Hall and Oates and more on divorce

A follow-up to last week's post on the "good divorce."  Swan asked:

I understand that it's not a good idea to go into the specifics of your divorces. I don't expect you to do that.

I would expect you to make clearer though what your interpretation of these passages is. You seemed to say that even though an exception like adultery may not have applied to your case (even if it did, you didn't HAVE to divorce) and even though you talked things through with a counselor (at least the third time), that divorce was still the best option.

So I'm not saying that divorce is never ever acceptable, and I don't think many churches are saying that, I just think that many people, even Christians, make the decision to divorce too easily. And from what you've written, you seem to be one of them, and you seem to be defending that position.

I also want to make it clear that people who are divorced shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens at church in any way. It's real and it happens, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not so good reasons. And in any case it's tough and people need support, not judgment afterwards. We have a divorce recovery group at our local church for example, and people freely say that a marriage is their second and are not treated any differently because of it. If it is seen as a fault, it's clear to everyone that everyone has has faults, and that everyone needs encouragement, not condemnation, and that it is best to learn from our experiences.

I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying, but if so, maybe you could be a bit more specific about what's good and what's not in general terms.

Let me begin by recommending a very fine article on the subject of divorce and public ritual in last month's Episcopal Life by a Rev. Jennifer Phillips.  Very sensible.

I'm wary of saying that divorce is necessarily the "best" option.   When one has made a commitment to another human being, surely the "best" option is to continue to honor that commitment.  But to twist an old phrase, we can't let "the best be the enemy of the good."   The fact that divorce falls short of the mark doesn't mean that the experience can't be a beneficial one for both parties, and in some instances, more beneficial than staying together might have been.

When I was going through one of my earlier divorces, a friend reminded me of the famous Hall and Oates lyric from the 1970s ballad "Do What You Want, Be Who You Are"  (appropriate title for our discussion, and yes, I liked Hall and Oates back in the day):

"It ain't a sign of weakness girl, to give yourself away
Because the strong give up and move on
While the weak, the weak give up and stay"

Let me be explicit here:  by quoting those lines, I'm not trying to argue that those who stay in struggling marriages are always necessarily weak.  The songwriters -- and others -- create a bit of a false dichotomy: either you stay in an unhappy marriage, or you leave.  The third option, and one that I have seen work, is to have the two spouses fight like hell to transform their relationship.  Sometimes, the marriage is transformed, and that's a blessing.  But yes, I've seen plenty of people stay in miserable marriages which are never transformed, and I've seen them diminished as a consequence.  Nothing sadder than seeing a loved one -- man or woman -- grow smaller as a result of their relationship.  Few of us can say we've never seen that!

(Parenthetically, I know I'm not exactly helping to burnish my evangelical credentials by quoting Hall and Oates rather than Scripture!  Pace, fellow believers.)

I'm also wary of the notion that those who do transform bad marriages to good ones over years of struggle are somehow more virtuous than those of us who do choose to end marriages that have reached the end of their usefulness!  Ultimately, I suppose, I think all of us acknowledge that there's a real mystery as to why some marriages thrive and others fail.  All of our simplistic, pop psychology analyses fail to capture what, to paraphrase another oldie, "goes on behind closed doors."  If there's one contemporary truism that does hold merit, it's that ultimately, no one outside the marriage can fully grasp what it's like to be in it. 

So, Hall and Oates get it at least partly right, I think.   Every one of us, ultimately, Christian or not, defines that "tipping point" past which a marriage ought not be saved differently.  Scripture gives us some very general guidelines; various ecclesiastical traditions give us others.  No Christian -- heck, no sensible human being -- thinks divorce ought to be the first choice when one hits a difficult patch.  But at times, it takes real strength and genuine courage to acknowledge that to stay together would do both people (and perhaps the wider community) more harm than good.

It is right and proper to grieve the end of any marriage.  But grief is not always a sign that one has made a bad choice.  After all, look at all the tears shed when a child is sent off to college or graduates from high school.   Leaving a safe and familiar environment can be a scary thing; leaving behind precious memories can be sad -- but that doesn't mean it isn't often the right thing to do.  We need to do more than comfort the grief-stricken survivors of divorce.  Sometimes, we ought to remind them that they may well have made a good choice, one that reflects strength rather than weakness.

Comments

[John]

Sigh. 70's folk. Worse and worse...:-)

[dave]

Interesting . . . rock bottom, a divorce is a violent thing. It is a tragedy. I am reminded of the justifications given for war. Sometimes, in order to bring peace to the world, you just have the kill the mother fers.

[Chris]

It seems there has been much conversation on the "biblical" issues surrounding divorce and even though some might say that there are clear cut scriptural references on this topic, i would ask those to be patient before using them for many reason, but primarily because we use them poorly. Let me give an example that is bit distanced from the topic at hand.

In the mid-1800's, the US was divided on the issue of slavery. As we all know, the north argued that slavery was wrong and the south argued that it wasn't. Now, regardless of the motives behind the Civil War, there were Christians on both sides arguing from what they thought were firm biblical perspectives. One might ask how that is possible because Christians today would all agree that slavery is wrong, but 150 years ago, that wasn't the case. The overwhelming majority of people saw that slavery was supported by the bible. The best argument was that the kind of slavery the US had engaged in was not biblical, not that slavery was inherently wrong. It took the government to step in and make the ethical discussion and the cost of that discussion is well known.

Concerning divorce:

It seems like there have been people throwing scripture around on this topic a bit irresponsibly. Throwing around verses tends to be the practice of people who bring about division, rather than reconciliation. When we speak about the bible, we must first understand that it was written in a particular place and time that is foreign to us. We might have to say that we might not be understanding what Jesus is saying at particular point and i think that is the case in divorce.

The last commandment that Jesus gives is that we love each other as he has loved us. We must serve each other, placing the other before ourselves, a concept that seems to be completely lost in our society, and that includes our families, friends, children and lovers. But we also must learn to love ourselves so that we can actually love each other.

My suspicion is that people have not learned what it means to give ourselves entirely to the other, we have not learned how to be married people, and therefore we find ourselves in positions where divorces are common. And instead of criticizing people who get divorces, perhaps it would be better to teach and help other understand what it means to get married rather than rushing into something as life changing as marriage.

Perhaps an example would best fit in explain what I mean. My parents were divorced when i was 7 and my earliest memories of them are them fighting. I don't remember them happy, healthy, or even together. They were miserable together and my brother and I never knew a happy home with the two of them together. Thankfully, they wanted more for us and knew that this model would leave more damage in our lives than good and even though there divorce left many scares, there marriage together would have left infinitely more. In this situation, there was no adultery, but they had grown so far a part that they began to grow separately from one another. They had forgotten what it meant to grow as one and thus, they failed to be what they were called to be, husband and wife.

There are cases where a married couple can grow back to one another, but then there are cases where they cannot, i.e. adultery. But sometimes, there are worse things than adultery and in that context, i think Jesus would be understanding, not condemning. And for the record, judgment and condemnation are the same word in the greek (context is essential in understanding the difference).

[mythago]

When we speak about the bible, we must first understand that it was written in a particular place and time that is foreign to us. We might have to say that we might not be understanding what Jesus is saying at particular point and i think that is the case in divorce.

Why do you think this is the case for divorce and not for other parts of Scripture? "It was long ago and far away" could easily apply to just about any portion of the Bible you care to name.

[Hugo]

Mythago, that's what the entire hermeneutic/textual criticism tradition is designed to deal with. We must walk a difficult path, aware of twin pitfalls: one, the mistake that the Bible has no relevance for our modern lives; the other, that every jot and tittle reveals a mandatory code of personal behavior for us today. We must avoid the siren song of secularism on the one hand and fundamentalism on the other, realizing that both of these opponents often make their arguments seem more simple and more compelling.

[mythago]

I understand that, Hugo, but what I'm not understanding is textual criticism of Jesus's exact words. He was very clear that divorce is wrong except for adultery. I am genuinely curious as to how various Christian denominations get around that.

[John]

Some of us don't try to.
You could get milage out of "It was for hardness of heart that Moses wrote you this law" and the idea that we live in a fallen world, but that is a theological crop I do not propose to grow.

[Stephen]

If these musings are true, shouldn't we change the vows. Otherwise, they simply exemplify hopes rather than commitments -- hopes and desires are pretty thin ground on which to based a life-long commitment.

Chris, I'm not going to trade anecdotes, but the social science on this is pretty clear: divorce harms children, even in those cases where the couples are unhappy. It's counter intuitive, I know, similar to the notion that "wanted" children will be more loved . . . also not true when you look at the stats of child-abuse.

Steve

[Hugo]

Steven, I don't think we need to go to that extreme.

The fact that we acknowledge that we are flawed humans who will, frequently, fail to live up to our commitments doesn't mean that we shouldn't make commitments in the first place. By the same token, we can also acknowledge that over time, we become different people than those who made the original commitments -- and some of us think that might be justification for abrogating them.

Again, I'm not arguing divorce is "God's best"; I am arguing that even when we fall short of the mark, we may find opportunities for growth and healing and joy. And rather than focus our pastoral attention on forcing folks only to live up to an often-unattainable ideal, we ought to be helping each individual couple discern what is the healthiest and most life-affirming choice for them to make.

[rainbow]

As a women's studies professor, you should be aware of how divorce impacts the middle aged and elderly female. Often husbands trade in the wife just as she hits 40-50 plunging her into solitude and poverty with no hopes of job with a pension, while he runs off with 35 year old. I just came back from my friend's daughter's wedding. No single middle aged men, but lots of middle aged single women. Many of the men were on wife 2 or 3. All but one of the single women were single due being divorced and abandoned by hubby. None of the married women were on husband 2 or 3.

[Hugo]

Rainbow, I hear you.

And yes, MRA fellows, I still teach the data from your least favorite survey - tremble at the name of Lenore Weitzman, whose data and whose research methodology is infinitely more reliable than MRA propaganda makes it out to be...

[rainbow]

I have often wondered why it is so easy for some women to date another women's husband and then marry him. I guess hoping that he is old enough not to keep shopping. Do you have any insights based on the hundreds of young women you taught over the years and teens you mentored? It seems in my personal circle, there are good men who are tempted but don't act and playas -- very little in between; but that seems too simplistic.

[Stephen]

"Often husbands trade in the wife just as she hits 40-50 . . . ."

This is not a true statement. Does it happen? Sure. Still, it's more likely that the woman will initiate the divorce, especiall after 40.

[Rainbow]

It is a true statement. Under the no fault schemes when a woman initiates a divorce due to serial infidelity, abandonment, beatings, etc. for 10 years, the papers look the same as if she walked out for her own selfish reasons. In California, it makes no difference whether he left her for dead and is supporting 3 other women or whether he was honest and true. Who initiates the divorce tells nothing about fault; the paperwork looks the same. It tells you more about the number of women who are willing to date and shack up with married men. Sure, there are women who abandon good men, but those women usually do so at 35 before it is too late to hook a richer fish.

[stanton]

Hugo - do you really use Weitzman's 73/42 nonsense? Surely you at least use Peterson's corrected 27/10 numbers, which were derived from Weitzman's own data after correcting her copy and math errors, right? That would still leave the methodology open to criticism, of course, but at least it would honestly represent her findings. I mean, even she admitted her report was wrong - after eleven years and widespread exposure of the truth. And do you also show your students the objections to Weitzman's study, and how she refused to allow access to her data for several years? I would expect you to do that in order to expose them to all sides of the issues you teach. I believe most MRAs respond to the invocation of the holy name of Weitzman with laughter, rather than trembling.

I don't know about the fault in divorces later in life, but I do know it's true that divorced men commit suicide at a far higher rate than divorced women. It is not all rosey for the men and hell for the women.

[mythago]

Often husbands trade in the wife just as she hits 40-50 plunging her into solitude and poverty with no hopes of job with a pension, while he runs off with 35 year old.

"Often"?

Who initiates the divorce tells nothing about fault; the paperwork looks the same.

Which is as it should be. It also, by the way, makes it a little hard to make sweeping statements about all those divorces ending because men run off with 35-year-old little honeys.

(On the Internet, nobody can tell you're trying to keep a straight face.)

[Stephen]

Mythago:

who'da thunk we agreed on something . . .

Steve

[Rainbow]

You pretentious (deleted) I was talking about a wedding I just attended where all the single middle aged women had been abandoned and where all the middle aged men were unrepentent abandoners and adulterers. My sweeping generalization at least has personal experience to back it up. Steve's sweeping generalization is meaningless. It would helpful to know what is really behind divorce. It is a joke to remove fault from the custody and property decisions. Nothing like turning children over to abusers to be his new punching bag.

[Hugo]

Rainbow, please remain civil or refrain from posting.

[mythago]

It is a joke to remove fault from the custody and property decisions.

It is vile to turn custody and property decisions into an excuse to try and punish a disliked ex.

You're pretending that without "fault," it is impossible to consider anything at all--such as abuse--in determining custody. This is untrue. Do you really think this is the same as insisting on compensation because one's spouse screwed around? Do you not get that this is simply a kind of prostitution?

A breadwinner's obligations to the stay-at-home parent of their children are based on the fact that they were married, that they have children in common, and on the economics. It shouldn't depend on who cheated on whom.

[Rainbow]

A cheating, abusive, financial abusive spouse broke their vows, their contract and often ruined the life of their abandoned spouse permanently. Staying home and giving up a career to care and raise children means permanent and life long loss of income. Finding out that the person you loved and dedicated your life to lied, cheated and gave all of the family income to a selfish, immoral person often permanently destroys any sense of wellbeing for the abandoned spouse. Monetary compensation won't give the abandoned spouse a life but might prevent lifelong poverty and says that society does not approve a parent unilaterally destroying a family. Don't even get me started on how wanton family destruction just for a better blow job or a younger wife destroys children and their future. Likewise, a stay at home cheating mother should not be able to capitalize on her immoral behavior and be able to support her boy toy indefinitely off of her faithful spouse's earnings.

[Stephen]

Rainbow:

"Often husbands trade in the wife just as she hits 40-50 plunging her into solitude and poverty with no hopes of job with a pension, while he runs off with 35 year old."

This is a meaningless statement if it is based on the following:

"I was talking about a wedding I just attended where all the single middle aged women had been abandoned and where all the middle aged men were unrepentent abandoners and adulter."

The anecdotes with which I'm familiar are women who decide they don't feel passion/love/emotional intimacy, so initiate divorce. In these cases, the men, though flawed, were willing to step up to the plate with therapy, soul-searching, what have you.

So, whose anecdotes are right?

Seems the only available hard evidence we have is more women intiate divorce. You are right to point out we don't know the reason. You are wrong to assume it must be because of "infidelity, abandonment, beatings, etc. for 10 years."

Stephen

[Rainbow]

By definition, any parent who spends all their free time on match.com, craigslist, etc. looking for action instead of being with their children stinks as a parent and should not have custody. what are we as society teaching the children except that promises, vows, marriage, and kindness is a joke and only for suckers. Faithful, dedicated spouses just get kicked in the teeth, lose their children and ruined financially by the family courts. I have seen court cases where the cheating spouse is given custody BECAUSE there is a replacement mother already in place. Bettter to give the child to someone lacking in morals who enjoyed destroying that child's family, than a single impoverished mother.

[Rainbow]

The women I know have initiated divorce for one or more of the following: cocaine addiction, beatings, serial adultery, and willful unemployment. Most women with children are afraid to initiate divorce these days because it is so easy for daddy and his mistress to gain custody. I have never met a woman who filed for divorce due to her feeling deprived. Maybe in the 60s when a woman could count on keeping the children, but NOT today. I think the inequity in filings is due to the fact that women will gladly date separated and married men who claim to hate their wives. Women are so desperate that they are willing to spend years as a mistress in the hopes of snagging him. Therefore, the bored, immoral or unhappily married man has no incentive to file for divorce. He has a great excuse for not marrying the current girlfriend --- he has a wife!

[Hugo]

Gosh, Rainbow, we could continue to share anecdotes all day long. But your experiences are worlds apart from my own. I've been through three divorces, and your categorizations don't come close to describing the reasons.

Ultimately, I continue to believe what an old therapist told me years ago: when a marriage ends, 100% of the blame (responsibility, if you prefer that word) belongs to both parties. That's bad math and very good counseling.