Grounds for Divorce

[Woody]

If you become an SDA but your spouse doesn't - life then becomes rather difficult. Is this grounds for divorce if your spouse continues to refuse to become SDA ?

[ClubV12]

Nope!

[CoAspen]

...and what if you had more than one spouse?

[ClubV12]

The rules are pretty clear from the Church manual on all aspects of what is essentially the seventh commandment. If the non-believer chooses to leave, let them go, but it is not grounds for divorce if they stay. Nor do you have grounds to make them leave. It MAY be grounds for divorce if they leave, circumstances will have to be closely considered. Even if divorce is considered appropriate in an individual case remarrige is still prophibited. Until there is a clear violation of the seventh commandment by the leaving spouse.

In the 2000's or so the Church manual was changed to reflect cases of "abandonment". Where the leaving spouse has perhaps disappeared, has been gone a long time, or circumstances warrant such a declaration. Abandonment is also a subject that courts have to deal with from time to time as well, for various reasons (money, titles, insurance, ownership, children, etc.).

Perhaps the next question is: In a case of abandonment, with no evidence of a violation of the seventh commandment, is the remaining spouse free to remarry with the blessing of the Church? I'm not sure...

Multiple marriages in the classic sense (one at a time) are pretty clear. If you divorced and remarried outside the guidelines of the Church you are subject to disfellowship. Harsh, but those are the rules, it beats being stoned to death as was the case in years past.

[M. T. Cross]

I have asked this before, and it never got answered, what is the church's stance on divorce due to physical and/or mental abuse?

[ClubV12]

Depending on the circumstances divorce can indeed be granted in such a case Emptycross. Case by case, with substantial review concerning all the facts are of course warranted. One question I would ask is, "Can such abuse be proven and accepted in a court of law?" That would just be one of many such questions I would ponder if I was on a board making this kind of decision.

Sister White is pretty clear as to what constitutes grounds for remarriage, ONLY violation of the seventh commandment. As I think about it, that means that even in a case of abandonment, divorce may be granted, but remarriage would not. Again a case by case scenario should be employed.

What of those who HAVE remarried without Church authorization AND are currently members? The Church manual is clear, they are to be removed from membership. Can they EVER become members again? Possibly, through re-baptism. However, they would normally be excluded from ever holding any office within the Church. AGAIN, that being considered on a case by case basis, so it's not a hard and fast rule.

[Woody]

I have asked this before, and it never got answered, what is the church's stance on divorce due to physical and/or mental abuse?

It might be granted EC. But according to scriptures and our prophet - nothing but the 'violation of the marriage bed' is reason for divorce.

In the case of physical or mental abuse - legal separation is the optimal solution. But not divorce.

The separation allows for a change and conversion in the spouse. And restoration/reconciliation is always the goal.

[ClubV12]

Tricky definition of physical and mental abuse Woody. Is it sexual in nature or does it have sexual repercussions? Could these be construed as a violation of the seventh commandment? What IS "abuse"? Tricky...

I do agree with your basic premise though, legal separation would be reasonable first consideration. Realizing in some cases, some states, that may not be possible, in which case, divorce may be the only option.

[olger]

If you become an SDA but your spouse doesn't - life then becomes rather difficult. Is this grounds for divorce if your spouse continues to refuse to become SDA ?

Not according to the Scriptures!

"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

(1 Cor. 7:10-14).

[olger]

I have asked this before, and it never got answered, what is the church's stance on divorce due to physical and/or mental abuse?

The church does not permit divorce in such cases. A period of separation is needed in cases of physical abuse. Then let there be counseling and reconciliation.

[CoAspen]

I have asked this before, and it never got answered, what is the church's stance on divorce due to physical and/or mental abuse?

In this day and time, a case by case consideration, if the church were to even get involved. I believe that an organization that would wish for a person to stay in that abusive situation, even after the abuser had been through counseling or perhaps even been to prison and released does not reflect a true characterization of the Christian God. Yes you will get many quotes from the Bible, usually with out true consideration of the actual context of the situation. Tis a tricky subject, but would an abusive relationship, what ever the type, be one that God says, STAY, or you will suffer loss of salvation?

I have listened to SDA Biblical scholars give talks and discussions on this subject and it ain't exactly the same as has been taught in the past or still held to, by those of a more conservative viewpoint.

Because I will get disagreement, let me say this also......I don't speak for God and I will not assume what the relationship with God is, in such a situation. In other words....I ain't judging!!

[olger]

It is good to remember that in the counseling office there are always two sides, and it is good for each of us to own our problems and allow the Lord to resolve them through repentance and cleansing.

That said, physical abuse, adultery are offenses that must stop if the individual is to have joy and peace in his/her life. As John Wesley said "Why continue in sin? What has it ever done for you?"

We come along side of people who are struggling and help them, not just recommend a reaction that God hates (Malachi 2).

Divorce covers people with a garment of violence. Resolving issues brings a layer of peace to their life.

[Gerr]

It is good to remember that in the counseling office there are always two sides, and it is good for each of us to own our problems and allow the Lord to resolve them through repentance and cleansing.

That said, physical abuse, adultery are offenses that must stop if the individual is to have joy and peace in his/her life. As John Wesley said "Why continue in sin? What has it ever done for you?"

We come along side of people who are struggling and help them, not just recommend a reaction that God hates (Malachi 2).

Divorce covers people with a garment of violence. Resolving issues brings a layer of peace to their life.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Divorce covers people with a garment of violence.

What is that comment supposed to mean? Makes no sense as stated!

[Ted Oplinger]

If you become an SDA but your spouse doesn't - life then becomes rather difficult. Is this grounds for divorce if your spouse continues to refuse to become SDA ?

Absolutely NOT!

I was married to my sweetie in April of 1985. She was raised ELCA Lutheran, and remains such to this day.

I was baptized into the SDA church here in August of 1986. I have not for a moment taken thought of leaving my church just to have a smoother life with my wife and her family.

Paul penned these words in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, and they are crystal clear on the subject:

"But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Yet, if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

For how will you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how will you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?"

I do not see an exception here that provides for "raising children within the faith", "holding church office", or even "keeping the peace". Those are just three of a few reasons I have heard why spouses are to be let go if they are not within the SDA church. Truthfully, I see a tremendous lack of commitment to God and spouse in those reasons...and in a few others I have not listed.

Has it been easy? Absolutely not. Yet, I must ask - are those vows taken before God something serious to commit to doing for one's whole life, with one's whole heart? or are they just there for a convenience sake?

I told my wife when I was baptized that I would never initiate leaving her on the basis of faith - but that I would not fight the flesh of my flesh/bone of my bone if she wanted to leave. I also told her I would not drop her if some Adventist beauty should try to win my heart.

Next month will be 28 years...so after 26.5 years and 3 beautiful children later in my walk as an Adventist, I can say God has strengthened me and kept me true to those promises, because He has taught me through the years marriage is a commitment, not an ideal, and love is a principle to live by, and not a mere fleeting emotion.

My wife is still ELCA Lutheran...yet I know God is reaching through me to shape her faith (and our children's faiths), so long as she remains with me.

Blessings,

[Gail]

And marrying within the faith does not ensure that there won't be marital problems.

I see it that if someone tries to destroy his/her spouse the covenant is broken already.

[Ted Oplinger]

And marrying within the faith does not ensure that there won't be marital problems.

I see it that if someone tries to destroy his/her spouse the covenant is broken already.

That is so true, Gail.

Truthfully, I can say I have been pressured from within the SDA church to let go of my wife and remarry within the faith - my wife is aware of at least one very brazen attempt at this.

Yet...I have seen several Adventist marriages fall apart - two of which were pastors. My "bad" split-faith marriage still keeps going.....

Blessings,

[Gail]

I'm with you, dear Iron Deacon. It testifies to the unifying power of the Holy Spirit and what faith and love can do!

There are more members here with mixed marriages, whether faith or race, who are doing very well indeed :)

[Gregory Matthews]

From the CHURCH MANUAL, 20205 Edition, page 204:

Quote:

Scripture recognizes adultery and/or fornication (Matt. 5:32) as well as abandonment by an unbelieving partner (I Cor. 7:10-15) as grounds for divorce.

NOTE: Fornication involves issues other than adultery.

Page 206:

Quote:

In many such cases the custody of the children, the adjustment of property rights, or even personal protection may make necessary a change in marital status. In such cases it may be permissible to secure what is known in some countries as a legal separation. However, in some civil jurisdictions such a separation can be secured only by divorce.

[Gregory Matthews]

From: www.sdanet.org

Quote:

Ellen White's Position

We now turn to Ellen White's writings. A well-known statement by her son summarises Ellen White's divorce position:

"It was Sister White's intention that there should not go forth from her pen anything that could be used as a law or a rule dealing with these questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery. She felt that the different cases where the devil had led men into serious entanglements were so varied and so serious, that should she write anything that could be considered as a rule for settling such cases, it would be misunderstood and misused" -- Letter from W.C White, quoted in Testimonies on Sexual Behavior pages 6-7.

If this statement from Willie White is correct, then we are not to use what she wrote as "a law or a rule." On that basis, we should form our theology of divorce on Scriptural grounds only. However, it is still instructive to examine what she said.

Grounds for separation

Ellen White allows separation for a number of reasons:

• Marriage to a non-believer (PK 622)

• Conflict within marriage (PP 146)

• A spouse being Satan's agent (TSR 77)

• An overbearing, unyielding uncontrollable wife who is an evil influence and who may make her husband lose salvation (TSR 77)

• A spouse being violent (TSR 78)

• A spouse not knowing how to treat a partner (AH 343)

• Desertion by a spouse (AH 344)

• Unbelieving spouse wanting to depart (AH 344)

• A spouse's insanity (TSR 224-5)

• Unfaithfulness to the marriage vow (TSR 79)

• Adultery (AH 345)

This last reference (about adultery) is so adamant that it seems to contradict the previous references which allow other grounds for separation. This last reference says:

"I would say that there is only one thing for which a husband may lawfully separate from his wife or a wife from her husband, and that is adultery."

How can we reconcile this last statement with those earlier in the list? I see three possibilities.

1. This may be a personal opinion from Ellen White. Her sentence starts with "I would say," which suggests it is indeed a personal opinion.

2. This may apply only to a specific situation. The previous sentence reads: "I have received a letter from your husband." Since we do not know the matters raised in that letter, we do not know what her response means. Thus, the advice may apply only to the specific situation for which it was given. (Indeed, most of Ellen White's divorce statements are private letters written in response to specific situations. Few times in her 70 years of writing did she write publicly on divorce.)

3. Her use of the word "adultery" may cover far more than the pure linguistic use of the word.

The meaning of "adultery"

Ellen White at times seems adamant on an "adultery only" position on divorce.

"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." TSR 79

What does she mean by adultery? In Mount of Blessing pages 93-94 she agrees with Jesus' comment that the look of lust is adultery. So "adultery" to her may have a broad meaning.

Consider the meaning of the word "adultery" in the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

In Jewish thought a command which states the worst case also covers the least. Thus, a Hebrew rule that says, "Do not commit perjury," would also cover not telling white lies. (In English, we normally do the opposite. We would say, "Don't even tell white lies," and this would include perjury.)

Applying this to the Seventh Commandment would mean that it prohibits any type of sexual unfaithfulness or even other types of unfaithfulness to a spouse. So while the word "adultery" has the linguistic definition given earlier, the command covers far more. And if the command covers more, possibly Ellen White's use of the word "adultery" covers more also. Indeed, she herself says so when talking of the Seventh Commandment.

"This commandment forbids not only acts of impurity, but sensual thoughts and desires, or any practice that tends to excite them" -- PK 308.

In Testimonies to Ministers pages 434-435 she enlarges the concept of adultery to include what we listen to.

"Any woman who will allow the addresses of another man than her husband, who will listen to his advances, and whose ears will be pleased with the outpouring of lavish words of affection, of adoration, of endearment, is an adulteress".

If elsewhere Ellen White's use of "adultery" can cover all this, then perhaps it also covers this in the context of divorce. If so, it would broaden the meaning of her comment that only adultery could free a person from the marriage vow.

The marriage vow

Ellen White speaks of "the marriage vow," a concept not found in Scripture. To her, the vow in "the marriage vow" does not just include adultery, for she says,

"The wife is to respect and obey, but if she utterly refuses to keep the marriage vow...." TSR 77

Presumably, she is speaking of the traditional marriage vow to

"love, honour and obey thee [or protect thee], and to keep myself only to thee until death do us part."

Thus, a husband who bashed his wife would be unfaithful to his vow to protect her. A wife who belittled her husband would be unfaithful to her vow to honour him. And a husband who stopped loving his wife would be unfaithful to his vow to love her.

In some places it seems that Ellen White is saying that this non-biblical vow is a binding vow. The individual has vowed to never have sexual relations with anyone else, and that vow is apparently still binding even after a divorce. (Does this suggest we need a more biblical statement for bridal couples at weddings so couples will not be bound to a vow that goes beyond Scripture? Perhaps such a statement could be: "I wish to take you, Robert, as my husband for the rest of my life. What God has joined together, let no one separate.")

Authority of the church

Ellen White nowhere states that the church has any authority in matters of divorce or remarriage. It is true that when one of her staff was divorced, she referred the matter to his local Conference president for possible discipline. But this was not because of the divorce (his wife had divorced him). It was for the behaviour which had led his wife to divorce him.

In another case a couple had remarried (presumably with no adultery involved in the divorce). When church members wished to do something about it, Ellen said no.

"I advise that these unfortunate ones be left to God and their own consciences, and that the church shall not treat them as sinners until they have evidence that they are such in the sight of the holy God" -- TSR 219

The case of Ellen's former brother-in-law Stephen Belden also suggests the church has no authority in matters of divorce and remarriage. Belden had been three times married. His first wife (Ellen's sister) died. He divorced his second wife because, after contracting measles, she became insane and was placed in an asylum. Then he married a third time. People at times suggested the church do something about this third marriage because the divorce was not on the grounds of adultery. According to W.C White, Ellen White's answer was, "Let them alone" TSR 225. She felt no human authority could override his personal divorce and remarriage decision.

In Ellen's eyes, this divorce on the grounds of his wife's insanity clearly did not disqualify Belden from taking a leadership role in the church. He became a pioneer missionary to Norfolk Island, and was regularly encouraged by Ellen in this work (Manuscript Releases vol 10 pages 127-150).

The Brownsberger Case

The case of Sidney Brownsberger appears to complicate Ellen White's divorce theology. But perhaps it actually demonstrates that her total thinking is more in line with the biblical theology outlined in the first half of this submission.

Brownsberger was a very prominent SDA. He was the first principal of both of our first two university-level colleges (Battle Creek and Pacific Union) and the second secretary of the General Conference.

According to Willie White, Brownsberger's first wife "became quarrelsome and made his life miserable" -- TSR 219. His wife later divorced him and he then married another Adventist woman. There was no suggestion of adultery by his wife, thus some Adventists felt Brownsberger should not have remarried. At that time he left church employment.

Ellen White's attitude was that this divorce and remarriage did not disqualify him from taking a leadership role in the church. She wrote to several administrators trying to lead them to make a decision to re-employ him as a teacher for the new Bible School in Melbourne (which became Avondale College). When her efforts were not successful, she personally wrote to him encouraging him to join her in Australia as a missionary.

The Brownsberger case is covered in TSR pages 219-223 (where he is called "Brother G"). It is clear that the main problem Ellen White sees in him being re-employed is "whether his record will not follow him" -- TSR 221. In other words, his actions have not disqualified him; but in the Victorian era, if he was known to be a divorcee, it may prejudice minds against him.

Bias of White Estate

It is worth noting a bias of the White Estate editors who compiled the TSR chapter which includes the Brownsberger case. At the end of Ellen White's letter to Brownsberger, they have added the comment, "Written five years after Brother G's unscriptural marriage." However, Ellen White nowhere said his second marriage was unscriptural. This bias is throughout the chapter. The chapter is titled "Unscriptural Marriages" and one sub-heading refers to "Unbiblical marriages." Yet neither of these terms (nor any similar terms) are used by Ellen White (or W.C White) about any of the marriages in the chapter.

The bias of the TSR editors is also shown in the chapter on "Separation and Grounds for Divorce." They do not include material in Adventist Home where Ellen White approves of separation on grounds of: 1. a spouse not knowing how to treat a partner (AH 343), 2. desertion by a spouse (AH 344) and 3. an unbelieving spouse wanting to depart (AH 344). Yet they include material from Adventist Home which supports their "adultery only" view.

Non-adultery separations

As we have seen above, Ellen White seems to have approved of insanity as a basis for divorce (TSR 224-5). Three passages in Adventist Home allow separation on other grounds.

Adventist Home page 344 allows it when a non-believing spouse wants to depart.

"If the wife is an unbeliever... [the husband] must abide with her until she chooses of herself to depart."

The same page of Adventist Home frees a husband where his wife decides not to live with him.

"If she is thus determined not to live with you, both you and she would be most miserable to attempt it."

And Adventist Home page 343 allows separation from a husband who does not know how to treat a wife.

"I cannot advise you to return to D unless you see decided changes in him.... He does not know how to treat a wife. It would be perilous for you to again place yourself under his dictation."

Cultural differences

Cultural differences may be an explanation for the apparently conflicting inspired grounds for divorce. Perhaps Abraham was able to divorce Hagar because such family conflict was an acceptable basis for divorce in his day. However, in the Victorian era, respectable society would only allow divorce for adultery. To prevent the church falling into disrepute, it needed to equal or exceed the world's morality. So Ellen White wrote against some divorces, even though they seemed to be similar to Abraham's or Ezra 10's.

Last century, both Catholics and Protestants taught an "adultery only" divorce theology (although it has no Scriptural support). Uriah Smith adopted this view and he was far more rigid in his divorce theology than Ellen White. During his editorship of Review and Herald, it printed about a dozen articles on divorce, all of them "adultery only." If the view is correct that says the grounds for divorce are cultural, and if the culture of Ellen White's day was "adultery only" it would explain why she sometimes seems to advocate that view.

I personally feel this cultural position is unlikely to be correct, at least, it is not the total picture. However, the possibility should be considered in any serious analysis of divorce theology.

Summary of Ellen White's position

To summarise Ellen White's position: Ellen approved of separation on grounds other than adultery. At times, some of her writings seem to conflict with her other writings. But these apparently conflicting opinions may be cleared up by the possibilities that:

•1. she attached a broad range of meanings to the word "adultery,"

•2. that what she wrote applied to very specific situations,

•3. that some of her now-published comments were her personal opinion, and/or

•4. that what she wrote applied in her culture only.

The website from which this came gives a more extended discussion which includes discussion of the O.T. and the N.T positions on divorce.

[Woody]

Quote:

I see it that if someone tries to destroy his/her spouse the covenant is broken already.

Is a broken covenant in this particular case you have presented Gail ---- grounds for divorce.

I would be so bold as to say that ALL marriage covenants have been broken at one time or another. But till death due us part means something different to some compared to others.

[Woody]

Ellen White was very clear on the issue of divorce:

Quote:

"Nothing but the violation of the marriage bed can either break or annul the marriage vow" Ellen White Adventist Home p.341

[ClubV12]

On violation of the seventh commandment:

Said the angel, "This is not the sin of ignorance. It is a known sin, and will receive the awful visitation of God, whether committed by old or young." Never was this sin regarded by God to be so sinful as at present..."

The Early Years (290)

The Church not only has a right to be involved in issues of divorce and remarriage they have a DUTY to be involved! This is not a sin that can be overlooked.

"I saw the seventh commandment had been broken by some who are now held in fellowship by the church, and in consequence God’s frown is upon the church. This sin is awful in these last days and the church has brought God’s frown and curse upon them in regarding this sin lightly."

The Early Years (290)

I have made no attempt to define adultery, that is not the purpose of this post.

[Kevin H]

Please forgive me in that I do not reacall the sourse, but I also have a memory of George Vandeman also stating this after I heard it the first time. However when I was at the seminary, someone pointed out that the word translated "Adultry" in Matt 5:32 was actually a word that the translators did not know how to translate and that Adultry was just an educated guess. Then it was pointed out that while it is still an unclear word, that there was evidence that it may include more than adultery but also include ideas such as being in an abusive relationship and Abandonment.

Now I'm not sure about any more discoveries on this text in the past 30 years, but I did find those comments interesting.

[Woody]

Quote:

Then it was pointed out that while it is still an unclear word, that there was evidence that it may include more than adultery but also include ideas such as being in an abusive relationship and Abandonment.

Then that would be going against what Ellen White clearly indicated in my above quote.