Families are experiencing many problems today, but the role of
divorce in this picture has been frequently overlooked because its
destructive effects have been subtle, yet insidious. When the divorce
rate increased in the 1960s, few would have predicted its dire consequences
three decades later. Yet divorce has changed both the structure
and the impact of the family.
This is not just the conclusion of Christians, but also the conclusion
of non-Christian researchers working in the field. Clinical psychologist
Diane Medved set out to write a book to help couples facing transitions
due to divorce. She begins her book with this startling statement:
I have to start with a confession: This isn't the book I set
out to write. I planned to write something consistent with my
previous professional experience helping people with decision
making. . . . For example, I started this project believing that
people who suffer over an extended period in unhappy marriages
ought to get out....I thought that striking down taboos about
divorce was another part of the ongoing enlightenment of the women's,
civil- rights, and human potential movements of the last twenty-five
years....To my utter befuddlement, the extensive research I conducted
for this book brought me to one inescapable and irrefutable conclusion:
I had been wrong."(1)
She titled her book The Case Against Divorce.
Until the 1960s, divorce has been a relatively rare phenomenon.
Certainly there have always been some couples who have considered
divorce an option. But fundamental changes in our society in the
last few decades have changed divorce from being rare to routine.
During the 1970s, the divorce rate doubled (and the number of divorces
tripled from 400,000 in 1962 to 1.2 million in 1981).(2) The increase
in the divorce rate came not from older couples but from the baby
boom generation. One sociologist at Stanford University calculated
that while men and women in their twenties comprised only about
20 percent of the population, they contributed 60 percent of the
growth in the divorce rate in the 1960s and early 1970s.(3)
This increase was due to at least two major factors: attitude and
opportunity. The baby boom generation's attitude toward such issues
as fidelity, chastity, and commitment were strikingly different
from their parents'. Their parents would stay in a marriage in order
to make it work. Baby boomers, however, were less committed to the
ideal of marriage and quite willing to end what they felt was a
bad marriage and move on with their lives. While their parents might
keep a marriage going "for the sake of the kids," the baby boom
generation as a whole was much less concerned about such issues.
Economic opportunities also seem to be a significant factor in
divorce. The rise in divorce closely parallels the increase in the
number of women working. Women with a paycheck were less likely
to stay in a marriage that wasn't fulfilling to them. Armed with
a measure of economic power, many women had less incentive to stay
in a marriage and work out their differences with their husbands.
A study of mature women done at Ohio State University found that
the higher a woman's income in relation to the total income of her
family, the more likely she was to seek a divorce.(4)
Divorce and Children
Divorce is having a devastating impact on both adults and children.
Every year, parents of over 1 million children divorce. These divorces
effectively cut one generation off from another. Children are reared
without the presence of their father or mother. Children are often
forced to take sides in the conflict. And, children often carry
the scars of the conflict and frequently blame themselves for the
divorce.
So what is the impact? Well, one demographer looking at this ominous
trend of divorce and reflecting on its impact, acknowledged:
No one knows what effect divorce and remarriage will have on
the children of the baby boom. A few decades ago, children of
divorced parents were an oddity. Today they are the majority.
The fact that divorce is the norm may make it easier for children
to accept their parents' divorce. But what will it do to their
marriages in the decades ahead? No one will know until it's too
late to do anything about it.(5)
What little we do know about the long-term impact of divorce is
disturbing. In 1971, Judith Wallerstein began a study of sixty middle-class
families in the midst of divorce. Her ongoing research has provided
a longitudinal study of the long-term effects of divorce on parents
and children.
Like Diane Medved, Judith Wallerstein had to revise her previous
assumptions. According to the prevailing view at the time, divorce
was seen as a brief crisis that would resolve itself. Her book,
Second Chances: Men, Women and Children a Decade After Divorce,
vividly illustrates the long-term psychological devastation wrought
not only on the children but the adults.(6) Here are just a few
of her findings in her study of the aftershocks of divorce:
Three out of five children felt rejected by at least one parent.
Five years after their parent's divorce, more than one-third
of the children were doing markedly worse than they had been before
the divorce.
Half grew up in settings in which the parents were warring with
each other even after the divorce.
One-third of the women and one-quarter of the men felt that
life had been unfair, disappointing and lonely.
In essence, Wallerstein found that the emotional tremors register
on the psychological Richter scale many years after the divorce.
In addition to the emotional impact is the educational impact.
Children growing up in broken homes do not do as well in school
as children from stable families. One national study found an overall
average of one lost year of education for children in single-parent
families.(7)
Divorce and remarriage adds another additional twist to modern
families. Nearly half of all marriages in 1990 involved at least
one person who had been down the aisle before, up from 31 percent
in 1970.(8)
These changing family structures complicate relationships. Divorce
and remarriage shuffle family members together in foreign and awkward
ways. Clear lines of authority and communication get blurred and
confused in these newly revised families. One commentator trying
to get a linguistic handle on these arrangements called them "neo-nuclear"
families.(9) The rules for these neo- nukes are complex and ever-changing.
Children looking for stability are often insecure and frustrated.
One futuristic commentator imagined this possible scenario:
On a spring afternoon, half a century from today, the Joneses
are gathered to sing "Happy Birthday" to Junior. There's Dad and
his third wife, Mom and her second husband, Junior's two half
brothers from his father's first marriage, his six stepsisters
from his mother's spouse's previous unions, 100-year- old Great
Grandpa, all eight of Junior's current "grandparents," assorted
aunts, uncles- in-law and stepcousins. While one robot scoops
up the gift wrappings and another blows out the candles, Junior
makes a wish ...that he didn't have so many relatives.(10)
The stress on remarried couples is difficult enough, but it intensifies
when step-children are involved. Conflict between a stepparent and
stepchild is inevitable and can be enough to threaten the stability
of a remarriage. According to one study, remarriages that involve
stepchildren are more likely to end in divorce than those that don't.(11)
Fully 17 percent of marriages that are remarriages for both husband
and wife and that involve stepchildren break up within three years.(12)
No Fault Divorce
Historically the laws governing marriage were based upon the traditional,
Judeo-Christian belief that marriage was for life. Marriage was
intended to be a permanent institution. Thus, the desire for divorce
was not held to be self-justifying. Legally the grounds for divorce
had to be circumstances that justified making an exemption to the
assumption of marital permanence. The spouse seeking a divorce had
to prove that the other spouse had committed one of the "faults"
recognized as justifying the dissolution of the marriage. In most
states, the classic grounds for divorce were cruelty, desertion,
and adultery.
This legal foundation changed when California enacted a statute
in 1969 which allowed for no-fault divorce. This experiment has
effectively led to what could now be called "divorce-on-demand."
One by one, various state legislatures enacted no-fault divorce
laws so that today, this concept has become the de facto legal principle
in every state.
The fault-based system of divorce law had its roots in the view
that marriage was a sacrament and indissoluble. The current no-
fault provisions changed this perception. Marriage is no longer
viewed as a covenant; it's a contract. But it's an even less reliable
contract than a standard business contract.
Classic contract law holds that a specific promise is binding and
cannot be broken merely because the promisor changes his/her mind.
In fact, the concept of "fault" in divorce proceedings is more like
tort law than contract law in that it implies an binding obligation
between two parties which has been breached, thus leading to a divorce.
When state legislatures implemented no-fault divorce provisions,
they could have replaced the fault-based protections with contract-like
protections. Unfortunately, they did not. In just a few decades
we have moved from a position where divorce was permitted for a
few reasons to a position in which divorce is permitted for any
reason, or no reason at all.
The impact on the institution of marriage has been devastating.
Marginal marriages are much easier to dissolve, and couples who
may have tried to stick it out and work out their problems instead
opt for a no-fault divorce.
But all marriages (not just marginal marriages) are at risk. After
all, marriages do not start out marginal. Most marriages start out
on a solid footing. But after the honeymoon, comes the more difficult
process of learning to live together harmoniously. The success of
the process is affected by both internal factors (willingness to
meet each other's needs, etc.) and external factors (such as the
availability of divorce). But even these factors are interrelated.
If the law gives more protection to the marriage contract, a partner
may be more likely to love sacrificially and invest effort in the
marriage. If the law gives less protection, a partner may be more
likely to adopt a "looking out for number one" attitude.
Biblical Perspective
The Bible speaks to the issue of divorce in both the Old Testament
and the New Testament. The most important Old Testament passage
on divorce is Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because
he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate
of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and
if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another
man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate
of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if
he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed
to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable
in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD
your God is giving you as an inheritance.
These verses were not intended to endorse divorce; just the contrary.
The intention was to regulate the existing custom of divorce, not
to put forth God's ideal for marriage. Divorce was allowed in certain
instances because of human sinfulness (Matt. 19:8).
Divorce was widespread in the ancient Near East. The certificate
of divorce apparently was intended to protect the reputation of
the woman and provided her with the right to remarry. This public
declaration protected her from charges of adultery. The Mishnah,
for example, stated that a divorce certificate was not valid unless
the husband explicitly said, "Thou art free to marry any man."(13)
Key to understanding this passage is the definition of "something
indecent." It probably did not mean adultery since that was subject
to the penalty of death (22:22), nor did it probably mean premarital
intercourse with another man (22:20-21) since that carried the same
penalty. The precise meaning of the phrase is unknown.
In fact, the meaning of this phrase was subject to some debate
even during the time of Christ. The conservative school of Shammai
understood it to mean a major sexual offense. The liberal school
of Hillel taught that it referred to anything displeasing to the
husband (including something as trivial as spoiling his food). The
apparent purpose of this law was to prevent frivolous divorce and
to protect a woman who was divorced by her husband. The passage
in no way encourages divorce but regulates the consequences of divorce.
Another significant Old Testament passage is Malachi 2:10-16.
Have we not all one Father ? Did not one God create us? Why do
we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with
one another?...Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit
they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with
the wife of your youth. "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of
Israel.
This passage deals with breaking a prior agreement or covenant.
It specifically addresses the issue of illegal intermarriage and
the issue of divorce. Malachi specifically teaches that husbands
and wives are to be faithful to one another because they have God
as their Father. The marriage relationship is built upon a solemn
covenant. While God may tolerate divorce under some of the circumstances
described in Deuteronomy 24, the instructions were given to protect
the woman if a divorce should occur. This passage in Malachi reminds
us that God hates divorce.
In the New Testament book of Matthew, we have the clearest teachings
by Jesus on the subject of divorce.
It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her
a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces
his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit
adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery.
(Matt. 5:31 32) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits
adultery. (Matt. 19:9)
In these two passages, Jesus challenges the views of the two schools
of Jewish thought (Shammai, Hillel). He teaches that marriage is
for life and should not be dissolved by divorce.
Defining the word porneia (which is translated marital unfaithfulness)
is a key element in trying to understanding these passages. While
some commentators teach that this word refers to incestuous relationships
or sexual promiscuity during the betrothal period, most scholars
believe the word applies to relentless, persistent, and unrepentant
adultery. Among those holding to this exception clause for adultery,
some believe remarriage is possible while others do not.
The other significant section of teaching on divorce in the New
Testament can be found in Paul's teaching on divorce in 1 Corinthians
7:10-15.
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. To the rest I say this (I, not the
Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she
is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 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. For the unbelieving husband
has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife
has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your
children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 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.
In the first section, Paul addresses Christians married to one
another. Paul was obviously aware of the prevalence of divorce in
the Greek world and of the legal right that a wife has to initiate
a divorce. He gives the command for believers to stay married.
In the next section, Paul addresses the issue of mixed marriages.
He says that even in spite of religious incompatibility in such
a marriage, Paul teaches that the believing spouse is not to seek
divorce. Some divorces may have been initiated because of the command
of Ezra to the Israelites in Jerusalem after the exile (Ezra 10:11)
to divorce themselves from pagan spouses. Paul affirms the same
biblical principle: do not seek divorce. However, if the unbelieving
spouse insists on divorce, the believer may have to concede to those
proceedings and is not bound in such circumstances.
Based on the preceding verses, we can therefore conclude that a
Christian can acquiesce to divorce in cases of marital infidelity
by the other spouse or in cases of desertion by an unbelieving spouse.
Yet even in these cases, the church should not encourage divorce.
Certainly in very troubling cases which involve mental, sexual,
and/or physical abuse, legal separation is available as a remedy
to protect the abused spouse. God hates divorce; therefore Christians
should never be in the position of encouraging or promoting divorce.
Instead they should be encouraging reconciliation.
One final question is whether a divorced person is eligible for
a leadership position within the church. The key passage is 1 Timothy
3:2 which calls for a church leader to be above reproach and "the
husband of one wife." Rather than prohibiting a divorced person
from serving in leadership, the language of this verse actually
focuses on practicing polygamists. Polygamy was practiced in the
first century and found among Jewish and Christian groups. The passage
could be translated "a one-woman man." If Paul intended to prohibit
a divorced person from leadership, he could have used a much less
ambiguous term.
As Christians in a society where divorce is rampant, I believe
we must come back to these important biblical principles concerning
marriage. Christians should work to build strong marriages. Pastors
must frequently preach and teach about the importance of marriage.
We should encourage fellow Christians to attend various marriage
enrichment seminars and ministries in our community.
As Christians I also believe we should reach out to those who have
been through divorce. We must communicate Christ's forgiveness to
them in the midst of their shattered lives. They need counseling
and support groups. Many times they also need financial help and
direction as they begin to put together the shattered pieces of
their lives.
But as we reach out to those whose lives are shattered by divorce,
we must be careful that our ministry does not compromise our theology.
We must reach out with both biblical convictions and biblical compassion.
Marriage for life is God's ideal (Genesis 2), nevertheless, millions
of people have been devastated by divorce and need to feel care
andcompassion from Christians. Churches have unfortunately erred
on one side or another. Most churches have maintained a strong stand
on marriage and divorce. While this strong biblical stand is admirable,
it should also be balanced with compassion towards those caught
in the throes of divorce. Strong convictions without compassionate
outreach often seems to communicate that divorce is the unforgivable
sin.
On the other hand, some churches in their desire to minister to
divorced people have compromised their theological convictions.
By starting without biblically-based convictions about marriage
and divorce, they have let their congregation's circumstances influence
their theology.
Christians must simultaneously reach out with conviction and compassion.
Marriage for life is God's ideal, but divorce is a reality in our
society. Christians should reach out with Christ's forgiveness to
those whose lives have been shattered by divorce.
Notes
1. Diane Medved, The Case Against
Divorce (New York:Donald I. Fine, Inc., 1989), 1-2.
2. National Center for Health Statistics,
"Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1983," NCHS Monthly
Vital Statistics Report, vol. 34, no. 9, 26 December 1985, table
1.
3. Landon Jones, Great Expectations:
America and the Baby Boom Generation (New York: Ballantine Books,
1980), 215.
4. Ibid., 216.
5. Cheryl Russell, 100 Predictions
for the Baby Boom (New York: Plenum, 1987), 107.
6. Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee,
Second Chances: Men, Women and Children A Decade After Divorce
(New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1989).
7. Sheila Fitzgerald Klein and Andrea
Beller, American Demographics, March 1989, 13.
8. William Dunn, "I do, is repeat refrain
for half of newlyweds," USA Today, 15 February 1991, A-1.
9. "Families: neo-nukes," Research
Alert, 17 August 1990, 6.
10. "When the Family Will Have a New
Definition," What the Next 50 Years Will Bring, a special edition
of U.S. News and World Report, 9 May 1983, A-3.
11. Arland Thornton and Deborah Freedman,
"The Changing American Family," Population Bulletin, vol.
38, no. 4 (Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, Inc.,
1983), 10.
12. Lynn K. White and Alan Booth, "The
quality and stability of remarriages: the role of stepchildren,"
American Sociological Review, vol. 50, no. 5, October 1985,
689 98.
13. G. J. Wenham, "Gospel Definitions
of Adultery and Women's Rights," Expository Times 95, 11
(1984): 330.
©2003 Probe Ministries. Used with Permission.
This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered
or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form
so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document
may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this
document must contain the copyright notice and this Copyright/Limitations notice.
About the Author
Kerby Anderson is National Director of Probe Ministries
International. He received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from
Yale University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of several
books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living Ethically in
the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, and Moral Dilemmas. He
is a nationally syndicated columnist whose editorials have appeared in the Dallas
Morning News, the Miami Herald, the San Jose Mercury, and the Houston
Post. He is the host of the "Probe" radio program, and frequently
serves as guest host on "Point of View" (USA Radio Network) and "Open
Line" (Moody Broadcasting Network).
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church
in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the
church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our
Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio
program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
 |
Author
|
