Justifiable Divorce in the Case of Child Abuse
- Thread starter Zenas
- Start date
- Status
My argument would go like this:
A believer is justified in allowing an unbelieving spouse to divorce/leave him/her if the unbeliever no longer consents to the marriage, especially after all attempts at reconciliation.
When an unbeliever repeatedly abuses the child or the spouse (edit: and anyone who does that IS an unbeliever), that unbeliever has declared himself unwilling to live in marriage peacefully. That is a de-facto declaration of divorce or non-consent to be married.
If elders, police, counselors, etc. can make no progress with this man, then the believer should essentially recognize that the unbeliever has initiated divorce. If the believer then decided to formalize the facts that already exist by way of legal paperwork, then so be it.
Either way, what tragedy.
A believer is justified in allowing an unbelieving spouse to divorce/leave him/her if the unbeliever no longer consents to the marriage, especially after all attempts at reconciliation.
When an unbeliever repeatedly abuses the child or the spouse (edit: and anyone who does that IS an unbeliever), that unbeliever has declared himself unwilling to live in marriage peacefully. That is a de-facto declaration of divorce or non-consent to be married.
If elders, police, counselors, etc. can make no progress with this man, then the believer should essentially recognize that the unbeliever has initiated divorce. If the believer then decided to formalize the facts that already exist by way of legal paperwork, then so be it.
Either way, what tragedy.
HokieAirman
Puritan Board Freshman
Abandonment, fornication (i.e., living in sin/adultery with God) Those are divorcable offenses.
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
If someone abuses a child they ought to be in jail. How can a parent live in a house knowing their offspring is being abused and only think about "divorce". Jail the sicko or the sickoette. Have them dragged away in cuffs and be publicly shamed. That alone should temper their behavior in the future.
Grace Alone
Puritan Board Senior
I certainly would not stay with someone who abused a child. I cannot imagine a church requiring someone to stay in that situation.
This is part of why I admire the asking of the question in the opening post: why?
The fact that it is heinous, deplorable, and worthy of condemnation by God and the civil authority....doesn't necessarily mean it's justifiable cause for divorce. To have that, we need more than just revulsion at the sin.
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
If its sexual abuse, that counts as adultery. The person deserves to be divorced. If its physical abuse, that's assault the person is to be handed over to the law for the proper justice to be extracted.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
The PCA has an excellent position paper on this, with a lot of biblical research in this difficult area (scroll down there are about 6 parts):
PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America
Basically, the answer is "no" it is not a grounds, but separation may be necessary. It can eventually, however, become an irremediable abandonment situation. This illustrates the benefits of church discipline as well.
Strictly speaking, there are only two grounds biblically (the option of the innocent party):
1) adultery
2) abandonment of a believer by an unbeliever that cannot be remedied by church or magistrate
PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America
Basically, the answer is "no" it is not a grounds, but separation may be necessary. It can eventually, however, become an irremediable abandonment situation. This illustrates the benefits of church discipline as well.
Strictly speaking, there are only two grounds biblically (the option of the innocent party):
1) adultery
2) abandonment of a believer by an unbeliever that cannot be remedied by church or magistrate
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Just to be fair, would not physical abuse count if one counts abandonment? If you go by the lesser to the greater principle?
CT
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is not the kind of thing for which a quick answer is sufficient- there is a lot to consider biblically so it is worth studying this out and the study report does an excellent job examining these issues in light of God's Word, and even clarifying our confession.
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
Oftentimes a separation on the part of the offended spouse will give the other
1) Time to repent or
2) The chance to actually commit adultery or desert the believer
1) Time to repent or
2) The chance to actually commit adultery or desert the believer
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
It depends on what the sort of abuse is. The Session, board of Elders, whatever will often have to make hard decisions.
So, a guy spanks his kids more than the mother in law who attends the church thinks is proper. And another guy sexually molests a step daughter. They are both abuse.
There's not near enough information in the OP to say yes or no.
So, a guy spanks his kids more than the mother in law who attends the church thinks is proper. And another guy sexually molests a step daughter. They are both abuse.
There's not near enough information in the OP to say yes or no.
I believe that if the abuse is severe enough, and I understand qualifying this can be difficult, there could be a biblical grounds for divorce for sustained, unrepentant abuse.
At present, I do not believe that Jesus or Paul meant to limit the occasions for a lawful divorce to just the two specific fact situations of adultery and desertion. Rather, Jesus and Paul were giving examples of severe breaches of the marriage covenant which would allow for a divorce if not repented of. This approach is similar to the way we do not limit acts of necessity and mercy for the sabbath day to those specific acts mentioned in the gospel (picking corn, healing, helping your ox) but use them as examples of the kind of acts falling under God's principle.
For what its worth, I also agree with Jeremy that for all practical and biblical purposes, there is no difference between someone who is an unrepentant physical abuser but wants to remain in the same house, and someone who just walks off. Both have effectively forsaken the marriage covenant.
At present, I do not believe that Jesus or Paul meant to limit the occasions for a lawful divorce to just the two specific fact situations of adultery and desertion. Rather, Jesus and Paul were giving examples of severe breaches of the marriage covenant which would allow for a divorce if not repented of. This approach is similar to the way we do not limit acts of necessity and mercy for the sabbath day to those specific acts mentioned in the gospel (picking corn, healing, helping your ox) but use them as examples of the kind of acts falling under God's principle.
For what its worth, I also agree with Jeremy that for all practical and biblical purposes, there is no difference between someone who is an unrepentant physical abuser but wants to remain in the same house, and someone who just walks off. Both have effectively forsaken the marriage covenant.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
There is a difference between staying in the house with the offender and openly dissolving the union. The person who is suffering abuse, or whose child is suffering abuse, should leave (i.e. separate, not divorce), and leave the possibility of repentance and reconciliation open to the offender. The victim may not remarry, because he/she has made a vow to God with respect to the offender, even if the offender is in a time of sin. According to scripture, the victim should only be allowed to remarry if the perpetrator proceeds to violate the marriage covenant through adultery, or if he/she dies.
Matthias
Puritan Board Junior
This question simply cannot be answered unless the type of abuse is specified. If it is sexual abuse (incest or not) it would clearly be Biblical grounds for divorce. I would be stunned if anyone disputed that. Matt 19:9
As for other types of abuse, it will take someone wiser than I to answer that
As for other types of abuse, it will take someone wiser than I to answer that
Brian Withnell
Puritan Board Junior
This would lead to a conviction of a crime, and imprisonment. That would be abandonment, even if the "accuser" was the spouse. If CPS forced the accused to leave the house (they are not allowed around the child) that would also constitute abandonment.
The harder question is if the person is abusing a child, but the government turns a blind eye to the abuse. This is were having elders confront the spouse would be useful.
I know arguments about abuse being a violation of the covenant of marriage, but I also know the standards do not mention abuse. It is really difficult if the civil magistrate is incapable or unwilling to do their duty.
Matthias
Puritan Board Junior
You really do not recognize adultery as a justifiable reason for divorce? Can you explain?
I'll explain my position, but not necessarily argue it so I don't take the thread off-track. If this doesn't satisfy, we can PM or start a new thread.
The words "by itself" in my post are very important. That is, I do believe there are situations in which adultery does not mean a divorce is justified.
Most importantly, if the offender is seriously repentant, then the offended spouse, in my view, has an obligation of the highest order to forgive and reconcile with the offender. "I just can't deal with it" or "I can never forget what he/she did" are not excuses to be used against a penitent spouse, and cannot justify divorce.
If the offender is an unbeliever, yet is penitent about the adultery, the believing spouse must honor that.
If the adultery is ongoing, and the offender unrepentant, flaunting his or her sin, then I believe divorce is permissible. But not on the grounds that adultery is committed, rather on the basis that such continual betrayal in the face of rebuke (by elders, brothers, etc.) constitutes an unwillingness to stay married, and is rightly compared to the unbeliever in I Cor. 7 who simply leaves the relationship. That continual offense is a "leaving," and thus allows for divorce.
Matthias
Puritan Board Junior
I appreciate you taking the time to respond... I will send you a PM and you can let me know if you are interested in continuing discussion.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Abuse is abuse no matter what kind. Spankings are not abuse unless you're leaving marks. Even verbal abuse is abuse. If it were verbal abuse, I would demand the guy get help with anger management. If he didn't, he's out. If he did, then I would work with him. Anything above verbal abuse, I call the police and have him jailed and I would not take him back period.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
This is not the kind of thing for which a quick answer is sufficient- there is a lot to consider biblically so it is worth studying this out and the study report does an excellent job examining these issues in light of God's Word, and even clarifying our confession.
Even after reading, the excellent position paper, I think my question still stands. If unrepairable abandonment counts as grounds, then unrepairable abuse has to count because the second is worse than the first.
CT
I would agree, and I think that CT's reasoning is in many ways an application of the Lord Jesus' in Mark 2 when he reasoned "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". It is the spirit of the law, not the precise letter, which should be followed in dilemmas like these.
It makes no sense, biblically, to limit the lawfulness of divorce to two specific cases (adultery and desertion) while excluding situations which are arguable worse than either of them.
Of course, as was already noted in this thread, the principle would generally only apply, I think, to unrepentant sin where the offender could not be recovered or brought to repentance. There is not a "once strike and you are out" application.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is a difficult issue, and especially difficult to see clearly. (I'm not addressing this at you specifically, only making a general observation that includes all of us).
While "anger management" may be a [humanistic, pop culture] "solution," it may sound like the solution, it is a very superficial assessment of the problem. It does not really even address the problem, let alone the solution.
Scripture tells us there are times indeed to be angry, but sin not.
Defining "abuse" will be subjective- and can be defined quite broadly, especially by one who feels they are receiving it.
And let me also add this kindly, Sarah, I'm not trying to shatter illusions of marriage, but you will commit "verbal abuse" (what your spouse considers that) and your spouse will also. It's part of living in a fallen, sinful world and becoming intimate with an imperfect spouse, who though marvelously wonderful in many ways, is not perfect.
God even puts together sinners like this in marriage to "grow" them toward each other and toward Him. It is a marvelous thing to see a profane, self centered, and overly critical and ungrateful person grow to be more outwardly seeking, loving and serving, generous, and forgiving. This really happens by God's grace ( I know some of this in myself). And, by the way, you will find that few things are more repulsive to another person than freely seeing that other person's (verbal) sin, conditioning love based on it, and not seeing your own.
To whom you vow "for better or worse" and you to them. It is not conditional, as is the (self-centered) pop culture view of it.
One of the reasons marriage is both difficult and wonderful is overcoming sin daily, together, by God's grace. That's front and center in every marriage, and in every significant relationship (even amongst brothers and sisters at church). Learning to forgive and overcome it are part of the witness God is working in your life- constant faith and repentance. It also helps builds really solid relationships between people because as self-interested sinners we constantly demand a standard we do not demand (or are blinded by sin and cannot see) of ourselves.
Down deep, God has made us to respond to unconditional love. Loving us even though we are, at times, "un-loveable." That's why God has set the protection of marital union so high. This is why God's love is indeed marvellous. And we must try, by His grace to mirror it to others, beginning with our spouse.
Any expectation less than that is uninformed biblically (and practically uninformed).
No wonder our confession 350 years ago said...
Frankly, I receive what I consider "verbal abuse" fairly frequently- from co-workers, in public, from the President when he bears false witness, and even ocassionally from family.
Verbal anything is is not a grounds God has provided (if He did probably there would be no marriage and no close relationships of any kind). It is part of a biblical "sin management" program that is front and center in our sanctification, and only even possible by God's grace. Without it, one will find himself isolated and unhappy in this life.
One of the many deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil is an expectation that other people, relationships (e.g. marriage) are to be perfect and easy. If ever not, there must be something wrong.
But no, reformed theology teaches us God's revealed will- He takes all things (even bad things like sin) and works them together for good, for His Honor and His Glory!
Last edited:
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
And we still have to define kid beating.
Spankings sometimes leave marks, and just because a law might say it's child abuse doesn't make it so.
I wish Glenn Ferrell would post more often. He explained it once really well, about using the principles in the WCF in those cases. The church deals with the offending spouse, works with him or her, and if they won't listen brands them an unbeliever.
There is leeway given to individual Sessions in the PCA, and I assume the OPC as well, to interpret the WCF differently on the issue of abuse by a husband. They will, after all efforts have failed, brand him an unbeliever and allow the wife to divorce him. But the harder thing is whether to allow the woman to get married again. In some cases they won't and in some cases they will. The PCA position paper in it's entirety should all be read by those interested in the subject.
Spankings sometimes leave marks, and just because a law might say it's child abuse doesn't make it so.
I wish Glenn Ferrell would post more often. He explained it once really well, about using the principles in the WCF in those cases. The church deals with the offending spouse, works with him or her, and if they won't listen brands them an unbeliever.
There is leeway given to individual Sessions in the PCA, and I assume the OPC as well, to interpret the WCF differently on the issue of abuse by a husband. They will, after all efforts have failed, brand him an unbeliever and allow the wife to divorce him. But the harder thing is whether to allow the woman to get married again. In some cases they won't and in some cases they will. The PCA position paper in it's entirety should all be read by those interested in the subject.
Tim,
I really do not see why this would be an issue.
Once the session has decided that the "abuse" represents a legitimate grounds for divorce, I don't see what reason there is to prevent remarriage. As you have been saying, what really constitutes "abuse" is a sticky issue, and when abuse is sufficient to warrant divorce is probably stickier still.
However, once the church has made a decision that a divorce would be lawful, I don't see that biblically there is this "halfway state" where someone can be divorced yet unable to remarry. If someone is lawfully divorced, the old covenant is broken in God's eyes and they are free to remarry. Am I missing something?
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Well, if I remember correctly, Jesus did say that whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery...
EDIT:
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (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. "
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Scott,
I think you are speaking of people arguing and even shouting at one another over disagreements. That isn't what I'm talking about when I speak of verbal abuse. When I speak of verbal abuse I'm talking about one person constantly degrading the other in a foul and vicious manner. Tearing them apart mentally and spiritually. I've been in a room with a man like that who treated his wife that way and he wasn't even talking to me and I can't tell you how it made me feel. Frankly, I have to say that if I were married to someone like that and they didn't get help then I would help them to the door.
- Status
