When is Divorce OK?

[elysian]

Just trolling for some insight and objective opinions.

I am very unhappily married to a non-Christian. He is a drunkard, a compulsive gambler and is verbally, emotionally and financially abusive. His only positive attribute is that he is employed, so he mooches less than if he didn't have a job. Yes I am aware of the prohibitions against unequally yoked marriages. The sad part of this is that I married him at a time in which I was very cynical about God and quite frankly was living in extreme disobedience. So the "Catholic guilt demon" (I was raised Roman Catholic but converted to Lutheranism in high school... another story altogether) in me says, "I guess this is part of my punishment for being disobedient and I should just endure whatever because it was caused by my own stupidity." The confessional Lutheran in me says "you are saved and justified by grace and no amount of suffering will earn you brownie points before God."

Anyway, there are only two Scripturally correct options that I see. Because my husband thoroughly enjoys making me miserable and derives great joy from keeping me awake at all hours by playing loud music and partying with buddies, by demanding that I fix him food in the middle of the night, in cutting me off from my family, and friends and especially making it hard for me to be involved in my church, he won't leave me. So the following applies to me: "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." 1 Corinthians 7:13 (NIV)

I understand if he left me then it would be OK for me to divorce him and start again without it being sin: "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace." 1 Corinthians 7:15 (NIV)

But he is quite fine with things the way they are, with me as his whipping post and personal servant.

I also feel compelled to stay based on:
1 Corinthians 7:17 (NIV) "Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him."

Malachi 2:16 (NIV) "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith."

I know that in some ways I could justify leaving him without divorcing him which would mean a compulsory life of celibacy (which is pretty much the case as it is now because he's darn near impotent from all the booze) and I would still have to deal with him concerning our son which would be difficult.

1 Corinthians 7:11 (NIV) "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

So does anyone have any suggestions/alternatives besides just maintaining the status quo or simply leaving him without divorce?
And BTW he is 46 (12 years older than me) but is in remarkably good health for as much as he drinks and smokes. I am the one with all the chronic illnesses (severe hypertension, degenerative joint disease, cardiac arrythmia) He will most certainly outlive me - if only for spite. So I doubt if I will have the comfort of "quiet golden years."

[Queen]

I am very unhappily married to a non-Christian. He is a drunkard, a compulsive gambler and is verbally, emotionally and financially abusive.

Get the heck out of that marriage NOW!!!! Don't feel guilty about it. This is not how a marriage should be. He is totally wrong.......

I was in an abusive relationship that ended with rape....Don't let it get that far!!!!!

Please, be safe!!

Lots of love, strenght and sunshine,
Queen

[elysian]

As far as I can discern Scripture gives NO allowance for abuse, although our culture does. I've already heard all the psychological rationalizations for leaving but the bottom line is that it is not justification under God's law. He is not physical in his abuse just as I said mental, emotional and financial.

However even if the abuse were physical, short of killing me, I am still bound to him and divorce would be sin. If he kills me, the sin is on his head, not mine. Sometimes I wish he would do exactly that and just get it over with- but he's having way too much fun.

[Queen]

Gosh, Hon.....Don't beat yourself up like this. Emotional abuse can be as horrific or even more terrible as physical abuse. Why would God think it is a sin when you safe your own life? I can't imagine that God meant you to be in such a situation.......That is so cruel...

I wish you would stand up for yourself. You are so worth being loved and respected...You are an unique and beautiful human being. Don't put yourself down like this. Don't take all this on your shoulder. You are so NOT sinning for leaving this marriage.....this is NOT a marriage it is a prison and you are innocent and deserve to be set free. I wish I could make you see that....

Lots of love and sunshine, sweet brave woman,
Queen

[themuzicman]

From a Christian perspective....

If your husband leaves you, you can let him go. Otherwise, you're stuck in the marriage.

However, I've never believed that a woman should remain in a situation where she is being significantly and intentionally harmed on an ongoing basis, and I think there is room for separation and ultimatum.

First, understand that this is NOT punishment from God. You might call it a consequence of your decisions, but it's still not from GOd.

Second, if you can arrange to live somewhere long term (relatives, or via supporting yourself), I would inform your husband what you expect from him in terms of respect and honoring you, and that before you will return to him, he has to seek counseling both for himself to deal with his issues, and for the marriage, to repair the damage that has been done.

And stay away until he really changes.

Chances are one of two things will happen:

1) He divorces you. Biblically, you let him go.

2) He decides that he wants you back, and fulfills your requirements.

He could go on without you, but that would be similar to him leaving you, anyway.

And then the onus is on him to act.

Just MHO, but it's an option.

Michael

[beeblebrox]

So sorry to hear about your situation. I think that your husband had already broken the marriage contract by not adhering to the vows. If I was Christian, I would say that in God's eyes he (your husband) has already divorced you but is keeping you around as mere property convenient to his habits. He has breached the contract. Your marriage is already null and void. Only the paperwork remains. You should not spend 30-40 years more being abused and unhappy.

Get out as fast as you can! You deserve better!

beeble

[themuzicman]

IT's sad to see marriage reduced to a contract status. Vows used to be something you kept because you made it, regardless of what the other side does.

That's what marriage used to be.

Michael

[Jaltus]

I believe the intent from the outset of this thread was for a BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN RESPONSE, and while I am sure elysian appreciates all of the input from nonChristians, she did ask for only Christian options.

Elysian, I would recommend separation from your husband. The NIV of I Corinthians 7:11 is not totally accurate, as the passage says "if she does leave..." implying a separation that is permanent since women could not divorce in that culture. In your case, I believe that setting some ground rules and leaving him with the chance for remarriage is the way to go.

There is nothing in the Bible that says a wife must serve her husband, she just must obey his headship. This issue with your hubby goes well beyond that.

[Spokoina]

well my two cents:

He has already left the marriage. He aint a husband to you in anyway,shape or form. OK? He HAS left the marriage.

Marriage is NOT two people under one roof with the legal paper. Marriage is the commitment to honor and cherish another..albeit we do that imperfectly. He doesn't sound like he is even trying to to that..thus he HAS left the marriage as God defines it.


And if you really stood as a woman, and not tolerate things in your home, as keeper of the home, in a nice firm loving manner, like no booze thank you, he would show the fact that he does not love you as much as his booze drinking buddies and door mats. And he would indeed show you that his heart is not in that marriage anyways.

my two cents.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I need to find an article I saw on this..... someone kick me if I don't post it. Just for a bit of different perspective.

[Dee Dee Warren]

My memory served me wrong, the article dealt more with issues of what exactly is adultery... I am posting it in case it is helpful to anyone, it is by Doug Wilson and found at www.credenda.org


An important part of our Christian responsibility is the prevention of divorce. God hates divorce, and so should His servants. Divorce divides what God has united. As an act of rebellion on someone's part, it has cascading destructive consequences—and the children are usually at the bottom of the avalanche.

But there are times when divorce is not only lawful, but proper and even obligatory. In a day when divorce is commonly sought as a solution of first resort, Christians sometimes shy away from this. But it is important to affirm this principle, and teach it, for a number of reasons. In any setting where divorce is virtually impossible, all the cards have been given to those who are hard-hearted. Jesus said that divorce was given through Moses precisely because of hardness of heart. In other words, the wisdom of God determined that divorce was an appropriate answer to that kind of hard-heartedness. It is never a positive good, but it is sometimes the only appropriate response to that which is evil.

But there are churches where divorce is entirely excluded. Unfortunately, they are usually not so successful in banning hard hearts. There are other churches where divorce is virtually excluded. Again, hard-heartedness is not virtually eliminated in any kind of parity. What this means is that the hard-hearted one is given a free hostage, and he can then do whatever he wants. Because of the stand taken by the church, the one in the marriage who winds up getting hammered is the one who actually cares what God's Word says. Not only so, but he or she is hammered twice—once by the sinning spouse, and secondly by the sinning church. Until we recover what it means to think covenantally (because covenants have stipulations and conditions), we will continue to struggle with this.
Sin specializes in walking the line, usually just a little bit on the wrong side of it, wherever that line has been drawn. This tendency can be illustrated with minor and endearing infractions. Just last night I was watching my one-year-old grandson being told not to touch a vase of flowers. So he touched the flowers with his head. "Nobody said not to use the head. You meant not to touch it with my hands. Didn't you?" Of course, he did not say this—he can't talk. But that is what he was doing. But the same pattern is not nearly so endearing when it grows up; it can be employed by those who are interested in pursuing their abominations. The sinful mind is inherently a legalistic mind and loves detailed arcana.

Because of this, those who have a wooden view of the scriptural requirements of divorce don't know how to handle the creativity of sinful weirdness. The hard-hearted one can make sure that he gets all his sinning in without giving his spouse a lawful out. What counsel do you give a woman if the husband gets breast implants and wears dresses around the house? And what do you say if he demands to be shown a verse? Okay, Deuteronomy 22:5, but where does it say in that verse specifically that this is grounds for divorce? Of course, there is no specific verse to that effect.

But Jesus allowed divorce for porneias. The word is not the specific word for adultery, and it is a very broad term referring to sexual uncleanness. It is broad in just the way that legalistic sinners hate. Whenever someone is caught in sin, their first reaction is to grab for the rulebook in order to challenge the point. "It wasn't adultery because it was oral sex. It wasn't adultery because I didn't really love her. It wasn't adultery because a twenty-year collection of child porn magazines isn't adultery. It wasn't adultery because I was just fondling our daughter. Fondling is not adultery."

But whether or not it was adultery, all the above have to be considered as porneias—sexual uncleanness. And Jesus says that whoever divorces, "except for porneias"is guilty. Now if you have an example of such porneias, but it is followed by true and genuine repentance, down to the ground, then there is the possibility of reconciliation. I don't believe that marital reconciliation can be demanded (either by the guilty party, or by the church), but it should be sought. And when a biblical reconciliation can be brought about, that is what we should strive for.

At the same time, this pursuit of reconciliation should not be done in such a way as to place any unnecessary burdens on the victim. The Bible teaches that a man reaps what he sows, but often Christian counsel tries to make the innocent party share in the harvest. "For better for worse" in the wedding vows does not refer to the "worse" of covenant-breaking. It refers to sickness, health, riches, poverty, and so on—all the things bestowed by a wise Providence on married couples across the spectrum. It does not refer to rejection of the basic commitment made in the covenant. Marriages are covenants, and covenants can be broken.

So suppose there has been a clear-cut example of porneias. If repentance follows, forgiveness must be extended, but this is not the same thing as saying that marital reconciliation must be extended. The qualifications for personal fellowship and holding office (in this case, of husband or wife) are different. But let us further say that instead of repentance following, we instead find explaining, excusing, blame-shifting, logic-chopping, waffling, noodling, or backfilling. It is time to walk.

[EdJones]

There are three grounds of divorce: death, desertion, and fornication. In all three cases--death, desertion, and fornication--the party who is left alone is single, and as a single person, they are capable of remarriage.

The remarriage is warned against because of trouble in the flesh. The remarriage is advised against, and they are told they would be happier if they would stay single. They are told that if they get remarried, they will not have sinned, but they will have "trouble in the flesh." They are given the added caution that they can marry only a person in the Lord--a Christian person.

[yxboom]

this is one of those few occassions for

[Queen]

To be honest....forget the religious yes's and no's of divorce. Her life is in danger. He may not have hurt her physically, but he will.....he will. And that scares me. IMHO NO God can say that when you escape from such a marriage and be true to your own person, is wrong.

I might be not a Christian, but I have been in an emotional abusive relationship. I escaped, but only after he raped me to make me feel how powerful he was. That is horror. No church should forbid her to leave this marriage. It is ridiculous and it is humiliating. Her self esteem and her body and soul deserves love.......she deserves it and she owe's it to herself. Death is not the answer.

Please. Elysian, be good to yourself and make the wise decision. Leave him, before it is too late. You have suffered enough!!

Lots of love, strenght and sunshine,
Queen

[Dee Dee Warren]

Queen, I say this with all respect (and love and sunshine) my friend, but you really need to respect when Christian only or Biblical only responses are requested.