The destructive consequences of secularization
of the family values from a pastoral perspective
Where we are?
The last 23 years Bulgaria has been
shifting from rather conservative mentality to more and more liberal
thinking in the area of marriage and divorce. Before the fall of
communism in the late 90's, the divorce, although allowed by the law,
was considered as a social crime. The predominant thinking was: "You
have to stay with your wife/husband no matter how she/he treats you.
It's about the children you have to keep the marriage. What would
people say if you divorce?"
Now we change more and more our thinking on this issue and as a whole
we have moved to the opposite pole: "He/she
treats me bad (don't want to fulfil all my whims), I don't love
him/her any more, so I'll seek for another one. Actually what's the
marriage about? It's just a contract, a paper."
These two attitudes towards marriage and divorce are predominantly
non-Christian's, but are finding more and more ground in the church,
among Christians. What I'm really interested in and want to search
for is where is the border between the two opinions or more - has the
divorce on mutual consent grounds in the Bible or the Church
Tradition.
The surveys made by Bulgarian
National Statistic Institute show that 13 % of Bulgarians in 2001
live as family without having civic and church marriage. The number
of children born outside the marriage increased from 0.4 % in
1901-1905 to 42.1 % in 2001. Half of the children are born out of
marriage. In 2012 the rate of divorces in Bulgaria was 56% (21167
marriages, 11947 divorces). 10 % of the marriages include one or two
divorcees. The women identifying themselves as Bulgarian Orthodox
Christians are in the end of the chart of giving birth to children
compared to other religions. These frightening numbers show that the
holy institute of marriage in Bulgaria is in crisis. "The
trend in modern society is to make divorce easier, as was the case in
both Jewish and Greko-Roman societies. ... In the first-century
Greko-Roman world the "free marriage" had almost completely
replaced the 'manus'
marriage, and
so divorce had become simply a matter of separation. In modern
societies the number of grounds for divorce steadily increased up to
the end of the 1960's when the concept of the no-fault divorce was
introduced in both the United States and the United Kingdom, as well
as in other countries."
My thesis in this
paper is that the marriage crisis is directly connected to the
secular view of it, that is spread intensively even among Christians
all over the world. I argue in this work that divorce for the reason
other than adultery have never been and would never be Christian
option. Today’s trend of divorce on mutual consent is a mindset
adopted gradually during the centuries, when the Church ethics in
this area has been highly dominated by the Roman Civilian Law.
Today, where the official church has
a strict teaching on the marriage and divorce as with the
Roman-Catholic Church much rarely the married can decide to separate
with divorce. I will not try to defend the RC teaching but to make a
call with this paper to rethink our teaching on the issue of divorce.
Obviously when a country's religion is Roman-Catholicism the rates of
divorce are considerably lower compared to the other countries that
are Protestant. The restored Early Christian sacramental view of the
marriage would be the remedy for this secular alternative, which is
destructive for the Christian marriage, especially the Methodist
Christian marriage.
Two cases of divorce
To illustrate the problem with divorce I will give two
authentic cases.
First
case:
The
wife commits adultery. The husband has the legal right to divorce,
but he wants to keep the marriage. His wife, however doesn’t. She
wants divorce, but he refuses to agree to sign. In the end he decides
to divorce. Now he is determined to divorce after these eight months
of attempts to keep the marriage. The wife who at this time has
quited her relationships with the other guy wants to stop him from
divorcing, but he does it officially. He has already found another
woman and does not want to go on with his marriage anymore.
Comment:
Nobody would argue if adultery is legal reason to divorce. Due to the
adultery, the man has his right to divorce according to God's Law
and the Gospel. But when there is possibility the marriage to be
saved, isn't it a duty of spouses to give their best to do it? The
way divorce is given so easily shows spouses doesn't value the
marriage highly as they have to.
Second
case: The wife
is faithful to her husband, but he is deeply disappointed, offended
by her attitude towards him and wants divorce. In the end he divorces
her.
Comment:
Every
married person expect to receive respect and love from his/her
partner. But when it's not the case is it reason for divorce? The
Bible has a lot to say about family relationships, especially between
the spouses. And it never
encourage
divorce in case of mistreatment or offensive attitude. On the
contrary, if the husband is disobedient to Christ and His teaching
and even terror and threaten his wife (1 Peter 3:1,6) she is expected
to be with him, to obey him in everything which is not contrary to
Christ's teaching. The same can be said for the wife. If she treats
badly her husband, he is expected to continue to love and take care
of her (Eph. 5:28-29), to be not bitter against her, to give her
protection, affection and assistance, and not bitter or offensive
words (Col. 3:19).
In
these two cases the result of the sin of the spouses is divorce. But
are the problems of the partners irresolvable? Is divorce the only
solution? Is it a solution? In the most cases divorce is the easier
decision, not the ultimate solution.
The
nature of marriage
In
the Christian understanding of marriage the
connection between Ecclesiastical and Civilian Law, although
complicated is direct. When seen in the biblical perspective marriage
have three dimensions: spirit, soul and body.
Mystery
(Eph. 5:32) – it’s the spiritual dimension of the marriage. The
same way Christ is connected inseparably, unchangeably with the
Church, the man is one with his wife; sex is not the beginning of
the marriage (Gen. 2:23).
Covenant (Mal. 2:14) – life-long dedication and
faithfulness, it’s dimension of the soul
Social
contract, deal, act, feast (Gen. 24; ) – there are public promises
they give to each other, gifts they give to each other, feast that
signs the beginning of their marriage. The consuming of the marriage
is the normal end of this process of entering into marriage.
Obligation of the man to nurture and lovingly care of his wife is
part of this social visible side of it. This is the bodily
dimension.
Marriage
in the Roman Civilian Law is recognized
by the law factual relationships between a man and a woman, leading
to life-long co-habitation.
It begins with agreement between both of them. It had always been
seen as a contract.
The
Byzantine understanding of marriage was much influenced of the bible
teaching. The divorce was not allowed. Whoever divorced without
respectable reason was excommunicated. After
the decree of emperor Leo
VI (†912)
which changed the way of adopting a child and of marriage, these were
not counted as purely civilian proceedings. From then on they had to
be blessed by the church. Without church blessing the union between
man and woman was not counted legal marriage, but illegal
co-habitation. This was a regulation confirming sacramental part of
the marriage. Christians could not marry with just signing a marital
contract. The legalization, materialization and fulfillment of the
marriage was in and through the God’s Spirit, acting in the Church.
Regrettably due to this new law, Church had to bless every marriage,
no matter if it's according to church norms, and was forced to
tolerate and allow divorces which were inseparable part of Roman Law.
The Church turned into a tool in the hand of the state.
Different
churches see the marriage as a whole alike. Despite the emphasis is
on different parts of the nature of marriage, we can see they
understand marriage as mystery(sacrament), covenant, lifelong
dedication, union or/and
a contract.
Roman-Catholic
understanding
- RCC sees the
marriage as a sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church,
and as a bond established by God Himself - indissoluble.
It is very typical for a sacramental church as RCC to seek and see
connection between the sacraments. So they see internal and
necessary connection between Baptism and the Christian Marriage:
"The
entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ
and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God,
is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath
which
precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its
turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of
Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace,
marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New
Covenant."
Eastern-Orthodox
understanding
- The marriage is a sacrament, established by God, announced by God
in the OT (Gen. 2:23-24) and reaffirmed by Christ. "There
is no “legalism” in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. It is
not a juridical contract. It contains no vows or oaths. It is, in
essence, the “baptizing and confirming” of human love in God by
Christ in the Holy Spirit."
The
civil "marriage" is not real marriage. "A
civil marriage or one by common law is not recognized by the Church.
Christians should keep all the laws of our Church regarding the
sacrament of marriage so that they do not sin, and so that they have
the blessing of God for the betrothed to live honourably and
happily, and to raise children in "the knowledge and teachings
of the Lord.""
Methodist
understanding –
Christian has to marry Christian. The Christian Marriage is a
covenant between a
man and a woman, as is written in the Book of Discipline: We
affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant
that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and
shared fidelity between
a man and a woman.
"The
covenant of marriage
was established by God" (Book of Worship[BOW], p.116).
It
is a
lifelong dedication:
"Will
you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in
health, and forsaking
all others, be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?"(BOW,
p.117). In
the marriage vows bridegroom and bride dedicate themselves to each
other: "until
we are parted by death" (BOW,
p.120).
That
the marriage is a
mystery
is clearly seen in the connection made in the blessing and
exchange of the rings between: the "inward
and spiritual grace, signifying to us the union
between Jesus Christ and his Church"
(which
is named in the Scriptures
'mystery',
see Eph. 5:32)
and
the
"inward
and spiritual grace, signifying to all the
uniting of Name and Name in holy marriage"
(BOW, p.121).
In
the Service
of Chistian Marriage I it's
an
union:
"declare your intention to enter into union
with each other
through the grace of Jesus Christ, who calls you into union with
himself as acknowledged in your baptism." (BOW, p.117)
Our
Methodist tradition clearly draw the same connection between the
mystery of Christian Marriage and the Baptism as an union with
Christ and His Church, which can be seen in the RCC
Cathechism. This same connection between the sacrament of Baptism
and Christian Marriage is drawn also in the Report of the Baptism
Study Committee "By
Water and Spirit":
"Marriage
is to be understood as a covenant
of love and commitment with mutual promises and responsibilities.
For the Church, the marriage covenant is grounded in the covenant
between God and God’s people into which Christians enter in their
baptism."
The
civil marriage is a solemn contract,
but the
church marriage is
covenant.
(BOW,
A Service for the Recognition or the Blessing of a Civil Marriage,
p.133)
What
about divorce?
Methodism
in America experienced significant change of attitude toward marriage
after the World War II. Earlier the adultery had been the only
acceptable ground for divorce, and the ministers could remarry only
the innocent party of a divorce. "Divorce
rates doubled between 1950 and the 1980's. The image of marriage
shifted from enduring covenant to limited contract - and later, under
no-fault divorce laws, to a contract that could be dissolved by
either partner for any (or even no) reason whatever. ... At the 1968
union the Methodist "Social Creed" ... said nothing about
grounds of divorce."
What
would happen if Adam divorced Eve after they've sinned? What would
happen if he had said: "I
don't love her anymore. She is the cause of all my suffering. She is
guilty of murder, because she seduced me to eat what's forbidden and
now we will die. She is the reason I live now miserable life."?
Now all the human race would not exist. Adam had a really
good
reason to divorce, but he didn't. Thank God for it!
Possibility
for divorce was unchangeable part of Byzantine civic law in all the
times. The divorce was divided into four categories: Divortium
consensu (mutual
consent); Divortium
bona gratia (for
respectable reason); Divortium
ex justa causa (for
legal reason); Divortium
sine justa causa (without
legal reason).
The
materialization of divorce happened through repudium,
bill of divorce, given before 5 to 12 witnesses.
According to the Holy Scriptures
marriage as a mystery, which signify the unity of Christ with His
Church cannot be erased by a court decision. The Early Christian
fathers stick to this biblical view. All of them have accord in the
opinion, that no-fault divorce is not allowed for the Christians.
John Chrysostom
opined that
Christians have to follow ecclesiastical and not secular norms.
Gregory of Nyssa
argued
that divorce
contradicts completely to the Church law.
Ambrose of
Mediolano
insisted
Christians to
stop following civilian laws, and that divorce and second marriage
allows human, but not God’s law: "The
divine law has bound together husband and wife by its authority, and
yet mutual love remains a difficult matter. For God took a rib from
the man, and formed the woman so as to join them one to the other,
and said: “They shall be one flesh.” He said this not of a second
marriage but of the first, for neither did Eve take a second husband,
nor does holy Church recognize a second bridegroom."
Augustine of
Hippo, in
his work, Of the
Good of Marriage,
was explicit: "The
compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that
they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation;
and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even
after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with
a woman."
He
also taught that a man must not put away his wife, even if she is
barren, and he wants to marry one of whom to have children.
The
Reformers were also in accord with the Fathers on this matter. For
example, according to
John Calvin,
divorce was forbidden, "but
an exception is added; [when, add.
mine] for the woman, by fornication,
cuts herself off, as a rotten member, from her husband, and sets him
at liberty. Those who search for other reasons ought justly to be set
at nought, because they choose to be wise above the heavenly
teacher."
John
Wesley
experienced a lot of problems in his marriage, but never divorced. He
lived in separation with his legal wife, because of her overwhelming
jealousy which tended to hinder the work of Wesley as a leader of the
Methodist movement. In his Thoughts
upon Slavery
he says something that reveals his attitude to human laws which try
to weaken and even reject God's supreme justice and principles: "The
main argument of the oppressors is that slavery is authorized by law.
But can human law change the justice of God's created order? Can it
turn darkness into light, or evil into good? By no means! Right is
right, and wrong is still wrong."
It
sounds quite similar to the arguments against divorce of the Early
Fathers.
Official
statements of the churches for the right of divorce and reasons for
it differ, sometimes drastically.
According
to the Roman
Catholic Church
divorce is theologically inadmissible, so if "there
are some situations in which living together becomes practically
impossible ... the Church permits the physical
separation
of the couple and their living
apart. The
spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are
not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the
best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. ... Today there
are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil
divorce and contract new civil unions. ... The Church maintains
that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first
marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find
themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law.
Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as
this situation persists." RCC
seems to has preserved the Early Christian and biblical
understanding of divorce and remarriage.
The
teaching of the Eastern
Orthodox Church
is, that "According
to the teaching of Christ, the sacrament of matrimony is
indissoluble. For only one reason is marriage dissolved and divorce
granted. Let us listen to Christ: "But I say to you that every
one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes
her an adulteress"" Divorce
is not allowed, except on the biblical ground. These who have not
fulfilled the ideal conditions of marriage have the right through
penance, sincere confession of sins and genuine promise of good life
together for second marriage. "The
Holy Orthodox Church does, however, permit divorce and remarriage,
quoting as her authority the words of the Savior: For your hardness
of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives ... While in
principle the church regards the marriage bond as lifelong and
indissoluble, and condemns the breakdown of marriage as a sin and an
evil, she still desires to help the sinners and to allow them a
second chance. Thus, when a marriage has ceased to be a reality, the
Church does not insist on the preservation of a legal fiction.
Divorce, therefore, is seen as an exceptional, but necessary
concession to human weakness. Yet, while helping men and women to
rise again after a fall, the Church does not view a second or third
union as being the same as the first and thus, in the ceremony for a
second or third marriage, several joyful ceremonies are omitted and
replaced by penitential prayers. Orthodox Canon Law permits a
second or third marriage, but more than that is strictly
forbidden."
Remarried
persons are not excluded from the sacrament of Eucharist.
According
to United
Methodist Church
"God’s
plan is for lifelong, faithful marriage. The church must be on the
forefront of premarital, marital, and postmarital counseling in
order to create and preserve strong marriages. However, when
a married couple is estranged beyond reconciliation,
even after thoughtful consideration and counsel, divorce
is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness".
The Book of
Discipline of The United Methodist Church
- 2012.
¶161
So
after so many different views, can we be steady on our opinion when
is divorce necessary and can be approved of by the church? In the EOC
when one of the spouses chooses to become a monk, respectively to
"marry" God, this higher marriage quits this between the
spouses. This happens with the agreement of the other partner and
with blessing of the bishop. But UMC is not EOC, so we have different
Ecclesiastical rules. In my opinion the church should never give her
approval of mutual consent divorce no matter how broken are the
relationships of the spouses. The divorce have always been human
invention, consequence of the sin (Mt. 19:3-12; Mk. 10:2-12), and God
have never approved of it (Mt 19:6; Mk. 10:9).
Sacramental
view of the Marriage - a possible remedy against divorce?
We
are a protestant church. Some say the sacramental view on marriage is
not compatible with our Protestant identity. Their question is: Is
it not an Eastern-Orthodox or Roman-Catholic perspective? I
would answer: Yes,
it really is EO and RC Christian
perspective,
but isn't the understanding of marriage as a mystery a serious
challenge to our Protestant liberalism?
We,
as Protestants, say we believe God's word - the Bible. But it seems
that traditional, obsolete and "superstitious" churches as
EO and RC accept the words of the Bible more seriously than many
"Protestant" churches. Not everything "Protestant"
is really helpful or contents the Truth. As a whole, some aspects of
the Protestant understanding and exegesis can't endure a serious
critique. For example the Eastern-Orthodox Fr. John Whitefield
criticize the consistency of the protestant interpretation of the
Bible, and some Protestant Scholarship "scientific"
approach: "Drowning
in a sea of subjective opinion and division, Protestants quickly
began grasping for any intellectual method with a fig leaf of
objectivity. As time went by and divisions multiplied, science and
reason increasingly became the standard by which Protestant
theologians hoped to bring about consistency in their biblical
interpretations. This
"scientific" approach, ... is generally referred to as
"Historical-Critical Exegesis. ... Like all the other approaches
used by Protestants, this method also seeks to understand the Bible
while ignoring Church Tradition. ... While claiming to be objective,
they rather interpret the Scriptures according to their own sets of
traditions and dogmas ... If Protestant exegesis were truly
"scientific," as it presents itself to be, its results
would show consistency."
It's a good thing when experience confirms
the Scripture, but it's never better option to face the experience
against
the Scriptures, in order to prove that something is not sinful and
not forbidden when it is. Regrettably this happens when we say that
divorce on mutual consent, because of incompatibility in the
character, in certain cases is necessary or permissible. We can see
modern Christian scholars who argue from psychological point of view
that the divorce can be a good thing when in the marriage have
physical and emotional abuse or neglect. But when we juxtapose their
opinion with the clear biblical Old and New Testament teaching on the
marriage and divorce, especially the unambiguous words of Jesus in
Mt.
19:3-12 and Mk. 10:2-12 and the written in Malachi 2:16, they don't
change their mind. On contrary, they try to prove these are cultural
opinions, only applicable to a certain historical time and
circumstances. These words of Jesus tend to be interpreted from a
situationist point of view. This humanistic interpretation says: "The
issue is not whether divorce is hurtful or a result of sin. It is
usually both. The focal question is this: among the available options
(desertion; separation, divorce, homicide, suicide, continuation of
the marriage), which is the best and most humane solution? The
situationist recognizes that divorce, painful as it is, may well be
the least harmful option in some situations, and thus it may best
fulfill the Great Commandment."
In
other words, the main idea and goal here is to equate fulfillment of
God's commandment for loving your neighbour with giving him divorce.
Without undervaluing the attempt to find the most humane solution,
sometimes the best solution is not what we
count
best. The same logic use the defenders of abortion: when, for
example, a woman has been raped and became pregnant by the offender
she does not have to keep the baby, does she? But it's a murder. Is
it right to oppose evil with evil? They would say it's better for the
woman and the baby to make an abortion. Apostle Peter in his first
epistle, exhorts Christians to effectuate the grace they've been
given as suffer for doing well: "
For this is thankworthy
if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering
wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye sin, and are buffeted
for it , ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and
suffer for it , ye shall take it patiently, this is acceptable with
(or
commendable
before) God. ... but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take
it patiently, this is acceptable with God."
(1
Peter 2:19-20)
The
UMC believes strongly in marriage, but the struggle for how to deal
with divorce was one that has evolved over the last 100 years. "The
1944 Discipline expressed concern for the increase in divorce in the
United States. At the 1952 General Conference the church again
affirmed that divorce was not the answer, while also expressing
concern for those who had experienced the break-up of a marriage. By
1960, the United Methodist Church declared its position of support
for marriage while allowing for divorce. However, many congregations
still struggle with how to be supportive to individuals in the midst
of divorce, and individuals still leave congregations when they
divorce."
This
allowing for divorce maybe is one of the reasons that lead to a big
problem in our church. A research of Barna Research Group made on
21st of December 1999, shows that 1/4 (26%) of the American Methodist
couples divorce,
compared to 21% for Lutherans and Catholics, and 23% for
Presbyterians. The
Confessing Movement
within the UMC, which strive to overcome the crisis in the church,
defend the primacy of Scripture and reject beliefs incompatible with
our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith, in its confessional
statement declare: "We
repudiate teachings and practices that MISUSE principles of
inclusiveness and tolerance to distort the doctrine and discipline of
the Church. We deny the claim that the individual is free to decide
what is true and what is false, what is good and what is evil. We
reject widespread and often unchallenged practices in and by the
Church that rebel against the Lordship of Jesus Christ. For example:
... accommodating the prevailing patterns of sexual promiscuity,
serial marriage and divorce"
There are no easy answers how to do that, but the opinion of Gary
Thomas, author of "Sacred Marriage" and director of the
Center for Evangelical Spirituality in Bellingham, Washington, would
be useful in this direction. He believes the Christian church
contributes to divorce by being too tolerant. "We
have bent over backwards not to be judgmental,"
he said, "A
Christian who gets divorced puts their happiness before their
devotion to Christ."
We
have to preach and be consistent in our teaching that reconciliation
and forgiveness, not divorce is the answer, and not to leave place
for the thinking like "in
my case its the second best". Seeing
the marriage as a mystery of spouses being "one flesh"
which signifies Christ's indissoluble unity with His Church, can be a
strong impulse of keeping the marriage. So can sacramental view on
Marriage be a remedy against divorce in certain cases? Why not?
The
marriage is a good gift from God that we have to keep well and be
responsible for it. “The
prudent wife is from the Lord”
(Pro. 19:14), “Whosoever
finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favour of the Lord”
(Pro. 18:22) and “Every
good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from
the Father of lights”
(James 1:17). We are stewards of our family relationships and God
expects from us to be good stewards. He expects this from men
(“Husbands, love
your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for
it” Eph. 5:25)
and from women (“A
virtuous woman is a crown to her husband”
Pro. 12:4; “She
will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.”
Pro. 31:12). Even if the marriage is not going well, we have to do
our best to change the situation. We don’t just throw something
we have
bought
with lots of
money,
because we value it. We have to value even more the gift of marriage,
to keep it, make it better, reflect God’s glory and perfection in
this world through it. God's
intention
has
always
been
to serve Christ through our
marriage and
give
glory
to Him as
we reflect
in
the
family
relationships
His
moral
perfection
and
kindness.
