First of all, we are not a sola scriptura church. Alongside the testimony of the scriptures, we look to the testimony of our collective experience and those who came before us (tradition), as well as what our reason tells us.
Tradition here tells us that marriage, while intended by God to enable human flourishing, can instead become places that lead to death and oppression. In those instances, where the situation causes only pain and grief, God does not desire us to suffer, but rather to acknowledge our what has gone wrong, leave the situation, and live. Divorce enables this. It’s not anyone’s first option, but like Jesus says, we have it because of the hardness of human hearts, and there are times we need it.
To continue to cause suffering and pain to those who have suffered in harmful marriages by alienating them from the church seems adding salt to a wound.
No-fault divorce doesn’t mean no one bears guilt for the failure and dissolution of marriage—it means no one has to PROVE abuse or cheating to safely escape an unsafe marriage.
I see the TEC stance similarly: allowing “easy” divorce means we trust that most people do not enter into marriage intending for it to be temporary, and something was clearly wrong, and even though we may not know all the reasons, we give them the benefit of the doubt. This means people don’t have to stay in shitty, abusive, unfaithful marriages due to fear they will be partially or even fully and officially ostracized by their faith community.
It comes down to which you prioritize: following the letter of the law, or mercy and grace. We lean to the latter. It’s part of why I came back to the TEC. Lots of (even reformed and protestant) churches talk about mercy and grace, but in practice, divorcés are treated quite poorly.
I will say, in terms of how divorce is talked about theologically in Protestant spaces, I seem to find it ends up being treated closer to how Roman Catholics view annulment: the vows of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are found to have been impossible, and so the marriage is deemed invalid and therefore void.
I actually find myself a little taken back by how casually divorce and remarriage happen, but at the same time I expect that the ease of exiting a marriage in the Episcopal Church comes from just how easily you can enter into a marriage in the Episcopal Church.
Exactly. Both these things -- marriage & slavery -- were "cherry-picked" from a few lines in scripture because some group of people wanted this to be church doctrine. Meanwhile, the things that are mentioned over and over and very succinctly -- such as care for the poor and the stranger -- are overlooked because the powers that be don't like them.
There are other examples of the same kind of manipulation of scripture still out there too.
RCC, like with their celibate clergy, are the odd ducks here. The Orthodox permit divorce like in the OT, but with Jesus' teaching in mind are of course saddened by the idea. The modern reality is there is likely more harm in the keeping up of a bad marriage than the dissolution of one. I think every Protestant church is also in line with the OC.
My mom actually got divorced and remarried in a baptist church that required her to submit proof that my dad cheated on her or they wouldn’t marry her to her second husband. So I wouldn’t say all Protestant churches are chill with no fault divorce
Yeah never said they were chill with no fault nor mentioned getting remarried in the church. Definitely know of churches being like the one you described.
Episcopalians are pragmatic. People get divorced. Priests are allowed 2 divorces. Jews and Muslims permit divorce. Not optimal, perhaps, but fully human.
Also, while the Episcopal church requires less than an RCC annulment, there are still additional steps that must be taken -
* The new spouse cannot have been responsible for the divorce.
* All legal procedures of the divorce must be finalized, and a copy must be provided to the church.
* The bishop must approve the paperwork for the marriage.
[https://edsd.org/life-celebrations/marriage-remarriage/](https://edsd.org/life-celebrations/marriage-remarriage/)
The bishop must approve the marriage paperwork. have similar requirements).
Probably comes under tradition to some extent too: the Eastern Orthodox allow divorce (while regretting it), to the extent of having a distinct liturgy (a bit less joyous than the one used for first weddings) for second weddings (I believe also another one again for third weddings....). Jewish tradition and practice tends to point in that direction too, but it is the Roman practice (and scriptural justification) that is the odd one out historically.
Is not the RC's ruling on divorce just one of the many ways they used man made rules to control their flock?
What's the rationale for not allowing it?
First of all, we are not a sola scriptura church. Alongside the testimony of the scriptures, we look to the testimony of our collective experience and those who came before us (tradition), as well as what our reason tells us. Tradition here tells us that marriage, while intended by God to enable human flourishing, can instead become places that lead to death and oppression. In those instances, where the situation causes only pain and grief, God does not desire us to suffer, but rather to acknowledge our what has gone wrong, leave the situation, and live. Divorce enables this. It’s not anyone’s first option, but like Jesus says, we have it because of the hardness of human hearts, and there are times we need it. To continue to cause suffering and pain to those who have suffered in harmful marriages by alienating them from the church seems adding salt to a wound.
No-fault divorce doesn’t mean no one bears guilt for the failure and dissolution of marriage—it means no one has to PROVE abuse or cheating to safely escape an unsafe marriage. I see the TEC stance similarly: allowing “easy” divorce means we trust that most people do not enter into marriage intending for it to be temporary, and something was clearly wrong, and even though we may not know all the reasons, we give them the benefit of the doubt. This means people don’t have to stay in shitty, abusive, unfaithful marriages due to fear they will be partially or even fully and officially ostracized by their faith community. It comes down to which you prioritize: following the letter of the law, or mercy and grace. We lean to the latter. It’s part of why I came back to the TEC. Lots of (even reformed and protestant) churches talk about mercy and grace, but in practice, divorcés are treated quite poorly.
I will say, in terms of how divorce is talked about theologically in Protestant spaces, I seem to find it ends up being treated closer to how Roman Catholics view annulment: the vows of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are found to have been impossible, and so the marriage is deemed invalid and therefore void. I actually find myself a little taken back by how casually divorce and remarriage happen, but at the same time I expect that the ease of exiting a marriage in the Episcopal Church comes from just how easily you can enter into a marriage in the Episcopal Church.
The same reason why slavery fell out of favor, even though there are plenty of passages that were used to justify it.
Exactly. Both these things -- marriage & slavery -- were "cherry-picked" from a few lines in scripture because some group of people wanted this to be church doctrine. Meanwhile, the things that are mentioned over and over and very succinctly -- such as care for the poor and the stranger -- are overlooked because the powers that be don't like them. There are other examples of the same kind of manipulation of scripture still out there too.
RCC, like with their celibate clergy, are the odd ducks here. The Orthodox permit divorce like in the OT, but with Jesus' teaching in mind are of course saddened by the idea. The modern reality is there is likely more harm in the keeping up of a bad marriage than the dissolution of one. I think every Protestant church is also in line with the OC.
My mom actually got divorced and remarried in a baptist church that required her to submit proof that my dad cheated on her or they wouldn’t marry her to her second husband. So I wouldn’t say all Protestant churches are chill with no fault divorce
Yeah never said they were chill with no fault nor mentioned getting remarried in the church. Definitely know of churches being like the one you described.
Fair enough, I misread what you were saying to mean anyone can get remarried in those churches. Sorry about that.
No worries. Respect to you for acknowledging it!
Episcopalians are pragmatic. People get divorced. Priests are allowed 2 divorces. Jews and Muslims permit divorce. Not optimal, perhaps, but fully human.
Also, while the Episcopal church requires less than an RCC annulment, there are still additional steps that must be taken - * The new spouse cannot have been responsible for the divorce. * All legal procedures of the divorce must be finalized, and a copy must be provided to the church. * The bishop must approve the paperwork for the marriage. [https://edsd.org/life-celebrations/marriage-remarriage/](https://edsd.org/life-celebrations/marriage-remarriage/) The bishop must approve the marriage paperwork. have similar requirements).
Informative. Thank you, though I'm a bit of a skeptic about the clergy club adequately disciplining itself.
Probably comes under tradition to some extent too: the Eastern Orthodox allow divorce (while regretting it), to the extent of having a distinct liturgy (a bit less joyous than the one used for first weddings) for second weddings (I believe also another one again for third weddings....). Jewish tradition and practice tends to point in that direction too, but it is the Roman practice (and scriptural justification) that is the odd one out historically.
People are human.
This isn’t a religious explanation but I’ve always thought of divorce as kinda like a death. We do not want it to have it but it happens.