I was excommunicated for getting a divorce

[ZephBonkerer]

Some Christians do not believe in recreational sex. They refuse birth control in favor of abstinence. Their only reason for sex is to produce offspring; to train and equip the next generation.

Paul was single. He taught his people to avoid fornication. I think John the Baptist was single. The Essene community at Qumran was comprised of celibate males. They copied the Dead Sea Scrolls. Archaeologists found an all male cemetery there. Qumran is near where the Jordan River empties into the Dead Sea. The Roman Catholic clergy practices celibacy.

That could be a viable option for some, but celibacy and I simply don't get along. Finding another mate is practically a necessity for me.

If you're reading this and thinking of writing something like "you can be celibate with the Spirit" or "it's not so bad", then please don't waste your time and my patience. I don't do celibacy, and that is that. I will entertain no negotiations that involve celibacy.

In case this point isn't clear enough: I will give serious thought to jumping off a cliff before I give any serious thought to being celibate for the rest of my life. I. Don't. Do. Celibacy.

 

[dayhiker]

That could be a viable option for some, but celibacy and I simply don't get along. Finding another mate is practically a necessity for me.

If you're reading this and thinking of writing something like "you can be celibate with the Spirit" or "it's not so bad", then please don't waste your time and my patience. I don't do celibacy, and that is that. I will entertain no negotiations that involve celibacy.

In case this point isn't clear enough: I will give serious thought to jumping off a cliff before I give any serious thought to being celibate for the rest of my life. I. Don't. Do. Celibacy.

Zeph,
I think you handles your situation very wisely. Sorry your church is more legalistic than loving. I also believe you are much closer to the way God thinks about our life than others at your church. I pray God finds you the mate you desire and need.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Zeph,
I think you handles your situation very wisely. Sorry your church is more legalistic than loving. I also believe you are much closer to the way God thinks about our life than others at your church. I pray God finds you the mate you desire and need.

Thank you for this. I really believe legalism discredits the Faith as a whole. The unjust and absurd restrictions on divorce reveal what I consider to be idolatry masquerading as obedience. So-called Christians who behave this way are showing that they do not really know God as well as they think.

God placed regulations on divorce to protect the vulnerable, not enslave them! Jesus didn't have very many good things to say to the Pharisees who made an idol out of the Sabbath (Luke 13:14-16). Why then should anyone think He would be any more charitable to those who make an idol out of the ideal of lifelong marriage?

Some people seem to think sacrifice, "carrying one's cross", etc are the path to holiness, but I believe Matthew 12:6-7 shows that this is misguided.

 

[linux.poet]

In light of some other information that has been posted, I rescind my previous two posts here. I do not think that lack of sexual satisfaction within a marriage constitutes a 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 violation. Said violation would apply if your spouse wasn't willing to have relations with you at all.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 does not obligate your spouse to have sex in a particular way, just that they do. I do not think not liking how they do it is really valid grounds for divorce. I do believe that spouses should make reasonable efforts to please each other and communicate what they need as part of following Ephesians 4:32. But on this matter, I have not been married and I am probably darkening counsel with words without knowledge. I am simply making this post to clarify my beliefs in case someone thought I believed that 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 means that you have a license to divorce someone for not doing what you want sexually. That is not what I believe. I was under the mistaken impression that your wife was not having sexual relations with you at all, and that is why I made the previous two posts. However, the post that has provided the information to the contrary has been deleted as part of a moderation action, so I shall say no more.

I also believe that divorcing one's partner for lack of fun is what unbelievers do. They think if their partner isn't performing up to par, they can throw them out like so much trash and call for another. That's not biblical and it's not a model for Christian behavior. At this point, I do not know why your church did not teach you about proper marriage doctrine in 22 years of walking with the Lord, but at this point, I am concerned that you are placing your sexual satisfaction as a personal idol that is more important to you than your relationship to God. If you continue to hold onto this idol, it will cause you no end of pain and suffering. I admonish you to repent and attempt to return to the wife that you have left, for your divorce is invalid before the Lord and you will be held accountable in this life for your misdeeds.

I would also encourage you to seek help in real life, because I think that you are very emotional right now and I'm having trouble following your story. Talking with someone would help you clarify your story and beliefs so I and others can follow them better instead of reacting to parts of it and descending into arguments. Just something to think about.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

In light of some other information that has been posted, I rescind my previous two posts here. I do not think that lack of sexual satisfaction within a marriage constitutes a 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 violation. Said violation would apply if...

Fair enough. But I would be careful with treating the Word of God this way.

The Word of God is not the Tax Code, or any legal code for that matter. Most questions concerning ethics cannot really be distilled into some kind of manmade legal code. Laws are written in black and white because they have to be. Either you are in compliance or you are not. But the Word of God isn't that way. If it were, we would have people doing all sorts of evil while justifying themselves because their actions are technically "compliant" with the Law.

As for the divorce, it really was a lack of love that led to the divorce, and what was happening in the bedroom was glaring evidence of that. I did state that this will have to change. If you were thinking I was insisting on a particular sex act, that was not the case at all. I'm not going to tolerate the bare minimum simply because it's not a technical violation of 1 Cor 7:2-5, or any other verse for that matter.

About six weeks into marital counseling, she voiced a desire to end the marriage. At that time, I agreed to wind down the marriage. I did everything I could to turn the marriage around, but at the end of the day, there was nothing I could have reasonably done. I just needed to let it go.

I did some research on the matter. The doctrine concerning divorce and remarriage in many church assemblies these days is a mess. Some schools of thought hold that only adultery is ground for divorce. Some say adultery and abandonment, but only if the abandoning spouse is a non-believer. I've even heard some people claim no divorce under any circumstances. Some of the doctrines on this matter that are masquerading as truth are truly outrageous.

The truth is there is no exhaustive list in Scripture for what constitute valid grounds for divorce. If there were, Deuteronomy 24 would have been more specific than "some indecency". One principle is that you don't divorce for selfish or trivial reasons, but instead for a material violation of the marital vows. If I had a reasonable alternative to divorce, I would have taken it.

I've also received pressure from other Christians to "reconcile" with my wife even well after this, including from the elders at my then-church. I considered this asinine and inappropriate. Do these people think I didn't exhaust every reasonable remedy to save the marriage? She doesn't want to be married to me, and I see no reason to go out of my way to change her mind. Really! I'm done! We're both done. How long am I supposed to pursue reconciliation? Until I die of old age? The elders gave no answer to this question - then again, they were evasive in answering my questions in general.

I was also angered by the admonition to "repent". Just what was it I'm supposed to repent of? I received that as slander to my face.

 

[linux.poet]

Fair enough. But I would be careful with treating the Word of God this way.

The Word of God is not the Tax Code, or any legal code for that matter. Most questions concerning ethics cannot really be distilled into some kind of manmade legal code. Laws are written in black and white because they have to be. Either you are in compliance or you are not. But the Word of God isn't that way. If it were, we would have people doing all sorts of evil while justifying themselves because their actions are technically "compliant" with the Law.

There are two problems with this. The first is that the Word of God treats itself that way. What is evil is, literally, what is not in compliance with the Law, and what is not evil is exactly what is in compliance. I think you may be getting confused with human laws (like the Tax Code...er, exactly!) that don't follow the patterns of good and evil.

7 The Law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.
10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much pure gold;
Sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover, Your servant is warned by them;
In keeping them there is great reward.
12 Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.
13 Also keep Your servant back from presumptuous sins;
Let them not rule over me;
Then I will be innocent,
And I will be blameless of great wrongdoing.
14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
Lord, my rock and my Redeemer.

This is the Word of God talking about itself. God is literally what defines good and evil - any other definition allows the sin nature to bring the devil's lies back through the door.

The second problem is many Christians, especially here, take the Bible literally. Which means that we believe that good is what is in compliance with the Law, and what is evil is what is not in compliance.

Now I don't blame you for not knowing this. California churches are notorious for emphasizing the love component of the Gospel and leaving out the heavy price tag believers have to pay in terms of actually following what Jesus said. They do this to fill seats on Sunday mornings and make lots of money at the expense of the Gospel. I know this because I actually live in California, and have done so for 11 years now. My mom had to pick out an exceptional church from the riffraff of feel-good churches.

Now, for clarity purposes, Christ has fulfilled the Law, as in the Old Testament Law that is in the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in your bible. Gentile believers in Christ aren't required to keep the whole Law. However, we are required to keep all laws relating to sexual immorality.

19 Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood.

Now, for the definition of "sexual immorality" we turn back to the Old Testament Law. This was further clarified when Paul instructed a group of believers to excommunicate a man who had relations with his father's wife in violation of Old Testament Law (see Leviticus 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 5 for the details there).

But that's not where the prohibition against divorce comes from. It comes from Christ himself in the verses of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that everyone has been throwing around. The Law (as in the Old Testament Law) allowed divorce.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to [d]divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

^That is Christ speaking. Basically, we use compliance with Christ's commands to tell who is following Christ and who is not. This is Scripturally endorsed in Matthew 7, but it's also very logical. Matthew 18 is a legal proceeding to separate the wolves from the sheep, as well as call believers to repentance.

5 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

And obviously the will of the Father who is in heaven is the commandments that Jesus gave us.

And then there will be multiple judgements over these commands. The Judgement Seat of Christ (for believers) and the Great White Throne Judgement (for unbelievers). There is also the sheep and goats judgement that will likely occur at the beginning of the Millennium. And sin will be punished, make no mistake.

Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.

7 The one who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 But for the cowardly, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and sexually immoral persons, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Commandment, judgement, and punishment. That sounds like a law to me. We are not under law, but under grace - but that is because we believe, and thus, because we believe, we have the power to obey Our Lord's commands out of gratitude for what He has done for us.

 

[linux.poet]

As for the divorce, it really was a lack of love that led to the divorce, and what was happening in the bedroom was glaring evidence of that. I did state that this will have to change. If you were thinking I was insisting on a particular sex act, that was not the case at all. I don't have to stand for the bare minimum, and I would not.

Do these people think I didn't exhaust every reasonable remedy to save the marriage? She doesn't want to be married to me, and I see no reason to go out of my way to change her mind.

Unfortunately, I can't really speak to this, as I've never been married and I don't know your wife. One thing I know is that you can't force people to change, and the more that you pressure someone to change and refuse to accept what they are willing to give, calling it unacceptable, the "bare minimum", etc, the less likely they are to change, and the more likely they are to push back.

If I were in your wife's shoes, I would probably be highly miserable because you would be constantly trying to save the marriage, pushing for more intimacy, etc. She didn't want to change, so you trying to make her change probably made her uncomfortable. Finally she decided to leave the marriage because she concluded that she wasn't good enough for you and she was tired of your harassment. Strike #4 against that stupid church pushing for more reconciliation and blind dogma instead of actually paying attention to to the people in their office. Grrr.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

The second problem is many Christians, especially here, take the Bible literally. Which means that we believe that good is what is in compliance with the Law, and what is evil is what is not in compliance.
...
But that's not where the prohibition against divorce comes from. It comes from Christ himself in the verses of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that everyone has been throwing around. The Law (as in the Old Testament Law) allowed divorce

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating moral relativism. There is indeed an objective standard of right and wrong that transcends time and space. I hold that the tenets of basic morality are fixed and absolute. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. And pi is 3.14159... These things do not change. Jesus Himself affirmed this at Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17.

The ancient Jews did not have laws against drunk driving, child inappropriate content, or wire fraud. This was not because basic morality changed, but because the means to commit these crimes did not exist in those days.

Regarding divorce, Jesus was not imposing any new restriction on divorce or on any subsequent remarriage after divorce. Nor did he alter the definition of adultery to include actions not previously recognized as such. He could not have done so without contradicting Himself at Matthew 5:17-18. Instead, He was speaking out against an unconscionable practice of divorcing one's spouse solely to marry someone else. This didn't magically become adultery when Jesus came around. It was always adultery. It was dishonorable behavior that abused the "something indecent" language in Deuteronomy 24.

Divorce was intended to provide relief to people married to those who refuse to honor their vows. It was not supposed to facilitate wife-swapping. Some people claim that Jesus said any and all remarriage after divorce is adultery (except under certain narrow circumstances), but this cannot be reconciled to His own words at Matt 5:17-18 and Luke 16:17. Nor can it be reconciled to 1Cor 7, Deut 24, or to common sense and common decency.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Unfortunately, I can't really speak to this, as I've never been married and I don't know your wife. One thing I know is that you can't force people to change, and the more that you pressure someone to change and refuse to accept what they are willing to give, calling it unacceptable, the "bare minimum", etc, the less likely they are to change, and the more likely they are to push back.

If I were in your wife's shoes, I would probably be highly miserable because you would be constantly trying to save the marriage, pushing for more intimacy, etc. She didn't want to change, so you trying to make her change probably made her uncomfortable. Finally she decided to leave the marriage because she concluded that she wasn't good enough for you and she was tired of your harassment. Strike #4 against that stupid church pushing for more reconciliation and blind dogma instead of actually paying attention to to the people in their office. Grrr.

For the most part, you aren't too far off. In that session of counseling, I did make it clear that certain things had to change for the marriage to be viable. What I was getting from her was unacceptable, and I was not going to be pressured into accepting it by the church elders or anyone else.

But no, I didn't harass her about it. In fact, I steered clear of that matter with her while counseling was in progress. I think she was unhappy with the marriage for years, and her discomfort with normal intimacy was a symptom of that.

And you're right. The Church elders demonstrated little regard to the actual facts and circumstances in my case.

 

[linux.poet]

In that session of counseling, I did make it clear that certain things had to change for the marriage to be viable. What I was getting from her was unacceptable, and I was not going to be pressured into accepting it by the church elders or anyone else.

Someone else in your position might have accepted it. What would you think of a person who did, in fact, accept it?

In fact, I steered clear of that matter with her while counseling was in progress.

So what you're telling me is that you brought up the need for change within counseling, but not outside of counseling. Is that a fair understanding of this situation?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Someone else in your position might have accepted it. What would you think of a person who did, in fact, accept it?

I would not think any less of him for it. That is his decision to make, so long as he is making that decision willingly and not being subjected to any undue pressure. The Church elders tried to pressure and coerce me into accepting the unacceptable, and that infuriated me greatly. Basically, I was just not having it. The more they tried to push me into that direction, the angrier I got.

A sports analogy: in the NFL, when a team commits a foul, the non-offending team can elect to decline the penalty enforcement. This is often done when the outcome of the play is favorable to the non-offending team without the penalty. Why take a 5-yard penalty for offsides when you just completed a pass for 40 yards?

Any call to repentance following the Matthew 18 approach needs to have a healthy respect for both the Word of God and the legit interests of the individual. The way this elder conducted this was anything but honoring to God. This had more in common with a Star Chamber hearing than anything out of Matthew 18. He was disdainful towards my concerns. He was evasive towards my questions to him. His actions betrayed his agenda: to control and manipulate. He showed signs of frustration because it wasn't working. He would simply move on to another tactic when he couldn't gain any leverage over me. Godly church elders simply do not behave this way. I fear for that man's soul!

Until that time, I didn't have any real first-hand experience dealing with spiritual abuse. So I didn't really know what to look for. In this case, it seems in retrospect that these church elders have had some practice in these unethical tactics.

So what you're telling me is that you brought up the need for change within counseling, but not outside of counseling. Is that a fair understanding of this situation?

I did bring up the need for change in that direction before counseling. Then I brought it up again in a counseling session about six weeks in. But not in-between. Basically, I said that I can't stay in a marriage void of any real intimacy. If this cannot improve, then the marriage must end. Then in the next session, she said she wanted to end the marriage. At that point, I was prepared for it.

The Sunday prior to this, I took it to the Lord. I was seeing the writing on the wall. He was preparing me for what was going to happen. I knew then that I just needed to let it go. To some Christians, it would seem inconceivable that God would want us to let go of a marriage. But I don't think this is so farfetched. There was nowhere else to go.

 

[linux.poet]

I would not think any less of him for it. That is his decision to make, so long as he is making that decision willingly and not being subjected to any undue pressure.

Good. I appreciate this response. Many folks in your position think less of people who accept what they cannot accept, and that leads them down a very dark road.

I'm concerned. Since you've been spiritually abused, is "unconditional love and acceptance" a trigger phrase? Does it make you angry to hear those words?

The way this elder conducted this was anything but honoring to God. This had more in common with a Star Chamber hearing than anything out of Matthew 18. He was disdainful towards my concerns. He was evasive towards my questions to him. His actions betrayed his agenda: to control and manipulate. He showed signs of frustration because it wasn't working. He would simply move on to another tactic when he couldn't gain any leverage over me. Godly church elders simply do not behave this way. I fear for that man's soul!

This sounds bad. If someone did this to you, I am quite sorry that happened.

Based on what you said, I think looking up information on codependency, most specifically "change codependency" and information on ultimatums may be helpful to you. Because "Basically, I said that I can't stay in a marriage void of any real intimacy. If this cannot improve, then the marriage must end." is an ultimatum. It's also a demand for change.

Now, I don't think that you are a codependent person in general. I just think, as regards your previous marriage you may have adopted thinking consistent with the change codependent. This thinking will not be helpful for you moving forward, regardless of whether you decide to return to your previous wife or move on to another relationship.

This thinking might have have been placed in you as a result of the abuse you suffered, but you still need to recover and root it out, if it is there.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I'm concerned. Since you've been spiritually abused, is "unconditional love and acceptance" a trigger phrase? Does it make you angry to hear those words?

Those words do not trigger me. It is only when they are used to imply that marital vows are binding no matter how badly the spouses behave that I get angry. I call this the Marriage Permanence Heresy. In a nutshell, this heresy claims that divorce for believers is generally prohibited except under very narrow circumstances. Some variations of this doctrine claim that not even adultery or abandonment are valid reasons to divorce.

I consider this doctrine especially blasphemous and slanderous to God because it implies God cares more about the marital institution than He does about those suffering while being married to someone who is willfully and flagrantly violating their marital vows. Marital vows are not a suicide pact.

It also irritates me when people say "Pray for Reconciliation" in cases where there is domestic violence or horrendous abuse. What namby-pamby, sin-leveling nonsense is this!? In cases like that, I don't want reconciliation. I want retribution. I really believe a pattern of domestic violence and abuse ought to be a capital offense. And I don't mean a needle in the arm after 50 years of appeals, I mean put to death by methods resembling a Mortal Kombat Fatality.

I'll discuss the whole ultimatum thing in my next message...

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Based on what you said, I think looking up information on codependency, most specifically "change codependency" and information on ultimatums may be helpful to you. Because "Basically, I said that I can't stay in a marriage void of any real intimacy. If this cannot improve, then the marriage must end." is an ultimatum. It's also a demand for change.

It is an ultimatum. But at that point, I was tired of receiving excuses from her, rather than real solutions. I've been getting excuses from her for years with no end in sight. I needed some way to let her know that the time for excuses is over. At first I was threatening - either this changes or I'm done! But a couple days later I recanted my tone.

After I recanted the threats, I told her that "if you cannot be comfortable with normal intimacy that is part of any healthy marriage, then you cannot be my wife. I don't intend that as a threat - that's just reality. That is the reality both of us are facing."

When my then-wife said that was the best she can do, my response was something like this: "For the sake of the future of our marriage, I hope you're wrong. I'd hate to say it, but if this is truly the best you can do, then your best is just not good enough to keep this marriage alive." We entered marital counseling shortly thereafter.

I don't really believe ultimatums are sinful per se. What angers me is when someone tries to pressure me into accepting the unacceptable, as the Church elders did in my case. It's basically stepping on my boundaries. If I say something is a big deal, then you bet your hiney it's a big deal! To disregard a serious concern of mine is really disrespectful, and in such cases I often make my displeasure as conspicuous as possible.

 

[linux.poet]

Some variations of this doctrine claim that not even adultery or abandonment are valid reasons to divorce.

I don't believe in those doctrinal variations. The Matthew passage I quoted earlier said that adultery is a valid reason to divorce. Abandonment applies when the abandoning spouse is an unbeliever:

Yet if the unbelieving one is leaving, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace.

But at that point, I was tired of receiving excuses from her, rather than real solutions. I've been getting excuses from her for years with no end in sight.

What sort of excuses was she giving you? A couple of examples might help me understand the situation. Also, do the two of you have any children?

At first I was threatening - either this changes or I'm done! But a couple days later I recanted my tone.

Threats trigger the sympathetic nervous system, i.e. the fight or flight response. This response suppresses the parasympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for martial intimacy. The human body generally concludes that allocating resources to the reproductive organs is a bad idea when it is under attack. Therefore, when you threaten her, you actually make it harder for her to give you the martial intimacy you desire.

"if you cannot be comfortable with normal intimacy that is part of any healthy marriage, then you cannot be my wife. I don't intend that as a threat - that's just reality. That is the reality both of us are facing."

You're making that "reality" reality by your own actions, so what you are saying is still a threat.

When my then-wife said that was the best she can do,

What if it truly was?

"For the sake of the future of our marriage, I hope you're wrong. I'd hate to say it, but if this is truly the best you can do, then your best is just not good enough to keep this marriage alive.

This is a very hurtful comment, and it probably made your wife feel very helpless to hear.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I don't believe in those doctrinal variations. The Matthew passage I quoted earlier said that adultery is a valid reason to divorce. Abandonment applies when the abandoning spouse is an unbeliever:

I'm of the school of thought that there is no exhaustive list in Scripture of what are permissible grounds for divorce. In other words, I believe that just because some offense is not explicitly named in the New Testament as a ground for divorce would not make it any less valid. If those two were in fact the only valid reasons for divorce, the Law of Moses would have made that explicit.

Am I expected to believe domestic violence, gross financial recklessness, drug use, refusal to provide marital intimacy, and attempted murder are not valid grounds for divorce simply because they are not named as such? So if you are married to such a person, you are out of luck? You can probably understand why I refuse to recognize that doctrine as being of God.

I've heard some people say things like "pray for repentance" or "pray for reconciliation". That's namby-pamby nonsense, and it is putting God to the test.

What sort of excuses was she giving you? A couple of examples might help me understand the situation...

During sex (which was infrequent) she would place a heavy blanket between us so I couldn't really see her. She would claim that the room was drafty, when in fact it was over 80 degrees in there.

She would sometimes pick arguments or fights just before sex. I would ask her to discuss the matter another time, but to no avail. Throughout our marriage, she had a way of persisting in pressing a matter even though I asked her multiple times to stop.

When I requested some intimacy, not sex, she said she "wasn't comfortable" with it, so she wasn't going to do it. To me, that was the last straw. I told her I was done with the marriage, and I wanted a divorce.

You're making that "reality" reality by your own actions, so what you are saying is still a threat. ... This is a very hurtful comment, and it probably made your wife feel very helpless to hear.

She had been acting this way for years. That wasn't my doing. I felt that she needed to understand that no further excuses would be tolerated.

And yes, it was a threat. But by that time, I had no choice. She had been giving me the runaround for years. I don't have to stand for this mistreatment, and I would recognize no doctrine that says otherwise.

I said all of those things prior to counseling. The whole point of counseling was to determine if there was a satisfactory resolution short of divorce. While I did at first say I wanted a divorce, the reality was that I wanted to exhaust other possible remedies and treat divorce as a last resort. I got threatening because her myriad excuses and diversions over the years convinced me that nothing would change unless she was made aware that divorce is a very real possibility.

So yes, I took a threatening tone. But really, did I have much of a choice?

What if it truly was?

Then the marriage is over. It's that simple. If you want to be married to me, then I have some standards and expectations.

In reality, I wasn't asking for much. She did provide these things early on, so she was perfectly capable. Her refusal to provide these things was a violation of her marital vows, and I would recognize no doctrine that says I have to continue to put up with it.

In the course of counseling, I realized she was unhappy with the marriage for years. Largely due to events and circumstances that were out of my control. She was unhappy with her relationship with my relatives. A lot of that was due to decisions that she made in her interactions with them. The marriage truly was too far gone. There was nothing I could do about it.

 

[linux.poet]

Am I expected to believe domestic violence, gross financial recklessness, drug use, refusal to provide marital intimacy, and attempted murder are not valid grounds for divorce simply because they are not named as such? So if you are married to such a person, you are out of luck?

Unfortunately, in the Christian community, the answer is yes. Hopefully in the case of domestic violence and attempted murder, the person is in jail for their misdeeds. In the case of financial recklessness, the finances can be separated, and in the case of drug use, the person should be sent to rehab.

You can probably understand why I refuse to recognize that doctrine as being of God.

Yes.

During sex (which was infrequent) she would place a heavy blanket between us so I couldn't really see her. She would claim that the room was drafty, when in fact it was over 80 degrees in there.

If I were you, I would just pull the blanket off of her and wrap it around both you and her...I would also call her out on that right away and ask why she is doing that? Why are you uncomfortable with my body when you married me? That's a valid question to ask her.

Knowing that your body is being rejected is a very painful thing to have to experience.

When I requested some intimacy, not sex, she said she "wasn't comfortable" with it, so she wasn't going to do it.

That's a nasty thing to do to someone.

In reality, I wasn't asking for much. She did provide these things early on, so she was perfectly capable. Her refusal to provide these things was a violation of her marital vows,.

I agree that she was violating her vows. When did this start? Did she ever give you a solid explanation as to why she was doing this to you? It's very unusual behavior for a marriage, as far as I understand it.

Have you ever hit her, thrown her around the room, or done any act of physical violence towards her? That might explain why she was using the blanket, because she was scared that she would hit you again. Have you ever said harsh words to her during an act of physical intercourse or said that her body was unacceptable?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

I agree that she was violating her vows. When did this start? Did she ever give you a solid explanation as to why she was doing this to you? It's very unusual behavior for a marriage, as far as I understand it.

Have you ever hit her, thrown her around the room, or done any act of physical violence towards her? That might explain why she was using the blanket, because she was scared that she would hit you again. Have you ever said harsh words to her during an act of physical intercourse or said that her body was unacceptable?

It started around 2013 or so. I never really got a solid explanation from her regarding this.

I was never physical towards her in that way. And I never was harsh or degrading towards her during sex, nor did I ever say anything derogatory about her body.

As for harsh words, she would have a way of pressing some point and she would persist until I am fatigued into saying whatever she wanted to hear. And I would have no way of knowing what it was she wanted to hear. At times I would try to shut down the conversation, but to no avail.

I remember one time she pulled this while we were driving to my family's home in Redding, CA. We were barely 30 or so miles out of home, and she was pressing some point (I forgot the specifics). I told her to drop it, but she persisted. Then I started cursing at her. That still didn't work. Then I pulled the car over. I was ready to turn around and drop her off. She was willfully violating my boundaries, and it was abusive and manipulative. At times I wondered if she was doing this in an attempt to provoke me to hit her so she could have me arrested. I never did that because that would have played into her hands.

I don't respond well to manipulation. When someone does that to me, and when they persist after repeated warnings, I take it as a personal affront. The manner in which I deal with such things is ruthless and severe.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

This is where I stand now with my life...

I am in the process of moving in to my own apartment. It's pretty cool. It has some space for the two boys when they are over.

I haven't attended church regularly since my excommunication. I was so incensed at the treatment I received from the Church elders and other believers regarding my divorce that I came very close to saying I will never again associate with Christians. But I could never go that far.

In general, I don't recommend dating non-believers, but I am dating women regardless of their stated religion. (I discussed that on another thread, so no need to rehash it here.)

I felt like both the elders at that church, and much of the church-going public have violated my trust when they slandered me to my face and made unreasonable demands. When there was a lack of an outcry over those elders' gross abuses, I took that as a sign they all approved of their dishonorable conduct. Most egregious of all was their dishonesty concerning their own policies.

It is not my desire that the story ends there. So I hope to provide reasonable opportunities for church-going Christians to earn back my trust. Being on ChristianForums.com does help provide some helpful perspectives. I appreciate the assurance that there is still common sense and common decency in the Church. There are still people in the Church who will not trade their good moral sense for mindless dogma.

Granted, I have been foolishly indiscriminate in my wrath against church-going Christians because of this. But please understand that I still have some serious trust issues with respect to the Church and those in it.

I don't know when I will resume regular church attendance. These days I am often out on Saturday nights, usually dancing, at a party, or a nightclub with friends. My friends here have not slandered me to my face, they have not made unreasonable demands, they have not shamed me for my divorce, nor have they shamed me for my refusal to adopt permanent lifelong celibacy. These are my people now. Many of them know the story of my excommunication, and they were horrified by it. The word "cult" came up more than once in their characterizations of the assembly that gave me the boot.

 

[linux.poet]

This sounds like a highly abusive marriage where both you and her were abusing each other. Her being abusive to you does not let you off the hook for your response, but I can understand where you are coming from here. I have had an abusive father who has treated me in a terrifying manner for the past 29 years. If what you are saying is true, what she did to you is abusive.

I don't respond well to manipulation. When someone does that to me, and when they persist after repeated warnings, I take it as a personal affront. The manner in which I deal with such things is ruthless and severe.

Same here, bro. I have a zero-tolerance policy for emotional manipulation. You shouldn't have to put up with that.

Whether a spouse is allowed to leave an abusive marriage is very much debated in Christian circles. I would encourage you to read up on Wayne Grudem's paper where he defends the rights of an abused spouse to leave their partnership. That may encourage your heart. However, this is an unusual case because usually it is the husbands who are abusing their wives and not the other way around. However, I will acknowledge that the opposite exists - one of my friends was the unfortunate victim of a very nasty mom.

The problem is, abuse victims can become abusers themselves. What is worse, abusers attract abusers for marriage partners. And I'm going to be honest with you right now bro, you're using a ton of the language that my abusive dad used "unacceptable", "disrespectful", and also mirroring his attitude very strongly. "It's that simple." "nothing would change unless she was made aware that divorce is a very real possibility." Of course, in my case, I was the one who was unacceptable and disrespectful, and if you replace the word "divorce" with "eviction" in the last sentence I quoted, that sentence could have come out of my dad's lips. There are numerous other language examples like this.

Now, I don't think you're purposefully intending to be an abuser. I don't think you think you are one. But at the very least, your wife's actions have put you on the path to becoming one, if you weren't one already. Worse, the spiritual abuse you may have suffered in response to your wife's abuse of you is only contributing to the problem. Please, I beg of you, go see a therapist to help you fully recover. I don't care if it's a Christian therapist or not. If you don't, you are likely to attract another abusive woman for your next relationship, which will lead to another divorce, more shame, and so on. And please do look into information about codependency.

I must admit that the church does not handle abuse cases very well, and is prone to blaming the victims. When my mother and me brought our case to the church for being abused, the church proceeded to blame me and my mom instead of confronting my dad. It took 18 months of hard, painful, ugly work for the church to finally understand what was going on and to let us off the hook. Nobody is innocent. But please do not cover your pain with self-righteousness and use that as a license to hurt others, otherwise you will never recover and you will likely become like my dad.