well kind of imply this? Just a thought!

pk

[oldsailor29]

I've always got the feeling that when one has sexual relations, that they are considered married to that person. Didn't Jesus when talking to the woman at the well kind of imply this? Just a thought!

pk

Paul certainly says that very clearly. 1 Cor 6:16

[Morning Glory]

Sobering thought.........

Morning Glory

[phkrause]

I know that God forgives when we ask. But how many of us actually think about what God is saying here?

pk

[oldsailor29]

Okay ... in trying to answer my own question ... I came across this:

Quote:

"Still Married in God's Sight, Although Divorced.-- A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God." {AH 344.2}

What are the implication of this quote?

Just want to point out a couple of things to consider. According to scripture, sex is marriage. And the only reason for divorce is fornication, according to Paul. Fornication is somewhat more sinful than mere adultery. Fornication has the implication of harlotry.

The other thing is this: since Biblically, sex is marriage, the only non-Biblical marriage would be one without sex. In fact, it wouldn't be a marriage at all. It would be like the woman at the well, who was living with a man who was not her husband. They had not joined themselves together. This would be a non-Biblical marriage, which is quite the opposite of a marriage without the religious ritual.

This implies that Biblically, people who have had casual sex with multiple partners are married to all of them.

[Tallmark]

I went through a divorce, and it's agonizing enough without problems from the "brethren". (I didn't have any of those problems, thankfully!) Asking for forgiveness is the only option. It seems that the only time the brethren get involved is when someone wants to remarry. No one consoles the divorcee. Only when they find happiness again that they want to interfere.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Okay ... in trying to answer my own question ... I came across this:

Quote:

"Still Married in God's Sight, Although Divorced.-- A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God." {AH 344.2}

What are the implication of this quote?

Just want to point out a couple of things to consider. According to scripture, sex is marriage. And the only reason for divorce is fornication, according to Paul. Fornication is somewhat more sinful than mere adultery. Fornication has the implication of harlotry.

The other thing is this: since Biblically, sex is marriage, the only non-Biblical marriage would be one without sex. In fact, it wouldn't be a marriage at all. It would be like the woman at the well, who was living with a man who was not her husband. They had not joined themselves together. This would be a non-Biblical marriage, which is quite the opposite of a marriage without the religious ritual.

This implies that Biblically, people who have had casual sex with multiple partners are married to all of them.

OS29, hello and how are you..

There are numerous Biblical principles that contradict your "theory" equating sex & marriage.

1) Sex with a woman (not your wife) is referred to as a "strange woman" throughout the Proverbs. Repeatedly, we men are counseled to keep away from the "strange woman." This parallels Paul's counsel to flee sexual immortality in 1 Corinthians 6:18. The reason is that sex outside of marriage is not the gateway to marriage, but rather to moral consequences. If having sex was all there was to initiate marriage, God would not have instituted death for those who do it (Leviticus). They would simply have put their joint name on a mailbox and set up housekeeping.

2) We have descriptions of weddings and marriages in the Bible. We are told in those descriptions that sex is to come after the marriage, not before. In rare cases where a man has done it wrong by lying with a virgin, the father of the virgin makes the decision whether they shall marry and the man must pay a dowry either way (Exodus 22:16). They were not automatically married. If it happened in a public place (town, city), both were to be stoned. And, in Deuteronomy 22, we are told that a father must give his daughter to a man as a wife. There was a ceremony involved, and a test to verify virginity on the honeymoon night. A daughter who had played the harlot was to be stoned (Deut 22:21), she was not considered to be previously married by reason of her sexual immorality. She died as a harlot, not a married woman. A man who forces sex on a woman in a remote place must be stoned - he is not considered married, he is considered a dead rapist.

regards,

og

[Tom Wetmore]

...This implies that Biblically, people who have had casual sex with multiple partners are married to all of them.

I have reached the same conclusion on this topic. A close look at the rules Moses established, apart from the one allowing for divorce, for the children of Israel do trend in this direction. And likewise a very careful look at what Jesus said leaves no room for divorce in God's eyes - the marrying for life spoken of by Olger. (But take it one step beyond this life even - see below...)

A bit of gospel score keeping - three gospels record the statement of Jesus about divorce/remarriage. But only Matthew includes the phrase "except for fornication" that would allow any grounds for divorce. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) Neither Luke nor Mark include that get out of marriage free excuse. (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18) Did Mark and Luke miss that, or did Matthew (or someone else much later) add it? I am inclined to say the score is 2:1 that Jesus didn't qualify his statement at all. In fact if you read Jesus' further elaboration he clearly says that it was only Moses caving into the people's stubbornness* to grant any divorce. He says unequivocally that what God joins together, no man is to separate.

I might also suggest that the "until death do us part" language of traditional vows is likewise inconsistent with God's plan. If there is a resurrection, what God has joined together has not been separated. Death is also not a get out of marriage free excuse. This may help resolve Jesus' difficult statement "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be divorced..." in Matthew 22:29-32. I think the vow should be "For I am convinced and committed that neither death nor life, neither angels or demons, neither present or future, nor any powers, neither height or depth, nor anything else in all creation shall be able to separate us from the love of God that has joined us together as one in Christ Jesus our Lord!"

* God frequently used the marriage metaphor to characterize his relationship to and love for his people. Likewise, when they left him, he used the adultery metaphor to describe their sin against him. But God always took them back and forgave their adultery. Jesus statement about stubbornness referenced the human unwillingness to forgive adultery. If the gospel of forgiveness doesn't cover adultery it is a total sham.

Tom

[Key Guy]

God frequently used the marriage metaphor to characterize his relationship to and love for his people. Likewise, when they left him, he used the adultery metaphor to describe their sin against him. But God always took them back and forgave their adultery. Jesus statement about stubbornness referenced the human unwillingness to forgive adultery. If the gospel of forgiveness doesn't cover adultery it is a total sham.

For a congregation, there is such a delicate balance to dealing with divorce and remarriage of a member. Most times a divorce hurts friends and family members in that church. Sides are often taken as to whose at fault and the ability to forgive or encourage the divorcing parties to do the right thing is made all the more difficult. Churches can and are split over a messy divorce.

Many marriages are not salvageable. The divorcing parties are suffering enough with their own self-inflicted guilt, yet the church will heap a few more tons of guilt on them, making their quest for redemption and restoration seem like an impossible dream.

One of the most uplifting words for a sin-burdened member comes directly from Christ's own lips: "Go and sin no more". He's not condoning sin (including divorce) in that statement. Rather, He is heaping forgiveness when needed most, along with a healthy dose of forgetfulness. The sins are buried in the depths of the sea and life goes on. That precisely what He died for.

If divorcees experienced this attitude from the church, the walk in the light of God's love would be so much easier and blessed. I know there is a price to pay for the indiscretions (loss of church office, perhaps loss of membership), but that can be balanced with a love for redemption and encouragement to sinless living.

[olger]

Tom,

I am in agreement with your words on forgiveness. We are taught in the book of Hosea that God's highest ideal is forgiveness & reconciliation. It is a beautiful thing when a spouse chooses to resolve their bitterness & forgive, and the other spouse repents & resolves their moral failure.

We all need God's grace desperately - with it we can forgive - with it we can obey Him whom we love.

og

[TreeOfLife]

King Solomon’s Divorce Decree

Be gentle with me folks ... but this is something I don't understand. Why is it that one gets married by an Adventist Minister in an Adventist Church ... but when it comes to divorce ... the church has no role?

When one gets a divorce ... you go to the court. Not a church. Not a minister. Just a nonChristian Judge.

I am not suggesting anything by this post. I am just asking questions. Should the chruch be involved in divorces. Perhaps the church could save a few marriages if they were. Would the outcome of custody be better if the church was granting the divorce? Would people think twice before rushing to divorce if the church was the one they had to go to?

I am sure there are many consequences that I may not be aware of. But should the church be involved or not?

[nuff sed]

If the truth be known...the legal standing of marriage is that of the State and not the Church. When a minister performs the ceremony in the church he does so "with the permission of the state" to do so.

Remember the words,"As a minister of the gospel and by the authority invested in me by the State of _______"? Therefore the state is responsible for the marriage and also for the divorce if there is one. The "church" legally has no say in the matter..... nor does the state care what the church thinks of the whole matter.

[Gregory Matthews]

I've always got the feeling that when one has sexual relations, that they are considered married to that person. Didn't Jesus when talking to the woman at the well kind of imply this? Just a thought!

pk

Let us think abou it:

1) A man could recieve sexual favors from a prostitute.

2) That would result in a Biblical marriage to the prostitute.

3) The man could then assume that within 24 hours the prostitute would have provided sexual favors to another person.

4) That would give the man the Biblical right to consider himself divorced from his wife, the prostitute.

5) Such would then give him the right to seek to be married in the manner that I stated in # 1.

Does this seem right to you?

[Gregory Matthews]

If the truth be known...the legal standing of marriage is that of the State and not the Church. When a minister performs the ceremony in the church he does so "with the permission of the state" to do so.

Remember the words,"As a minister of the gospel and by the authority invested in me by the State of _______"? Therefore the state is responsible for the marriage and also for the divorce if there is one. The "church" legally has no say in the matter..... nor does the state care what the church thinks of the whole matter.

1) Depends upon the law where you live, but probably generally correct in the United States.

2) In colorado any competent adult is legally authorized to perform a marriage to include the people who are getting married.

3) The citizens of South Korea are married when the two people sign the "Family Register."

4) I married my wife (a U.S. citizen) in Seoul, Korea. We became married under Korean law when the two of us traveled to three different civil offices, signed papers and obtained various stamps (looked like postage stamps but were not) which were placed upon the documents.

5) We became married under U.S. law when the two of us traveled to the U.S. Embasy, showed the officials the properly stamped and signed papers mentioned in # 4 above and then signed some more papers.

6) The Church had no legal standing in relation to my present marriage to my wife. None.

Folks, the law of the country governs marriage and the laws differ not only from State to State (in the U.S.) but from country to country.