In Favour of Divorce

I was trying to get myself geared up to write about Ephesians 5, but I have not been inspired about it. I saw yet another argument about sex within marriage about the Corinthians verses

This is what one version of the Bible says on the matter:

Now I will answer the questions that you asked in your letter. You asked, “Is it best for people not to marry?”[a] Well, having your own husband or wife should keep you from doing something immoral. Husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex. A wife belongs to her husband instead of to herself, and a husband belongs to his wife instead of to himself. So don’t refuse sex to each other, unless you agree not to have sex for a little while, in order to spend time in prayer. Then Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control. In my opinion that is what should be done, though I don’t know of anything the Lord said about this matter. I wish that all of you were like me, but God has given different gifts to each of us.

 

This strikes me as being a simple set of verses, talking about how sex in marriage is about cooperation, and one party simply saying “I have a low libido” is not really good enough. You’d still have to work out some kind of compromise, some kind of understanding. But typically the default CF position was “why can’t the high libido person defer to the low libido person?”

Personally, this may sound shocking in the face of what the rest of that chapter says, but I honestly think that one of the things I would consider in future–whether I would do it or not is another thing but I would certainly wonder if it would be a good idea–would be to divorce a woman who takes up the position that a couple’s sex life is predicated on her moods and feelings, not on what the couple comes to agreement about.

I am in favour of divorce as a contingency. Just as I am in favour of war as a contingency. I think that Christians who talk of marriage dislike having this contingency, but it exists, and I think that men today need to be prepared for it rather than hoping it won’t happen. Women in our culture as far as we can tell divorce when they feel unhappy in their marriages, so it would be foolish to not be ready for that. Trying to make preparations so it won’t happen–the odds are that it WILL happen, and that we men lack information about why it will on a case by case basis. Women seem to have a tendency, in our culture, to marry for reasons outside of will driven choice. They marry because it is expected, because their mood at the time told them to, or whatever the case might be, they expected that their husband would become the man of their fantasies by magic–well disillusionment arrives and they divorce.

So men should be ready for it. We should be ready for it like the Apostles were ready to be rejected as Christ was–and ready to dust off their sandals and move on. I think that that readiness might also make men a bit more thoughtful about who they marry, and might make them more ready to confront bad behaviour from women early.

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “In Favour of Divorce

  1. Sojourner:
    Unfortunately, you are right, but men can also take preventative measures to reduce that contingency. Among them are these statistics: American men/foreign wife (divorce rate 18%). American man/American wife (divorce rate 65%).

    Mathematically, your chances of disaster with a foreign girl is 1/6; with an American one, 2/3: so the ‘nuclear option’ can be greatly mitigated by avoiding femihag ameroskanks.

  2. Did Deti write this?

    LOL. I first saw this on my phone and the author’s name wasn’t visible. I thought, “There’s no way Empath wrote this.”

    It should be an interesting discussion.

  3. @Eric

    Sadly I’ve thought the same thing. If my marriage goes under, I’m going marrying a foreign woman.

  4. I am in favour of divorce as a contingency. Just as I am in favour of war as a contingency.

    Divorce is a war against the flesh, but our war is not against the flesh.

    This post is stupid, faithless, and wicked.

  5. Yes but no. Cane is right. The reason, specifically, is that now that divorce has become too common, divorce is the primary means by which low-libido wives ensure that they don’t have to endure comprimising with their husbands.

  6. Christian men are unarmed and unwilling to deal with the ugly reality of life and women. They also preach an emasculated Gospel of taking back an unfaithful wife, putting up with her bull$ hit no matter how bad (as in not kicking her to the curb) think God will intervene when divorce stats show otherswise etc etc.. all backed up with a ton of clever words which amount to nothing practical and actionable & demonstrably false when you observe man after man follow that script into a life of misery. Oh yea, and the men who think that’s only the churchians and they are different, basically all say the same things with the expectation of wifely submission.

    Taking divorce off the table is a stamp of approval for feral female behavior. Especially since men may no longer take on multiple wives as the Old Testament Patriarchs did.

  7. 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.” Matt 19:8

    For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Malachi 2:16

    God hates the putting away of wives. However, the state has no power to declare parted what God has joined. Only the parties to the marriage can break that bond (1 Cor 7:11), but the bonds can be broken (Jer 3:1).

    If a woman is refusing to have sex with her husband, she has put herself away of her own accord, creating a situation that God hates (Mal 2:16). She is not to do this (1 Cor 7:10), but if she does she is to remain chaste or return to her husband. (1 Cor 7:11). If she sleeps with another man, her husband shall not take her back (Jer :3:1, Deut 24:4).

    If the wife has gone from a man and belongs to another, I see no reason why the Christian man should not release himself from her with a legal divorce from the state, considering that in God’s eyes he is already divorced, and he is prohibited from ever again possessing his former wife.

  8. Re: reconciling. It does seem most Biblical to reinforce the Dread of never-again, to avoid giving women the illusion that they can actually return, in other words to promote rightful regret and lifelong penitence. But there is a loud segment of Christianity that fervently believes that “let bygones be bygones” is the be-all and end-all of reconciliation.

  9. @jf12

    The wife may return if she has not has sex with another man.

    “But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” 1 Cor 7:11

    The wife may not return if she has had sex with another man.

    “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Deut 24:4

    “There is a loud segment of Christianity that fervently believes that “let bygones be bygones” is the be-all and end-all of reconciliation.”

    Those people don’t read the Bible.

  10. Sojournerscribe wrote this post, and he is me.
    I wrote this post because I have seen a number of Christian husbands say “divorce is not an option” and between 3-5 years later end up divorced anyway. In some cases they initiated it, but in most they were blindsided and stunned later. Also Eric is right–the degeneration of family supporting culture in Canada and the US and the general refusal of Christian leadership to recognize the causes of this are staggering.

    See here is the problem; I believe it is Christian Game that can be the slippery slope, not considering the strong possibility of divorce. Christian Game is often presented as though it simply works—as though dealing with women is chemistry rather than biology. Chemistry generally works depending on the conditions surrounding it. Biology is more confusing, and depends in part on the choices of intelligent creatures which may make choices that are not in their best interests for a variety of reasons. I repeat the point I have made before: if we are good it does not mean we will get a good reaction. Jesus was good, and look what happened to him.Women may be affected by chemical and biological processes, but ultimately they are still human beings with agency, and the Bible makes it very clear that this is how we should see it.

    This doesn’t mean that I am suggesting that we not be good—I am suggesting that we change our attitudes from believing that we should act as though we will be treated well for doing so. Having the attitude that we COULD divorce, at the very least, an unloving wife, and that it is LIKELY that a divorce will occur is a lot more like the apostles sent out with nothing than we might naturally think it is. If you consider, that is very much like being ready to dust off our sandals.

    I am not against reconciliation. Part of being a Christian is being merciful, is being forgiving. If we do not forgive our Father in Heaven is not obliged to forgive us, and we are also sinners. But we need to look to the Bible to see how reconciliation works. Was Joseph unforgiving with his brothers? No, but they tried to kill him, so he was wary of them, and decided to see if they could prove to him that they had become honest men. Jesus was good to the apostles when he met them again after his resurrection, but he wanted them to demonstrate their sincerity. Repentance is more than saying we are sorry, it means we turn from evil to God.

  11. @sojournerscribe re: chemical solutions. What if there were a “monogamy pill” that made women into happier wives? Not so far-fetched if you google it. Assuming Something Like That does work (the sooner the better in my opinion!), what would be the ethical considerations? FWIW feminists have adamantly opposed women’s libido pills for obvious reasons (date rape, marital “rape”, etc.)

  12. no, deti didn’t write this.

    Have all of you forgotten it’s April Fools’ Day?

  13. I wrestled with this when I read Athol Kay’s “Married Man’s Sex Life” and his MAP concept. My thinking on this is that God separates himself from us based on our bad behavior, He is not following His bride around like a blue-pill puppy dog. While I am not a proponent of divorce understanding that it is a distinct possibility and that by not preparing for that eventuality we are actually MORE likely to see it as a result. If the husband must under no circumstances displease his wife (lest she divorce him) he is put in such a position of weakness that it predicts trouble for the marriage. God is not wringing His hands over our possible rebellion, He is not dreaming of new ways to be Santa Claus. He is sovereign. So too the position of the husband needs to be a strong one. An unassailable one in Christ. The “church”, our families, the culture and our wives can all be chiding us about our lack of love, but if we are in right relationship with Christ we can shrug this off as the sentimentality and rebellion that it is.

    We can’t buy a rebel with our bowing and scraping, we are just rewarding the rebellion. What we have in the case of a rebellious wife and a Godly husband is one wherein divorce is entirely likely due to the impasse. Our culture want’s to resolve that impasse by insisting that nobody be Godly.

    It is better to dwell in the wilderness*, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
    (Pro 21:19)

    (*Cabin spaces available)

  14. @sfcton: “Taking divorce off the table is a stamp of approval for feral female behavior. Especially since men may no longer take on multiple wives as the Old Testament Patriarchs did.”

    You want to go down a rabbit hole? A few weeks ago, I was talking to a good friend of my wife following church and mentioned that churches need to have a plan for dealing with “married” homosexual couples who make their way through our doors. As a side note I mentioned polygamy, since the homosexual marriage movement has thrown open the door to legalize polygamy as well.

    I followed this up by reading up on Christian responses to polygamy and, man… I had no idea.

    If you would have asked me a month ago, I would have told you that polygamy was a sin. I have looked deeply into the Scriptures on this and, at best, I keep ending up with the position of: “polygamy is not the most preferred option, but it is not sin.”

    Sure, Mark Driscoll is against it: http://theresurgence.com/2009/11/02/is-polygamy-biblical but his arguments are so weak my fifth grader could demolish them. The opinions on polygamy vary widely through Church history, with Luther at one time giving it the “no scriptural prohibition against it” and even a pope and church father or two stating it it was acceptable in certain circumstances, while Calvin and others pronounced it an abomination.

    Having had my world shaken after a red-pill infusion after 25 years of marriage, I’ve come to a point of mistrusting the “experts,” like those who helped keep my marriage a torture for such a long time by feeding me culturally-influenced garbage wrapped in a “biblical” coating. I am very theologically conservative and committed to faithfully fulfilling the commands of Scripture (such as having a hard line against divorce – there were times in my marriage when I frantically searched the Scriptures for any escape clause – I would have been out the door if I had found one. I stayed to be faithful) so I am boggled that I have gotten to this point, though I’m still open to more evidence.

    I don’t want to hijack this thread and I am NOTNOTNOTNOTNOTNOT pushing for polygamy here (my wife laughing said, “I see where this is going…” when I first mentioned to her what I had been studying), but my head is seriously exploding here.

  15. “It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
    (Pro 21:19)”

    Before red-pill and the turnaround of my marriage, this was my fall-back option. I was organizing my life so that when the youngest kid was out of the house, I would continue to provide for my wife’s financial support, but I’d be somewhere else. ‘Cause it’s better, y’know?

  16. @KPP

    Something I wrote over at Donal’s place a bit ago:

    The Bible does not forbid having multiple wives (although those with multiple wives shall not become bishops). This is because marriage is a hierarchy. A man cannot serve two masters, but two men can serve the same master. A man cannot serve two Gods, but two men can serve the same God. One woman may not have two husbands, but two women may have one husband.

  17. Sure, one man one woman is preferred, and Driscoll is actually not wrong about some of the problems, but as you say, faulty logic. So comparing that with divorce, I think far better for the average Christian husband to accept that divorce may be on the horizon if a wife is consistently refusing sex for no discern able reason.

  18. Miss a day miss a lot.

    I want to agree that going Deti-Con 5 could be effective, and I like the discussion it provokes, but I see no profitable outcome, either in a spiritual sense or in a worldly sense. If she is dead set in sexual rejection, in the majority of cases she would end up FEELING freed to find a better back scratch tool than the one she she bought at the fine and dime and promised to use forever. There is no worldly way for a man to approach the power struggle, or meet aloofness with aloofness that will result in true reconciliation that leaves the two as one.

    If an option of force is sought it will have to be the community of believers and the teaching, and of course a little help from the legal system. Despite Deti’s claims of his successful battling back of his wife (Im not saying he is not telling the truth) I do not subscribe to his method either.

  19. Well KPP, men need to take the whole red pill and that includes what God actually lays down in scripture vs what folks have been indoctrinated with/ what they deem as Bibical when it is actually cultural. Polygamy is one of those things.

    In practical terms, every Godly man who remarried but is paying alimony ( or providing for his ex in some way) is in a polygamous marriage like the Old Testament Patriarchs.

  20. Sojourner:
    I think that ultimately Game is dangerous for men to practice in our culture (with non-feminist cultures it isn’t necessary); but so-called ‘Christian Game’ is even more dangerous; because not only do its advocates believe it a ‘natural law’ they tie it to the Bible, giving it an aura of infallibility. Dalrock is probably the worst of these advocates, and even he admitted once, that the divorce rate among N. American Christians is nearly 40%.

    Part of the problem is that, not only do Christian Gamers NOT take divorce into account, they completely deny that feminist indoctrination and education has any effect whatsoever on female psychology. They assume that all women long to submit to the ‘manly alpha leader’. It may be so; but when women are taught from girlhood onwards to fight these types of impulses, ‘a manly alpha leader’ is going to be more of a target than an object of desire. An ‘alpha’ type is going to be embroiled in non-stop competition and combat with these types of women; and given that our entire culture is dominated by the femihags, that competition logically can only end one way.

    If a man chooses to marry, his best option is to forget ‘game’ altogether; and find a kindred spirit among cultures who haven’t been steeped in misandry. Then they can concentrate on cooperation, not competition.

  21. I generally agree, though i otherwise like the other factors Dalrock writes about. I would add that some of the other underlying problems are twofold.

    First, there is a cushion in that women can not only divorce but expect to be socially and financially be upheld by the state. This is a factor.

    Second, the historic biblical factor. In ancient times there were laws against adultery. But why did they need to exist if most laws favored men anyway? If we look at a parallel, the Israelite prophets often compared Israel to an adulterous woman. If we were to write about this extensively, we would present many examples of how betrayal is simply something in our sinful nature, something we must struggle to overcome.

    By whitewashing women, blaming men for women’s sins, false teachers deceive.

    Game Theory has some merit. It is good to be confident, it is good to have a sense of humor, be ready to learn from mistakes, pick the relationships that suit you best. It is a good that a man should not seek women’s approval as the yardstick for his life.

    Ultimately though I think that the Bible teaches that women need to learn to develop moral character, and teaches that men should be wary of women who don’t have it.

  22. I think the social domination of “Game”, the alpha traits and strength are actually imitations of the strength we see in God. God has a masculinity that is both under assault by our culture who is in rebellion to Him, but also has a deep seated desire for those traits, a built in need. That is why game “works”; like the Biblical “money code” it is tapping into a truth while not being a truth in itself. Masculinity is both hated and revered. It seems like some want to give up on masculinity as a human endeavor forgetting that we are made in God’s image. It’s not a lost cause, since we know that God is both masculine AND sovereign. The question I have is who will stand with Him?

  23. Ps, a man should divorce sooner rather then later if there are serious issues. The longer you wait, the worse it goes for you in family court.

  24. @God is Laughing: I think you’re missing my point. I think saying something works is different from saying it is good. Imitating God is good, but it doesn’t necessarily “work”. Proclaiming the truth is done by Elijah, Joseph, Stephen and Peter, all with very different results, all good, all right, but they don’t work the same do they?

    So if you applied this to marriage, it’s not necessarily going to result in the marriage turning out with love and devotion received. And I thinking fairness to Dalrock he does consistently say that the woman’s character is important as a factor.

  25. Scribe, I have had my healthy dose of red-pill. Even Jesus had His Judas. I’m under no illusions that no matter what a husband does marriage can end badly (just like with rebellious children). Lord help the man who marries a Gomer with an large N count.

  26. Had to simile when I saw the date on this one. That said, the reaction to a selfish and ill-tempered wife (or husband for that matter) is found in Matthew 18:15-19; to bring the matter before the elders of the church, noting that 1 Corinthians 7 requires spouses to give due affection to one another.

    If the church honors God’s Word, you’ve got the huge blessing of communicating to your spouse that her (his) rebellion is not against you. It’s against God. If the church does not honor God’s Word and “talks around the issue”, you’ve got the huge blessing of knowing that you need to move on to find a church that DOES honor God’s Word.

    If the church does right, but the spouse does not repent, the deprived spouse then knows he (she) must pray for his (her) spouse’s repentance, and even to come to Christ. It can be painful, but it’s God’s way of handling things.

  27. Sojourner:
    I remember Dalrock saying somewhere that husbands could reduce their chances of divorce by making a wise choice of a wife and learning Game. To me, the two things are mutually exclusive: a wise choice in a wife would obviate the need to learn Game and, if a husband needed Game, he probably didn’t choose wisely. Some of things you mentioned as positive aspects of Game are really things men do in the normal course of courtship.

    “Ultimately I think that the Bible teaches women must develop a moral character and men should be wary of women who don’t have it.”

    Exactly, I totally agree. But that would also obviate the need to learn Game, since PUA is largely premised on lack of female moral character.

  28. I’m with Cane on the April fools joke question. Is this a serious post?

    @Eric
    I think that ultimately Game is dangerous for men to practice in our culture (with non-feminist cultures it isn’t necessary); but so-called ‘Christian Game’ is even more dangerous; because not only do its advocates believe it a ‘natural law’ they tie it to the Bible, giving it an aura of infallibility. Dalrock is probably the worst of these advocates, and even he admitted once, that the divorce rate among N. American Christians is nearly 40%.

    BS. I’ve never claimed game is either from the Bible or infallible. As for me “admitting” that divorce rates are high, I’ve spent a good amount of my blogging pointing out in painful detail the depth and breadth of the problem we have regarding divorce, especially in the church. Seriously, who in the manosphere has done more to describe the problem of divorce in Christianity than I have? This would be like me accusing you of once “admitting” that women in the US are “Amerobitches”.

    Three posts I would suggest for someone who wants to understand my position regarding Game and marriage:

    Should you game your prospective wife into submission?
    Hostage negotiator for life?
    Headship Game.

  29. Seems deadly serious to me, a man who has “PTSD” from marriage and the family court vs 10+ years of ground combat.

  30. Dalrock:
    Or posts like ‘All Christians Must Learn Game’ or :Christians Can Take Credit for Game’? It sounds like the distinction’s a little thin.

  31. Accurately vetting a prospective wife is limited at best. When a woman desires to land a man for a husband she will act her best. She will be attentive, loving, respectful, and profess a low N count. It is usually a few months after the honeymoon when her true persona surfaces.

    To be fair, I’ve heard women say the same about men acting at their best before marriage. Perhaps this dynamic is more of a human strategy then gender specific.

    Regarding game. I believe there are many definitions of game and many ways of implementing game. Many men have utilized game without knowing. Years ago we referred to today’s game as finesse communication. Game can be used as finesse or outright manipulation, depending on the person and their goal.

    Being ready for war is wise. Without our strong military we would have been conquered long ago. Entering marriage with the knowledge that divorce may in fact occur, despite a husbands best efforts is wise in this day and age.

  32. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) on said:

    lzolzozozozozo

    DA GBFM IS DA GREATEST CHRIATAISNZ OF ALL TIMESZ aCCORIDNG 2 DALORKCAS LO?TAS COCKAS!!!

    As dalrock teaches and preaches dat christians need game, da GBFM is da greatest christianz in all of historyzizi!!!

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/youll-know-youre-an-alpha-male-if-your-name-is-da-gbfm-lzozlzlzozozoozoz-da-gbfm-has-so-much-game-dat-dey-call-me-da-microsoft-sexbox-and-sony-puastation-lzlzzozozoozzozlzzoz/

    lzozozoozoz da gbfm has so much game dat dey call me da Microsoft seXbox and Sony PUASTATION lzlzzozozoozzozlzzoz and da Ninentdo Wiienerz lzozozozzlozzo da GBFM make mystery look like da Sega bungmasterz zlozzlzozozlzloz cause while he’s playing losta Atari pong da biddies be sukckingz da losta GBFM dong!
    lzolzozllzlzlozololoz

  33. Now we have a blog. GBFM jus’ bus’ in da room.

    Dalrock and Cane

    Regardless if the post is serious, it deserves thoughtful discussion. I don’t even know if it was timed for April 1, or if it is satire and the date is coincidence, or if it is an angry reaction to some present event in the writers life, or…….. and I know the writer. But it raised issues beyond whether it was a joke or whether it was serious. Come on guys. Certainly you are not obliged to discourse. But those are smug responses.

    Its been fairly clear even the three of us have some disagreements regarding Christian Game. I think that challenges to it, however, that would say, for example “isn’t that oxymoron?” would most assuredly not be profitable.

  34. @SS

    It’s a serious post. if people dislike it I will discuss it with them, if they dismiss it out of hand then that’s their choice.

    Well, at least this should dry up the nervous chuckling about April Fool’s. I’m not sure how anyone could have read it as a joke in the first place. So then why did they pretend?

    SS, you don’t have a case here except that you’re standing directly athwart God’s Word. Your post is titled “In Favour of Divorce”. The body of it says to beat wives threatening divorce to the punch by divorcing them first. That’s wrong; just flat-out wrong. As Empath has said many times: There is one sure method to prevent divorce: Don’t do it.

    This Invasion of Iraq-like foolishness is bolstered by comparisons of divorce to war, and wives as enemies. Except wives aren’t enemies; especially as long as they are wives…or Christians…or neighbors. And even if they are, then we are called to love them. Divorce is not love. Discipline is love, but divorce is not. Turns out war is not love, either.

    Along the way, in your post, you devilishly confuse instigation of divorce with awareness of the possibility. Is there anything more banal and immature than fearful retribution of things that have yet to happen? It’s the advice of a coward who yet dares to speak of conflict as something he has endured when the truth is that it is he who plots against others, and even against God.

    Saying these things is not only strictly wrong, but it spoils the whole conversation. When we should be encouraging, supporting, and comforting those who have been wronged by divorce, you pollute those refreshing waters with the filth of sinful desires; infecting and repelling everyone.

    As I said, this post is stupid, faithless, and wicked. I don’t know what Empath was thinking to approve this post.

    On a final note: I wonder whether I am one of those of whom you consider to have dismissed your post “out of hand”–as you said you will discuss it with those who dislike it; yet you ignored my comment. I have no quarrel with that, but allow me to caution you that in this context, a reading the whole post is not an out-of-hand dismissal; even if my previous responses are as concise as they are terse.

  35. @Empath

    Saw you latest comment after I posted.

    But those are smug responses.

    Was that directed at me? I can’t tell if you’re referencing specifically the comments of Dalrock and I, or the Game discussion that arose which included Dalrock.

  36. @ Cane

    Loving people doesn’t mean we submit to whatever they want. For example, if a wife is having sex with another man, he has every right to divorce her, and also if the situation was reversed. So clearly you can divorce according to biblical principles.

    I find it interesting that you call fearful retribution of things that have yet to happen banal and immature. Surely that is why we fear God, after all. Surely that is why we prepare for things—in fact Christ advocates this in the parable of the foolish and wise virgins.

    A sure fire way to prevent divorce is not to do it? That’s false Women can and do the majority of divorces—who’s going to stop them? You? As I have said, I have seen too many men blindsided by bad church advice who got divorced anyway and were confused and devastated by it to not tell them that it is a strong likelihood given certain factors seen in their marriages. That is setting people up for failure.

    Furthermore, if you read the rest of my posts you would see that I am not against reconciliation, forgiveness and repentance.

  37. @Eric

    Dalrock:
    Or posts like ‘All Christians Must Learn Game’ or :Christians Can Take Credit for Game’? It sounds like the distinction’s a little thin.

    On the former, make up whatever you like; I wrote no such post. On the latter, you need a better news source than GBFM. My post explaining how Christians can take credit for game was an indictment on modern Christians for effectively endorsing our modern SMP:

    As Christians we (collectively) can take credit for making all of this happen. Christians have provided the moral cover for both the sexual revolution and the divorce revolution. At the core of the Christian backing of the sexual/divorce revolution is the modern Christian rebellion against biblical headship.

  38. @Empath

    Regardless if the post is serious, it deserves thoughtful discussion.

    Truly you can’t mean that. Are you really arguing that if this were an April fools joke we would need to have a thoughtful discussion of the thesis?

    But going with the confirmation that it is serious, it still has the problem of not making a coherent argument. There is no biblical explanation offered in the post for why Christian husbands would be free to do this. It isn’t that he makes a weak case for this, he doesn’t even try. If you want me to refute his argument, kindly quote it to me. The closest he comes to making the case is when he writes:

    I am in favour of divorce as a contingency. Just as I am in favour of war as a contingency.

    I’ll take his word for it that this is a factual statement. How could I possibly prove or even assert that he feels otherwise? With this said, there is no argument here. Just an expression of his feelings, followed by a demand (from you) to be taken seriously! Has this blog been taken over by chicks?

    This is how I feel about X…

    Take me seriously!

    Moreover, as Cane pointed out above, the assertion starts with an endorsement for divorce and quickly pivots to an argument not to deny that we are in an epidemic of wife initiated divorce. The most serious argument I can make with the post is that the following is incorrect:

    I think that Christians who talk of marriage dislike having this contingency…
    Modern Christians are delighted with the contingency, but only to the extent that it can be used to overturn headship.

  39. I don’t know what Empath was thinking to approve this post.

    True. Obviously its something different than what you would be thinking in not approving it.

  40. Dalrock

    Maybe I made a mess of your blockquotes. But I tried fixing.

    Are you really arguing that if this were an April fools joke we would need to have a thoughtful discussion of the thesis?

    No. That is not at all what I was arguing. I didn’t say that the thesis itself, thumbs up vs thumbs down on being in favor of divorce, was an open debatable question, and I am pretty sure that I have never wavered on my beliefs on that.

    Maybe I am drifting into the emotion of it, but the fact that someone would even make a post like this is a reflection of something and whatever that something is is what I was intrigued by.

    I do not defend any assertion that men divorcing women preemptivey is a good thing. I may slip into hypocrisy in some areas as much as I try not to, but this is not one of them.

    Think Swifts “Modest Proposal” in the face of famine, and the way that has resonated across the years and ask yourself, when it was made, why did it generate any fascination beyond simply asking if it was serious. No, there are no Swifts here, thats not the point. But it explains where Im coming from saying that discussing it neednt mean debating ysimple yea or ney.

    Hopefully this Swift analogy also answers why I referred to responses as smug.

  41. Dalrock, I would have stated it differently. Rather than saying divorce is a contingency I would say it is a reality. If my wife doesn’t behave as if she is married, if she defrauds me we are behaving as if there is a divorce already. Acknowledging the rift and demonstrating the level of wrong being done to that marriage is necessary. Taking the “D” word off the table suggests to me that right up to adultery no behavior is so bad as to threaten the existence of the relationship. Is that so? So your spouse embraces morbid obesity as a lifestyle choice, dresses like a slut, bankrupts you, denies sexual intercourse with you, destroys your property, and abuses you but divorce is off the table? How is divorce NOT a contingency? God is not going to stay “married” to that, He has standards and we should too.

  42. @Empath

    Maybe I made a mess of your blockquotes. But I tried.

    Thank you. I meant to close out the blockquote after “contingency…”. The sentence which followed is from me.

    Are you really arguing that if this were an April fools joke we would need to have a thoughtful discussion of the thesis?

    No. That is not at all what I was arguing. I didn’t say that the thesis itself, thumbs up vs thumbs down on being in favor of divorce, was an open debatable question, and I am pretty sure that I have never wavered on my beliefs on that.

    I didn’t see you as wavering in your beliefs. What I was getting at is if this were an April fools joke, it wouldn’t make sense to argue with the post as if it were serious. It would be like responding to articles on the Onion as if they were serious.

  43. I have had a recurring thought recently. Ive written about it in comments everywhere. It is based on how I felt when I was choking on red pill stew.

    I would have written on a blog, or said a lot of things that I now would vehemently disagree with. In fact I did write some of those things early on when I was participating in, first the Family Life forum, and then Christian Forums. By the time I made my way to blogs I was past the emotional explosions.

    The post was not made because the writer is in the midst of that kind of maelstrom presently. But its similar to the thoughts one who is in it may have. So when I suggest discussion of it, if that sort of sympathy to some hypothetical person who is in that mess is indicative of me being possessed by a chick….so be it.

    Sheesh.

  44. I didn’t see you as wavering in your beliefs. What I was getting at is if this were an April fools joke, it wouldn’t make sense to argue with the post as if it were serious. It would be like responding to articles on the Onion as if they were serious.

    Or like discussing Swift in High School English class, maybe? I realize its a strained analogy, but take it as its intended.

  45. There is a difference between a legal divorce and a biblical divorce. It is the latter that God hates, and arguing that the former should not be a contingency is to hopelessly conflate the two. Dalrock, I seem to remember that in the past you have pointed out the difference between biblical and legal marriage (and thus divorce) in the context of re-marriage or taking back an estranged wife who has been awarded a legal divorce. Cane, you condemn as wicked the suggestion of divorce as a contingency without bothering to clarify what divorce you mean. Using biblical divorce as a contingency is clearly wicked. Using legal divorce (which has no power to unbind what God has joined) as a contingency is a completely different matter. SojournerScribe, you ought to have been more clear in the original post and comments clarifying which type of divorce you were talking about.

  46. @SS

    Loving people doesn’t mean we submit to whatever they want.

    No one said it did; especially not me.

    I find it interesting that you call fearful retribution of things that have yet to happen banal and immature. Surely that is why we fear God, after all.

    That’s not retribution. Our Lord tarries while we sin so that we might have time to repent of our trangessions. He will deliver retribution for sins we actually committed, but that we are saved by Christ. Pre-emptive divorce as retribution for a pre-crime by a fellow sinner against a fellow sinner is a monstrous corruption of the facts. Also: We are not God.

    A sure fire way to prevent divorce is not to do it? That’s false Women can and do the majority of divorces—who’s going to stop them? You?

    If those women wouldn’t divorce, divorce wouldn’t happen. So, no, not me. Them. You prescribing men pre-emptively divorcing as a solution to female divorce is idiotic–at best.

    As I have said, I have seen too many men blindsided by bad church advice who got divorced anyway and were confused and devastated by it to not tell them that it is a strong likelihood given certain factors seen in their marriages. That is setting people up for failure.

    Those people shouldn’t give bad advice. Their error does not create just cause for men to divorce their wives.

    Furthermore, if you read the rest of my posts you would see that I am not against reconciliation, forgiveness and repentance.

    The Bible says God hates divorce and to abandon our sacrifices to Him until we have made peace with our fellow Christian, but you say divorce is an acceptable measure (shades of “dread game” as “tools”, here) as long as we are not against some nebulous concept of reconciling later?

    @Empath

    Hopefully this Swift analogy also answers why I referred to responses as smug.

    I still do not know whether you lumped me under that label.

    Aside from that: This post is not Swiftian. SS has said it is not. You have said it is not. No one else can know better: Therefore, it is not. I don’t understand why you would expect or encourage anyone to treat it as satire when it has been plainly stated it was meant in earnest.

  47. I think part of what has happened is that there is an infection in churchianity that suggest that God will look upon us and accept us despite anything we do, that no sin is a sin too far. This comes out on the divorce issue:

    Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
    (Amo 3:3)

    I’m not in favor of divorce, nor is God. It is still a feature of living in a world where two people have to agree to walk together. Bending ourselves into pretzels trying to agree where there is no agreement (because of sin) is not a solution it’s a Band-Aid. I agree with what Moose is saying, legal divorce is a feature of the State and happens all of the time, I’m not disposed to think that God allows Biblical divorce:

    Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    (Mat 19:6-9)

    I would suggest that the Pharisees were speaking of legal marriage and Jesus was speaking of a spiritual reality. God joins us and going to the court and getting paperwork doesn’t force His hand as I am sure many will find out at the Judgement seat.

  48. Cane you miss something of the function of analogy. This anology does not rely on whether the post is Swiftian or not. There are two parts to an analogy. Lacking the formal terms, the part where the comparison is made , or, where the action happens, is one thing, and the things being compared otherwise, are another. To use a Swiftian thing verses a non Swiftian thing as the parts of the analogy where the action is not occuring is not negating the analogy.

    Further, there are multiple purposes for analogy, many not strictly adhering to forensc rigor. Im a little surprised at your take down of the analogy in light of the fact I’d expect you already know the mechanics I am explaining here.

  49. It’s rather simple really. There was a debate in the CF about 1 Corinthians 7which generally had most of the women saying “sex in marriage needs to depend on the wife’s mood.” I have said in response here because frank discussions are not permitted there that men should consider divorcing wives who won’t have sex with them except on their own terms.

    I wonder what is being advocated instead: imagine that you discover that your wife is having an affair or has decided to become a lesbian. You might try to challenge things, but you find she’s adamant in her purpose. What exactly do you do about it? Wait for her to lower the boom? Or should you get your ducks in a row and get ready to move on?

    In the case of her not having regular sex with her husband for no reason, it is likely that it is a red flag. It is likely that whatever the reasons are that they bode ill, and it is likely that you will uncover her wanting to end the marriage anyway. It is possible certainly that it is not, which is why I mentioned reconciliation; I did not mention it as a throwaway comment.

    If people want to accuse me of being unchristian in this so be it. If they want to call me a coward, so be it.

  50. “I wonder what is being advocated instead: imagine that you discover that your wife is having an affair or has decided to become a lesbian. You might try to challenge things, but you find she’s adamant in her purpose. What exactly do you do about it?”

    The Bible is clear on this. If your wife has gone from you to sleep with another man, she is no longer your wife and may not return to you.

    “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Deut 24:4

    “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.” Jer 3:1

    To take her back at this point would be an abomination, a sin, and a pollution of the land.

    Do I sound like a broken record yet?

  51. Dalrock:
    How about using your own website as a source?

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/how-christians-can-take-credit-for game/

    “So if you fear teaching Game to Christian husbands because Christians can’t take credit for the knowledge you are teaching, you can rest easy. We can’t take credit for the Roissyites, be we can and MUST take credit for creating the conditions necessary for the Roissyites to thrive…We would do well to remember that Roissy wasn’t trusted to share the beauty and wisdom of Christian marriage and sexual morality to the world, Christians were.”

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/why-christians-need-game/

    “Game will help you stop rejecting and being ashamed of the Bible when it comes to men and women.”

    So, you don’t claim Game and Christianity are inseparable, huh?

  52. @MNM

    There is a difference between a legal divorce and a biblical divorce.

    This is–at best–a tortured extrapolation on various and unrelated texts (concerning marriage specifically) within Scripture. Marriage is a personal, spiritual, and community matter; just as humans intrinsically are. There are not multiple marriages within a marriage. Just one.

    Cane, you condemn as wicked the suggestion of divorce as a contingency without bothering to clarify what divorce you mean.

    The onus is not on me to equivocate about contingencies. SS wrote the post the way he did on purpose; including obfuscation of the intent of marriage. That is to say: Obfuscation of the the responsibilities of those who marry. What Dalrock said:

    Modern Christians are delighted with the contingency, but only to the extent that it can be used to overturn headship.

    So delighted are they, that Christian men are here being encouraged to perpetrate it against themselves and their wives.

    The Bible is clear on this. If your wife has gone from you to sleep with another man, she is no longer your wife and may not return to you.

    You’re not being truthful to the text. What it says (in the OT) is that if a man divorces a woman, and she remarries and then again divorces, then the first may not take her back. Adultery is adultery. Divorce is divorce. Adultery is not divorce. Sex is not marriage.

    Else, you think God has Hosea break His own commandments; among other things such as your own quote:

    “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.” Jer 3:1

    @Empath

    I have no idea what you’re trying to tell me.

    @SS

    If people want to accuse me of being unchristian in this so be it.

    That’s all I needed to know.

  53. @Eric

    So, you don’t claim Game and Christianity are inseparable, huh?

    Not at all. It is beyond me how you came to that conclusion from the quotes you referenced.

  54. @Cane

    “There are not multiple marriages within a marriage. Just one.”

    -True. But that one marriage has nothing to do with the government or what is called “marriage” in common parlance. Else we could argue that Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not married.

    “You’re not being truthful to the text. What it says (in the OT) is that if a man divorces a woman, and she remarries and then again divorces, then the first may not take her back. Adultery is adultery. Divorce is divorce. Adultery is not divorce. Sex is not marriage.”

    -Remember that in the OT, a woman may not initiate a divorce, but a man may. Also, remember that married woman who committed adultery, or a man who committed adultery with a married woman, was to be put to death. No need to divorce one who is dead.

    -As to your assertion that “sex is not marriage,” I’m taking the liberty of quoting myself.

    “When Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, He referred to the explicitly sexual phrase “become one flesh”[1] as a joining performed by God.[2] Because of this, some argue that any sex is viewed by God as a marriage. While this view is more accurate than the modern view that you are only married if you have a legal certificate of marriage from the government, it is not completely right.
    In Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, we see that there are two phases to Biblical marriage. The first is betrothal, in which the woman is given or promised to the man by her father. At this point she is considered to be his wife, even though the marriage has not yet been consummated.[3] The betrothed wife could even be divorced for fornication. This was what Joseph planned to do with Mary when he found her to be pregnant, until an angel of God appeared to him and directed him not to.[4] After this betrothal was consummated in sex, the marriage was complete. However, if sex occurred without the betrothal already present, the girl’s father retained the right to refuse to give her to the man, just as he would have had the right to refuse to betroth her to him.[5] Thus, a man could not “go around” a father that refused to give his daughter to him simply by sleeping with her. ”

    (Short version, sex with an UNMARRIED woman constitutes marriage, unless her father utterly refuses to give her to you. Sex with a MARRIED woman constitutes adultery, which requires death, which nullifies the marriage and frees the non-adulterous to seek re-marriage.)

    1. 1 Corinthians 6:16 makes it clear that this phrase refers to sexual intercourse.
    2. Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9
    3. Deuteronomy 22:23-26, Matthew 1:18-19
    4. Matthew 1:20
    5. Exodus 22:17

  55. @MNM

    (Short version, sex with an UNMARRIED woman constitutes marriage, unless her father utterly refuses to give her to you. Sex with a MARRIED woman constitutes adultery, which requires death, which nullifies the marriage and frees the non-adulterous to seek re-marriage.)

    This is one of the errors of the scribes and pharisees (I’m not referring to their hypocrisy). You’re parsing the Law as if it were mere rules, but the Law is not the Thing to which the Law points. The Thing to which the Law points is the what must be discerned and obeyed. You’re making spiritual things technicalities. The result is lawlessness. For example: One can cobble together a rationale for “good” divorce, and even find himself in favour of it.

  56. Came I’m telling you that dismantling the analogy was not effective in doing what you seemingly intended. We are way off on a side bar, but I will not let the comment stand that I expected everyone to treat it as satire when we have stated it is not satire, I have not stated that it is or is not satire because it doesn’t matter to me, I have more than adequately explained what I meant when I said it “deserved discussion”. I used an analogy to express that more clearly. You then seem to dismantle the analogy as a way of rebuttal, the analogy was not dismantled . It stands as stated, and the analogy is useful as intended, I didn’t suggest it be discussed as satire, I was taught more on Swifts words than how to identify satire, I was taught all manner of things about what would have one write such a thing, those same things apply to my point here,

    The post is not there to discuss a rhetorical trick like satire, hence nothing about satire is there to be learned. But, like swifts satire, there are things in it to discuss if one wishes to. That last paragraph was more thoughtful than, but as ineffective as going after someone’s spelling or grammar. It also made necessary that one accept the straw position that I had stated that we should examine it AS satire,

    I can’t think of a way to make what I’m saying any more clear.

  57. @Cane

    “This is one of the errors of the scribes and pharisees (I’m not referring to their hypocrisy). You’re parsing the Law as if it were mere rules, but the Law is not the Thing to which the Law points. The Thing to which the Law points is the what must be discerned and obeyed. You’re making spiritual things technicalities. The result is lawlessness. For example: One can cobble together a rationale for “good” divorce, and even find himself in favour of it.”

    The Thing to which the Law points said:

    “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” Luke 16:17

    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matt 5:17-18

    I believe Him.

  58. @Empath

    Came I’m telling you that dismantling the analogy was not effective in doing what you seemingly intended. We are way off on a side bar, but I will not let the comment stand that I expected everyone to treat it as satire when we have stated it is not satire, I have not stated that it is or is not satire because it doesn’t matter to me, I have more than adequately explained what I meant when I said it “deserved discussion”. I used an analogy to express that more clearly. You then seem to dismantle the analogy as a way of rebuttal, the analogy was not dismantled . It stands as stated, and the analogy is useful as intended, I didn’t suggest it be discussed as satire, I was taught more on Swifts words than how to identify satire, I was taught all manner of things about what would have one write such a thing, those same things apply to my point here,

    Ok. If I understand, you’re saying that this post is analogous to “A Modest Proposal” because it highlights a serious plight. It does for divorce in the church what “A Modest Proposal” did for starving Irish; it “creates a space” to have a discussion about that topic and brings it to the forefront by causing outrage. Is that right?

    @MNM

    You’re not apprehending what Jesus is saying. And you’re not arguing with me, but with the great bulk of Christian tradition and scholarship since the there has been a Church.

    You’ve also taken the words about divorce that Jesus spoke to the pharisees concerning their own hypocrisy, and making it to be Law. This is doubly wrong.

    1) As Jesus says: He came to fulfill the Law; to complete it. The OT Law is not a set of rules that we are to follow, but a condemnation of our manner of existence. The pharisee’s problem wasn’t just that they were breaking the letter of the Law (as we all do, and have done since even before Eve took the fruit), but that they held others to account for it when the job of a priest (and fathers and brothers) is interceding on behalf of others. The things we really learn from the Law in the OT is that we are transgressors of it; that transgression of one part of the Law is transgression of the whole law unless a someone steps in for us. The Law teaches: You are guilty and the penalty is death unless someone steps in for you; makes peace on your behalf; sacrifices for you. That is the righteousness of Job–who made sacrifices for his children lest God become wrathful against them.

    Jesus fulfills the Law in two ways.

    1) His sacrifice is the ultimate sacrifice for the covering of sin. No other sacrifice is necessary for–nor can actually accomplish–the remission of sin.

    2) He is the Author of the Law. He is the Lord of not only the letters, but the dark spaces between; in which is hidden the rest of the Law. If you with Him, you are keeping the Law. If you are not, then you surely are not. “WIth Him” in the dark space would be, then, not just avoiding a literal transgression of the letter of the Law, but going with that Thing towards with the letters point. In this case, “From the beginning this (divorce) was not so…”

    In other words: Don’t divorce. Do what was perfectly meant in the beginning. Marry, and stay married. If we don’t marry and stay married we will end up at this post; following the letter of the Law only, and in agreement with those Christians who do not (and by hypocrisy are unable!) to hold women accountable for divorcing their husbands.

  59. @ Cane

    “You’re not apprehending what Jesus is saying. And you’re not arguing with me, but with the great bulk of Christian tradition and scholarship since the there has been a Church.”

    Exactly. I’m not arguing with you, I’m pointing out that you have placed “Christian tradition and scholarship” above the Word of God.

    And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. He was also saying to them, You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” Mark 7:6-13

    God hates divorce. God hates divorce even if the couple was never legally married. (Thus my opposition to the prevalent advice of “If you are having sex with your girlfriend you should break up”) Christians should not divorce their wives. However, there is no reason not to get a piece of paper from the government that says you are divorced if your wife has already divorced you. You accuse me of being unable to hold women accountable for divorcing their husbands. On the contrary, sticking to the higher standards of Scripture, I am able to hold women accountable for divorcing their husbands even when the government says that no divorce has occurred. Conflating Biblical and legal divorce sweeps many divorces, such as those among couples who were not legally married, under the rug as if they didn’t exist. They do exist, and God hates them just as much as any other divorce.

  60. Cane, speaking of the “dark spaces between the letters” I wonder about something. For what purpose were Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden? Why did God allow Israel to be carried off into Babylon? Why did Jesus feel separation from the Father on the Cross? Sin separates us from God, it creates a divorce if you would. It is only by the blood of Jesus Christ that our relationship is restored. Our disobedience causes separation from His kingdom, from submitting to His authority. There are no rebels in His kingdom. When we operate under this authority as husbands/fathers we are like the centurion, under authority and IN authority, rebellion towards us IS in God’s eyes rebellion towards Him. That is why He warns:

    And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
    (Eph 6:4)

    So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
    (Eph 5:28-30)

    The Lord has handed us a gift and He expects us to receive it from His hand and He is making us responsible for it (yes I went there).

    Rebellion has it’s consequences however.

    Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
    (Mat 18:15-17)

    Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
    (Rom 11:22)

    Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
    (2Th 3:6)

    So now what is the husband to do with the sister (his bride) who chooses to walk in open rebellion? What if she is an unbeliever in open rebellion? Does God require us to maintain a fellowship where He does not?

    But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
    (1Co 7:12-15)

    Rebellion is a sign of unbelief everywhere I find it in the Bible (and a sign of departing as well).

  61. Adam stayed united with Eve even after her dallying with the serpent already condemned her to death. Arguably, though, he should have washed his hands of her and assumed God would provide another. In fact, Adam’s decision to stick with his rebellious wife is indeed the first and greatest of sins. This isn’t niggling about fine points here.

  62. Cane

    Yes. You are getting the basic point I was making with the comparison to Swift. That it creates a space, though, isn’t really that compelling. Space can can created without an entire post. Outrage for its sake isn’t much either. Outrage provokes reactions instead of comments. Someone surely said of Swift, “this is evil and vile”. By the time I was exposed to it , had that been the flavor of comment some student completed by assignment
    it would have received low marks. The difference though is that commenting on a blog post is not a course requirement. It’s an option. And certainly those types of comments are a part of what shapes blog commentary. I have written many similar ones myself.

  63. @Empath

    @MNM

    Then should I assume that today you honor the sabbath? Where are your sacrifices? Have you cast out your poly-cotton garments?

    MNM, you are on very dangerous ground with your misunderstanding of the Law, and your legalism…a legalism that does not even get to half-measure, but you wield to justify what God says He hates.

    Galatians 5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

    2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

    7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

    13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

    16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

    25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

    MNM, don’t doom yourself by confusing the purposes of the Law (which is fulfilled and has not passed away) with walking by the spirit. The latter is to what we are called. We do not divorce because the spirit is for the continuation of marriage.

    @GIL

    Cane, speaking of the “dark spaces between the letters” I wonder about something. For what purpose were Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden? Why did God allow Israel to be carried off into Babylon? Why did Jesus feel separation from the Father on the Cross? Sin separates us from God, it creates a divorce if you would.

    No, it creates a separation. Separation and divorce are not the same thing. The spiritual analogy of divorce is being cast into Hell–utter separation. The spirit of separation is to stop contamination of sin from one to another. We were thrown out of Eden so that we would not live forever in separation from God

    Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

    which would be everlasting torment. In other words: To save us from Hell. Death, with the work of the Cross, becomes a baptism through which we can be redeemed; not from divorce/Hell, but our separation.

    So now what is the husband to do with the sister (his bride) who chooses to walk in open rebellion? What if she is an unbeliever in open rebellion? Does God require us to maintain a fellowship where He does not?

    But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
    (1Co 7:12-15)

    Rebellion is a sign of unbelief everywhere I find it in the Bible (and a sign of departing as well).

    You quote the text that says the believer should not divorce the unbeliever, and then use that as evidence that the believer should divorce the unbeliever. The conclusion you reach is EXACTLY the conclusion that was practiced by the pharisees whom Jesus rebuked on the question of divorce. What profit is there for you to read the Bible if this is what you do with it? How can you be so blind?

    What you do with such a person is take them before the church; just like any other situation requiring church discipline. That will not be the end of it, though; even if they are cast out. We are called to love our wives, neighbors, and even enemies; and we are still married until they leave. If the offending spouse does divorce, then this confirms they were unbelievers and you are under no bondage; free to seek a new wife.

    The tragedy I’m trying to avoid here is that if you pursue divorce–as this post finds favour for–YOU ought to be brought before the church to repent, and if not to be cast out!

    @Empath

    Yes. You are getting the basic point I was making with the comparison to Swift. That it creates a space, though, isn’t really that compelling.

    No, it’s not very compelling is it? That’s what makes this post stupid; as opposed to the genius of Swift. It matters that Swift was writing satire; that he was rubbing the arrogance and cruelty of English nobles in their faces by taking their spirit to logical and absurd conclusions. When it was said of “A Modest Proposal” that it was evil and vile, it was because it offended their own sensibilities about themselves. In other words: They hated that the point of the satire was accurate.

    By contrast, SS’s post is meant to encourage us to join arrogant and cruel wives in their feast of sinfulness. The point of his post is not accurate; it is not scriptural. It is–as I said–faithless and wicked.

  64. Cane

    You noted something I also noted about GILs comment, that he used scripture saying do not divorce the unbeliever to say divorce the unbeliever. I’ll let him expound.

    I love bickering about debating.

    We have 78 comments here, most of them are not about whether the post was faithless and vile. Many of them are sparking good conversation. There is, therefore, quite obviously something to discuss aside from whether the post was/is vile and faithless. That’s all Ive been saying and by now its proven to be true, independent of whether it is or is not vile and faithless. Digging deeper into Swift is not necessary.

    They hated that the point of the satire was accurate

    Exact same dynamic is at work here regardless of the intent being satire or serious.

    For what its worth, I’m dropping this quibble because it is silly.

  65. I cringe at this but the verse in 1 Corinthians 7 has been used for years to suggest that women leave their husbands because of abuse or gross wrongdoing, and at times the argument is compelling. The same MUST hold true for husbands also. The verse is speaking of amicable marriage, pleased to dwell, pleased being the Greek:

    suneudokeō
    soon-yoo-dok-eh’-o
    From G4862 and G2106; to think well of in common, that is, assent to, feel gratified with: – allow, assent, be pleased, have pleasure.

    That means a little more to me than they don’t want a divorce. A person may not want a divorce because they likes beating on there spouse every Friday night. You are focusing on what the believer must do, they must stay. What you aren’t focusing on is the CONDITION that is placed on the unbeliever, they cannot place themselves in opposition to the believing spouse. It’s more than staying.

    Paul points out in the end of the verse I cited: “A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

    I read that as God doesn’t want the Gospel to be the genesis of divorce, that rather than create division He would have peace, but also acknowledging that peace is not a unilateral endeavor. Making it so turns the husband into a colossal white-knight with all the trappings of that folly.

  66. @Empath

    We have 78 comments here, most of them are not about whether the post was faithless and vile. Many of them are sparking good conversation. There is, therefore, quite obviously something to discuss aside from whether the post was/is vile and faithless. That’s all Ive been saying and by now its proven to be true, independent of whether it is or is not vile and faithless. Digging deeper into Swift is not necessary.

    You realize you have made the case for taking a hammer to the china; that this post is a sort of defiance against Scripture as a “wake-up call”, right?

  67. @GIL

    That means a little more to me than they don’t want a divorce. A person may not want a divorce because they likes beating on there spouse every Friday night. You are focusing on what the believer must do, they must stay. What you aren’t focusing on is the CONDITION that is placed on the unbeliever, they cannot place themselves in opposition to the believing spouse. It’s more than staying.

    We are Christians. We keep faith, hope, and love. Always. Divorce puts an end to these things. We should not do them! That’s not white-knighting. If White-knighting means anything (a dubious proposal) it means making excuse for sin; for saying a wife’s sin is acceptable. That is VERY different than saying it is unacceptable, but God forgive them for they know not what they do, and asking God to call them to repentance in their hearts while we call them to repentance out loud.

    You conflate one thing after another, and it is sending you down a rabbit-hole that you can’t dig out of. Come out to the light! Look at your own words but do not conflate them! A person may need to separate. That is not the same thing as divorce.

    To the world (to the fallen, the legalistic, the lawless, and even the demonic), this does not make sense. They confuse and reject faith, hope, and love (forgiveness) as “white knighting” (ignorance and apathy). They can’t tell the difference because they are looking at the response of the sinner instead of the forgiver. They think it’s a system that should fix people instead of understanding that it’s a way to maintain a relationship so that the offender might be redeemed.

    GIL, you just wrote a post on this.

    I sometimes catch myself having a worldly view, too. That’s how I know I still have parts of a sinful nature in me. It’s still not a reason to rationalize divorce, or proclaim favour for it.

  68. No, I do not see the hammer on China comparison as appropriate at all.

    Why does this debate persist? Ive not argued for or against a single value judgement made about the content of the post. What is driving this ongoing side bar? Will you feel better of preceding each comment someone discloses they see the post similarly? Its a serious question. Where are you going with this? What do you “want”?

  69. @Empath

    Why does this debate persist? Ive not argued for or against a single value judgement made about the content of the post.

    So then will you plainly answer the question of whether or not you referred to my comment as “smug”? At this point, I am convinced you did, and that this is why you have not answered my multiple direct questions on this matter.

    What is driving this ongoing side bar? Will you feel better of preceding each comment someone discloses they see the post similarly? Its a serious question. Where are you going with this? What do you “want”?

    Because you are crediting a garbage heap of a post for the work others have done in the comments. That is the essence of the “holy tantrum” theology.

  70. Messed that comment up. I missed the blockquotes on your paragraph, and I forgot to answer your question.

    I want you to stop excusing garbage as necessary.

  71. I think some people are making too big of a deal about this, so I’ll try to speak more bluntly.

    1. GIL is right–churchians have been using 1 Cor 7 as an excuse for divorce.

    2. Because of this, I think it should be proposed that if wives feel justified in leaving for reasons that are they feel implied, then the rhetorical tables should be turned on them, especially where we have a clear instruction for marriage.

    3. 1 Cor 7’s injunctions about violating the marriage bed are far more clear than “we have no emotional connection”.

    4. I am also arguing that the perception of what is going on in the marriage when the woman insists on not wanting sex should in fact be that she is rejecting one of the fundamental elements of marriage.

    5. I believe that if men thought “this is cause for divorce” they would find it easier to judge the situation. They could decide whether or not to more clearly on that basis. Part of understanding how to imitate God is understanding how God thinks of judgement. If God is merciful and forgiving, to begin with He has to be judgemental. But how can we be forgiving and merciful if we don’t have a clear sense of “I have been wronged, and it does not DESERVE mercy”?

    6. And finally, in spite of Cane’s invective against my writing, yeah sometimes I think a divorce has inevitability about it, and I think the man should seize the bull by the horns and get it over with. I

    I posed a question: what does a man do when his wife turns out to be having an affair, for instance? No response, though I pointed it out twice and he responded to other elements of my post. What does a man do when according to all data available the wife is planning on ditching him anyway? To which i have received no answer from Cane.

  72. Cane

    Yes you were smug

    sheesh

    “Crediting” is your word choice, designed for maximizing a point that is not valid. The comments would not have spontaneously appeared. If that is “crediting” the post….so be it.

    I want you to stop excusing garbage as necessary.

    When I do that, I will. I have made no comment that you can construe as the post being necessary.

    Cane, you are throwing a tantrum or something, I don’t know what button was pushed on you but maybe pull the battery and reset man.

  73. Whatever the divorce rate is, is how often wives are the enemy and marriage is war. Which is pretty damn often. Saying otherwise is ignorance or foolishness.

    I say what I say on these topics because I followed the useless and damaging courses of action Cane and other’s would have men do. Now I know better. Life, every day life shows how empty and powerless their advice etc really is

  74. @Empath

    Cane

    Yes you were smug

    sheesh

    “Sheesh”? The expectation that my friend be direct and clarify when attempting to correct me should not be exasperating. That matters more than whether or not I was/am actually smug. For the record: I wasn’t.

    @SS

    I posed a question: what does a man do when his wife turns out to be having an affair, for instance? No response, though I pointed it out twice and he responded to other elements of my post. What does a man do when according to all data available the wife is planning on ditching him anyway? To which i have received no answer from Cane.

    Because you already know the answer. Regardless, I’ve posted the answer here in the comments. I’ve posted it many times before. Bike Bubba, in particular, has posted about it many times before. We’ve all read about how Jenny Erikson was actually subjected to it. You just don’t like it.

  75. sfcton said:

    I say what I say on these topics because I followed the useless and damaging courses of action Cane and other’s would have men do. Now I know better. Life, every day life shows how empty and powerless their advice etc really is

    And that’s all we really need to hear to know how and why this post was stupid, faithless, and wicked. “My” course of action is what Scripture instructs us to do. It’s not my course. Sfcton says it is useless and damaging, and divorce is a preferable choice in the face of…oncoming divorce.

    Peace, Empath. I’m done.

  76. If I would have left early I would have been less damaged and not owe life time alimony. Me and many, many other men. Following the course of action you recommend lead to more pain and lifetime fiscal servitude.

    Which is the wiser course of action with better results?

  77. Some men just haven’t experienced being with a wife that is very much out of control, passive aggressive and psychologically damaged from a horrible childhood. Yes, divorce is very much against the will of God. Therefore it should not be done, or as a last measure if the wife is sexually unfaithful. The benefit of the children should be of first consideration in every case, but it is hard to get to a best outcome with the courts, the churches and therapy industry favoring women so much.

    Of no help to anybody is shaming other men with a superior intellectual prowess. We all outta share a Christian attitude of love and respect as defined by God when replying and advising within this sphere community.

  78. Peace indeed.

    I agree about the shaming and intellect , however I am not at all bothered by a more intelligent brother explaining, even adamantly, where I’ve gone wrong. I dislike the intellectual AMOGing that has taken over many spaces, but that is different than a heavy spiritual discourse. It’s usually philosophical or historical hair splitting that gets me bothered. I don’t expect my protestations to matter, but make them anyway.

    I keep harping on not chasing off the very men we ostensibly want to reach out to and the intellectual hammer is one way we do that.

  79. Sfcton

    I have a story that goes counter to that, however, I experienced the full thing, 18 months out of the house, the legal, the figurative excommunication from church and friends, the visitation with kids, the financial which led to bankruptcy….all of it. But ultimately we reconciled and things turned around. That was all after 15 years of marriage. We are about to celebrate 24.

    My oldest, then 15 right after we got back together, one night while driving a lonely TX FM. Road (texans know the meaning) her and I were awake and the others slept and she said , “dad you are my hero”

    If vindication was a goal, I got it. If joy was elusive for a couple of years, I burst with it. And as things turned out, I cannot imagine how different and likely worse for them had I not agreed to go back……because I did not want to go back.

  80. @ Cane

    “Then should I assume that today you honor the sabbath?”

    You would be correct to make that assumption.

    Also. I am happy to see you quoting scripture to me, but I fail to see what the verses you posted have do do with recognizing that the standards God sets surrounding divorce are higher than the man-made standards of the government.

    As to your accusation of legalism, keeping God’s commandments (such as the Sabbath), is not legalism (as it is not done to earn the salvation freely given as gift of God by grace through faith), but rather an out-flowing of love.

    If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. John 14:15

    He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him. John 14:21

    If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. John 15:10

    By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 1 John 2:3

    For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:3

    And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. 2 John 1:6

  81. Cane, I mark a big distinction between sin and rebellion, as I think God does. Sin is the condition we are being delivered from if we are yoked together with Christ, conflating sin with rebellion I think is the error in your argument. I’m a sinner and so is my wife, that is a problem being dealt with by the Cross. Determining to deliberately disobey God is another matter altogether, rebellion and impasse are not garden variety human failure.

    And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
    (Luk 9:62)

    For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
    (Heb 6:4-6)

    Jesus doesn’t make unilateral peace with rebels. He doesn’t come down to be crucified again and again for the sin of rebellion. If we reject Him after coming into fellowship with Him does He simply overlook this and welcome us with open arms. He deals with our sin on the Cross by the process of our repentance and by having us to agree to stay in relationship with Him. I can sit in a Church and call myself a Christian and still be light years away from Christ.

    Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
    (Mat 7:22-23)

    Sounds like a divorce to me. Specifically, separation by our choice leading ultimately to divorce from the one who gives us life. We should be as Jesus and give our life for our wives, but what if that isn’t enough? What if that sacrifice becomes a monument to their rebellion? Who then are we serving, empowering, if not the rebel who is in the process of burning bridges with God? How is that love?

    I’m not a proponent of divorce, I’m not in “favor” of it but taking that whole understanding of impasse and rebellion away and acting as if it simply doesn’t exist is magical thinking. Separation seems sufficient in every case I have encountered. I certainly am not advocating for frivorce by either party.

  82. I was reflecting recently on how everyone of my generation within 5-10 years on either side that I knew well is divorced except for 3 couples, all of whom are pastors or church leaders. But I’d say 75%.

    When the question of ‘can you have a relationship with a woman’ is brought up, I understand it .This question comes up because we are generally taught that women are good while men need to become good. So when you find out that this is not true, that women and men are sinners, that most people live lives of sin, it is disillusioning before it is enlightening. Moreover, most churches even don’t act like this is true, and so you are surrounded by people who believe that man=bad, woman=good. It is as empath says so prevalent that it is like a fish trying to acknowledge that water is wet. So it can be crazy making, frustrating, to see the reality and talk about how to practically deal with it.

    It is a hard thing to do, but I advocate strongly for men who are bitterly angry about this issue to reflect on how all are fallen short of the glory of God, and to remember that it is not that women have deceived them because they are worse than men but because just as men are women are living lives of sin. The vast majority of people do this. The Bible doesn’t deceive on this—to live a life of righteousness is a hard path, requiring you to be in the world but not of it.

    The Epistle to the Ephesians talks about how to meet this challenge: through a community of believers, through even our most intimate relationships being guided by our faith and by wisdom rather than by the flesh, and by thorough spiritual preparedness. We need to have the understanding that the Apostles did: that even to dispense charity a Christian must be focused, disciplined, and strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.

    This doctrine we are struggling against undermines this effort; it distracts and confuses people. It tells us that we must be good to women because women will be good in response, not because we are imitating Christ. We must fight against the deceptions the world establishes against us. Reading Ephesians 6 really emphasizes this.

  83. Those are the very basic tenets of the manosphere. reversing man bad woman good attitudes, outing the “servant-lead and she will be butter in your hands” lies, acknowledging that almost every woman will at least consider divorce, most will threaten it, less but still most will even file it, and less still but most will follow through with it. No. Matter. What.

    No matter what is to me the singularity the the event horizon of red pill ideas swirls around.

    I , lacking a better word, enjoy the type of hard discussion had above about men and our posture toward divorce. I sympathize with what Deti says when he cites his nuclear response. I actually had a nuclear response when i was in it, though not intentionally, and Ive shared it before how good it felt when the reality of our situation was made clear by the simple phrase from the opposing counsel that “we picked a bad time to divorce”. Had it not then gone on for another 15 months I’d be insecure though. Because its not unlike game for me where, if a wife responds to that real threat and stays, or changes her sexual availability, or whatever, sure she could have a change of heart but like the well-gamed woman, is it heart or is it a Pavlovian thing.

  84. Empath, I suggest that God effectively uses a nuclear response with us and that effects a change of heart in some of us. He tells us to be perfect as He is perfect and that the consequence for not doing so is death. Seems quite nuclear to me.

  85. @jf12

    Here’s what a better mind than mine wrote:

    “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” –1 Tim 2:14

  86. GIL it is nuclear. The wages of sin….all that. It is not, however, a threat per se. It simply IS. Because it simply IS, it needn’t either be immediate, in the IF you do this THEN I do that, therefore dont do this or immediately feel my wrath. Its the same but different.

  87. @moosenorseman, yes Adam’s bullheaded decision, to fulfill his own prophecy of cleaving to a woman, was made with his eyes wide open. Eve thought she was deceiving the husband she pretended to love. Adam, undeceived, chose to die with his transgressive wife because he loved her. In many ways this is the essence of romance. Unfortunately. Yet, fortunately.

  88. Empath, Adam and Eve didn’t die precisely when they ate the forbidden fruit. They did get separated immediately in their spirit, (when they hid) Then God divorced them from the Garden where He walked with them in the cool of the evening.

    Here is my problem, and this is a bit of a tangent. I have had two brothers (one was a mentor) whose wives left them (separation) to EPL and they both decided that weren’t cut out for being unmarried with the resulting celibacy. In those cases separation led to divorce. I’m to look those men in the eye and declare that they are living in sin apart from the will of God? Most of my plain brothers would say precisely that. It sticks in my throat.

    So in those cases when your wife would want to join a Buddhist convent and leave you high and dry (and thereby not leave you the adultery loophole) you’re just stuck? That seems to be the argument to me. (Hold on, I have to start harvesting some birch branches so that I can sell them to all of the flagellant orders that are going to be forming. I can see some real money in resisting sin “unto the blood.”) And yes, I understand that we can resist sin and that is what we are called to without equivocation, that is a high calling indeed.

  89. Well, sure I can list many personal anecdotes where I know people, or at one time the person was me, that make me stutter about divorce. I cannot say do as I would do, in other words, because I just dont know. But it seems none of that was really the point of the discussion….what we would do if this or if that. If I was challenged that way id equivocate in my responses because I may equivocate in my reactions

    But I will say one thing. I have lots of “money where my mouth is”….and leave it at that. (not meaning anything about actual money)

  90. To put a finer point on it for me, I had one plain brother question the fact that I was even fellowshipping with the guy that had been frivorced by his wife and remarried. Both of those men I looked up to as mentors. Not taking anything away from what you have experienced. Yes it is anecdotal but it also instructive as a case study. My plain folk side won’t fellowship with the remarried, period.

  91. There are times when I find Judaism’s religious laws on marriage useful to consider. They focus on a balance of the couple, ethics and community values. By contrast I find Christian views often steeped in mysticism and impracticality. like Cane’s insults and playground snark simply because I point out that generally when a wife starts refusing a sexual relationship with her husband it generally means she’s likely to divorce, and that if she wants to she’s gonna, why should the man not consider divorce?

    I don’t mind that Paul says not to. What I dislike about the Epistles is that there is at times an “I said so” interpretation of them. And I noticed that Cane refused to respond about cases of clear adultery. This isn’t just Cane, it typical. In fact it is exactly the position of the Church. I find this message closely resembles that, that if the ,arrange isn’t working, it’s the mans fault in some way.

    Who wants to live on platitudes?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s