Reading Lesley's blog and the account of her physio's experience regarding remarriage in the church and my thinking turned back to a vicar who was approached by a couple seeking a marriage in church. One of the couple had had a PMD (previous marriage dissolved) and so was told that a church wedding would not be available to them. After some discussion, the dog-collar told them that if they got involved in the life of the church, he would reconsider the situation after six months. They did - he did and decided that although they were now deeply involved members, tithing and engaged, his answer was still no.
The couple were pointed to me for advice as they were wounded and felt unloved, abused and even a little manipulated by their opportunistic (or perhaps worse) dog-collar. I soon ascertained that:
1. Neither of the parties seeking marriage had been involved with, or responsible for, the breakdown of the marriage,
2. Both were willing, and in fact desirous, of some time working through the expectations, realities and demands of marriage in the form of a marriage preparation class,
3. The church looks at restoration, forgiveness and helping people to learn from their experiences and move on in their relationship with God and with each other. When this desire is matched by the couple, then it is our task to lead people forward and affirm them (and honour God), not penalise and exclude.
So there was nothing to stop them being remarried in church. This diocese applies canon law to weddings and so the general rule is that people may be remarried in church (once, any more than that needs a jolly good reasons for it),
Of course, there are some who will wave their Bibles at me and tell me that by marrying divorcees I am placing them in a position of 'permanent adultery' and am contravening Scriptural warrant. Well, let's take a quick look at this then:
I begin, M'lud with Matthew 19:
"Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. wWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia and marries another, commits adultery.”
Now, to contextualise the passage (always a good idea), as I understand it there were two prevalent attitudes regarding divorce. One said that you could divorce your wife for any reason, the other said you needed a reason (i.e. she was getting old, fat, couldn't cook - you know, something valid!!). Jesus is speaking against the trivialsation of marriage and the lack of commitment to it.
I have replaced the words 'sexual immorality' for the original 'porneia' because we find this word translated as so many things (adultery, marital unfaithfulness, sexual immorality, unchastity, etc.) and what is relevant here is that it is a serious issue, not a trivial one.
A book of Jewish custom and practice I have on my shelf tells of those who would divorce their wife and marry a younger woman for a period of time (weekend), divorce her and remarry the first wife so that they have had their jollies without being adulterous. Legal and right in the eyes of the Lord (hence the passage that prohibits remarriage to a former wife!). This is the minefield we enter when considering remarriage and divorce.
I have to go off to a staff meeting and so will leave you with an interim thought:
A bill of divorce is given to permit remarriage, not to end the marriage. The bill of divorce is a recognition that the marriage has ended and permits a person to be remarried without causing adultery to occur. Consider this:
In biblical times a woman finds herself divorced. She is no longer a wife and is no longer the property of her father. How does she live? She cannot remarry, for to do so would cause the man who takes her on to commit adultery. The woman is given a bill of divorce which states that she is ritually free to marry and that anyone who marries her is not in a state of adultery. Thus it is simple to demonstrate that the bill of divorce is a permission (ritually, theologically, practically) to remarry.
When one gives an engagement ring, it is a sign that a relationship exists, for it is not the ring that makes the relationship. It merely acknowledges what is.
When one gives a wedding ring, it does not make the marriage, the vows, promises and the couple do that, but it acknowledges that a marriage exists.
So too does the bill of divorce. It does not break the relationship, the couple have done that, but it recognises the break and makes it possible for restoration, succor, support and love that is marriage to exist with another, blessed and right before God.
Simples, isn't it?
Pax
8 comments:
Fascinating. Thanks for that.
A thorny problem, suddenly made simple(s), by your Meerkat take on it. Very interesting.
If I knew how, I'd take a copy!
Pop over to my church website and you'll find an email - email me and I'll send a copy back by return (or when I get back from funeral visit anyway!0.
Thanks,
V
Sorry Vic, I can't find a reference to your church. I pick up your blog from David Cloake's blogroll.
My email address is raybar16@gmail.com if that is any help?
Look at the blog page for Vic the vicar and the church link is on the right hand bar,
V
Vic,
Great post. Nuff Said.
Ray, text mailed to you,
regards,
V
Thanks Vic. Good exegesis. It's always a good idea when you listen in to someone else's conversation (as we do in this passage) to find out what they are actually talking about, otherwise you jump in with your own misguided assumptions.
As to what the collar in your story was thinking - what was he (and it was he, I note) thinking? Was he always going to say "no", but found a means of putting off saying it to the very last minute? Or did he expect them not to comply with his hoops in the first place and was then caught off-guard when they did? Seems like anti-evangelism to me, but I'm sure he must have had his reasons (and I think that probably needs adding to clayboy's list of phrases needing translation - in my own defence, I was once a civil servant).
Post a Comment