Are modern evangelical ministers partly to be blamed for a lot of divorces among Christians today?

I have a thread and online article about the general problem, but it's nice to have this thread as well because it has a more specific focus.

God hates divorce, but does not absolutely forbid it because there are a lot of things He hates even more. Divorce is a disaster, because it is the result of a marriage that was a disaster. If you're even thinking of heading for the lifeboat, then someone did not steer the ship very well.

The Japanese have a foolproof formula for a lasting marriage: don't get divorced. This has some side effects, however. They get trapped in unhappy, loveless marriages and cope by means of adultery combined with heavy alcohol consumption.

Marriage is a risk, because all human relationships are risky. You can and should manage the risk, but you can't eliminate it. Any pastor who guarantees your marriage will work if you just follow a formula is peddling false promises.

Marrying young is especially risky. The only reason to consider it is if you're weaker than average in the area of sexual continence. Trade one risk for another.

Marrying for love isn't wrong per se. The only danger is the temptation to have unrealistic expectations. Human emotions are fickle. Romance is normal, but is of the flesh. It's not some high, spiritual thing; it's just hormones. Don't romanticize romance.

All the advice in the Bible about marriage is best understood as advice for risk management. Don't read any implicit guarantees into it.

If your husband beats the kids, divorce is the lesser evil. The main point of marriage is to provide a good environment for the kids. If it's not doing that, reconsider.

RDKirk said:

How many times does eros appear in the New Testament?

Click to expand...

It is alluded to often, and its Hebrew equivalent dod appears some 60 times.

abysmul said:

I'm an advocate of personal responsibility... I would tend to look at the individuals who divorce for cause, and not what some evangelist spews.

Click to expand...

Far be it from me to let the individual off the hook. Sadly, many people just can't do their own thinking. Some aren't individuated enough, and some haven't the life experience. That's why we have parents, teachers, advisors and... evangelists.

Those who presume to teach should be judged more harshly, especially if they don't know what they're babbling about. It's bad to be a sheep, but it's worse to be a false shepherd.

We should all strive to grow to the point where we can think for ourselves, guided by God. In the meantime, we are at the mercy of the self-proclaimed experts. Woe to false teachers!

DaveW-Ohev said:

It is alluded to often, and its Hebrew equivalent dod appears some 60 times.

Click to expand...

Now, go back to the OT and correlate the number of times the Hebrew equivalent of eros led to a disastrous relationship. That's the reason it was not the primary basis of marriage for the Jews. It's unreliable. "Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth" is not based on eros.

How much would eros be involved in the marriage of a healthy man to a woman who had been paralyzed from the shoulders down for 14 years before they even met? That was the case for Joni Eareckson Tada. How many marriages founded on eros could even survive that kind of calamity--much less begin in spite of it?

You misunderstand eros as referring only to sexuality. Actually it also includes romance/falling in love so I am sure that Joni Eareckson Tada had/has that as well.

As to dod, every time the Song of Solomon uses "beloved" it is a form of that word: dodi.

RDKirk said:

How many marriages founded on eros could even survive that kind of calamity--much less begin in spite of it?

Click to expand...

Those who look less to circumstance and more to the Lord and honoring HIS covenant could weather it just fine. But the problem is we have lost sight of the discipleship that instills that in people's lives.

DaveW-Ohev said:

You misunderstand eros as referring only to sexuality. Actually it also includes romance/falling in love so I am sure that Joni Eareckson Tada had/has that as well.

Click to expand...

If you look back at eros as described by the pre-Christian Greeks, it is virtually only sexuality. Christians have "romanticized" eros. In Paul's day, eros as used by the Greeks was sex and was applied equally to heterosexuality and homosexuality. In fact, eros was applied more often to homosexual relationships than to marriage...remember they had arranged marriages that usually did not involve "romance" as we know it--while their homosexual relationships were as romantic as they were sexual. What we in this Christian era consider "romance" is a broader concept than the ancient Greek use of eros.

So I'll make this point again: All the discussion about marriage in both the OT and the NT was about marriages that usually did not begin with eros. Eros might have been nice to have, but it was never a necessity for the marriage covenant, and scripture does not treat it as such.

LyraJean said:

Does your pastor belong to the Quiverfull movement?

Click to expand...

Or better still, the "courtship" movement where things like emotional bonding and sexual attraction are discouraged, or worse yet, implied as sin.

NCTPremill said:

Let's use some common sense. Let's say a single Christian woman only prefers to be with guys who are tall and skinny, do you think she should marry a Christian guy who is 5'5'' and weighs 250 lbs? Of course not! She will be miserable (and the guy too) and no amount of similar values, interests, and maturity-level will overcome that misery and regret.

Click to expand...

The problem is, that's not "common sense." It's common in this culture, but it's not sensible.

In fact, her best choice of husband for that Christian woman may well be the chubby short Christian man...particularly if he's the only Christian who finds her appealing. If she sticks to her physical druthers and marries a tall and skinny pagan, that might be the major mistake of her life.

When she becomes mature in her thinking, she will realize that "charm is deceitful and beauty is fleeting" (Proverbs 31:30). That short chubby Christian man might be the one who is willing to empty her bedpans if she suffers an accident that leaves her permanently paralyzed. He might be the one who still loves her when she suffers breast cancer and has to have a double mastectomy.

The "lust of the eye" is often in error.

RDKirk said:

In fact, her best choice of husband for that Christian woman may well be the chubby short Christian man...particularly if he's the only Christian who finds her appealing. If she sticks to her physical druthers and marries a tall and skinny pagan, that might be the major mistake of her life.

Click to expand...

Wow, she would be better off not marrying at all. It seems to me that a reasonable physical attraction is necessary. Who wants to have such an intimate relationship with someone they find unattractive?

I think the biggest reasons for divorce is that people don't take the time to get to know each other, don't pay attention to warning signs, or think that they will change what they don't like about the other person, after they are married.

Hank77 said:

Wow, she would be better off not marrying at all. It seems to me that a reasonable physical attraction is necessary. Who wants to have such an intimate relationship with someone they find unattractive?

I think the biggest reasons for divorce is that people don't take the time to get to know each other, don't pay attention to warning signs, or think that they will change what they don't like about the other person, after they are married.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting and cruel irony: It is Christianity that preaches against being a slave to the flesh, yet it's the Christianize West and nowhere else that insists you must be a slave to your flesh. Everywhere else in the world, people understand that human beings and not instinct-driven animals, that human beings control what they like and who they love. Only in the Christianized West is this notion, "I can't change what I like" and "I can't help who I love."

That's poppycock. We, especially as Christians, should not be led by our eyes or slaves to our flesh.

One pastor has said for men who are married: "Your wife should be your standard of beauty. If your wife is fat, your standard of beauty should be "fat." If your wife is thin, your standard of beauty should be "thin." If your wife used to be thin, your standard of beauty should be "used to be thin." If you make your wife your standard of beauty, then no other woman measures up to her.

So a young woman is attracted to a man with rippling abs. Well, a man's metabolism changes somewhere between 35 and 40, and he's not going to have those rippling abs in 20 years unless he becomes narcissistic in the extreme. So she's going to have to change what she's attracted to anyway...or go "cougar." Why pretend up front that she can't do it up front?

Of course she can. She's a human being, not a peahen.

NCTPremill said:

I hope you're not a pastor.

Click to expand...

No, I'm an old man whose been around the world and known cultures that aren't like this one. I know the customs of this tribe and island are not the laws of nature. And they're not particularly better than others.

Wow you make marriage sound really depressing and horrible.

Purge187 said:

Or better still, the "courtship" movement where things like emotional bonding and sexual attraction are discouraged, or worse yet, implied as sin.

Click to expand...

Yeah - been there done that and saw many friends divorce afterwards. The congregation I was in during college (mid 70s) was courtship only. The church board held veto power over all defined courtships and engagements.

I guess I don't have any answers. I'd have no interest in an arranged marriage.
I'd have no interest in a marriage to a woman who I wasn't attracted to. And I have a broader range of what I'm attracted to than many of my friends.

I've seen couples who had a lot going for them when they were young end up with very different views and interests when they were older. I've seen the opposite where couples had more in interest when they were older than when they were young. I've also seen couples that couldn't stand to be in the same side of the house they lived in.

So I don't think there is an teaching that will make very couple happy/enjoy their marriage. I do think there is an ethical way to live in ever situation. The trick in my mind is being willing to look till that is found. So even in a divorce there is a way to treat the other person in a loving way. That to me is what the Bible is teaching us to do. Not to set rules that everyone has to have their marriage look like X. Every definition of X will only work for some marriages and others it will make the marriage worse.

I see the variety of personalities that God has created and how much we change from 20 to 65 to be too broad to be able to have one teaching that fits everyone except in the broadest terms. Terms like love and communicate. As soon as we say marriage looks like spending time together, work together, this or that together it wouldn't work for some.

If the things that don't work for couples get to be too long then I think the loving thing to do is to divorce and find a way to support each other as they go their separate ways. I've seen that done and its impressive in my mind.

NCTPremill said:

I have heard a few evangelical pastors who have put marriage/family at such a pedestal that they focus their ministry principally on marriage and family life. One of the things I have heard these types of pastors push is that Christian men and women should get married young and that being single after the age of 30 is spiritually abnormal.

The negative implications of this is that many young (or old) Christian men and women who are under the spiritual leadership of these pastors start to marry other Christians of the opposite sex even if they never develop or have any type of romantic attraction for the other person. They do this because they feel guilty if they remain single for too long or are taught that getting married and having a family is a more godly thing to do.

What ends up happening is that a lot of these "Christian" couples end up divorcing after a few years of marriage because they regret it and wish they didn't start. Why is it wrong for Christians to encourage singles to marry people they are romantically attracted to? Why do some pastors believe that single Christians should just marry even if they don't really like the other person as long as he or she is a Christian. I believe any pastor who encourages single Christians to do this is partially to be blamed for the divorces that happen among many Christians today.

Click to expand...

You may have heard that, or someone may have made it up. Credible source? I have never heard of that, I think it is likely made up. I know of no church that does anything at all like that.
A new study was just presented on the 700 club showing the divorce rate overall is much less than the claim of 50 %. And the divorce rate for evangelical Christians is far lower than the national average. The rate is less than 20%.
It is either a straw argument if it exists at all it would be in some small sect I have never heard of.

What tends to bother me is the all or nothing idea of marriage people have, "You must stay married no matter what, if your spouse is beating you and the kids, drinking or other problems then your job is just stick with them." thats far worse for kids and people to stick with a marriage that isn't health for anyone.

loveofourlord said:

What tends to bother me is the all or nothing idea of marriage people have, "You must stay married no matter what, if your spouse is beating you and the kids, drinking or other problems then your job is just stick with them." thats far worse for kids and people to stick with a marriage that isn't health for anyone.

Click to expand...

That's another essential straw man.

RDKirk said:

That's another essential straw man.

Click to expand...

*laughs* yes strawman, it's not like there are tons of cases of this where churches will make it the womans fault if the husband abuses her, and will kick people out for getting divorce and so on?