Staying Together for the Kids’ Sake

And much appreciated

One interesting point of reference is that studies I've seen suggest that about 30% of spouses of both sexes commit adultery, and about 25% of "intimate partners" commit what is deemed to be some significant level of domestic abuse. So we would infer that somewhere around 40-50% of marriages have "actionable cause for divorce", which is very interestingly about....the actual divorce rate.

So overall, I'm not convinced that there are that many marriages blowing up without some very, very serious problems going on. In the past, those marriages often stayed intact because of economic concerns; and I'm not quite sure whether it's worse for them to stay intact, or to end.

I think this is a case by case basis. Somewhere I think the church stumbles in. I have seen pastors push for marriages to stay together when it has been just disastrous situations to grow up in. The divorce is not typically taking place because everything is working well. The church falls prey that the preferable scenario is for people to stay together, and so that becomes the target. And since most pastors have not had a divorce, they don't really have a clue what it is like. If you have a narcisist abuser as the husband, that behavior falls just in line with Scripture. That husband wants the marriage to stay together because it feeds their controlling nature. Many times the pastor, elders.... are just focused on getting the marriage back together and miss this behavior. Mostly because these individuals are very, very good at hiding it. So they come together and what the children learn and what they are put under is just a terrible, terrible situation.

When my parents divorced, it was in the abusive area, though actual clinically diagnosable narcissism does not appear to have been in play--my parents did get mental health care for themselves and my brother and I, and I don't believe that was ever diagnosed. Otherwise somewhat similar to what David relates. Our church tried an intervention, the details of which I don't really remember, but I believe it fell in the category of "we are in way over our heads."

One other thing as we're talking about "abuse" is that it can be a very flexible concept, and sometimes people use it to actually abuse others. My former sister-in-law did that to my wife's brother; his "crime", as it were, was little things like getting angry when he was cut off in traffic, but to listen to her, you'd think that he'd beaten her to the point of going to the ER a few times. So you've got to be concerned about an overly broad definition of abuse, too, along with people using the ideas of abuse to...ironically....abuse others.

In other words, the church--as well as mental health professionals --needs to first grasp a great degree of humility in dealing with these things, and simultaneously seriously up their game in these matters, IMO.

Back to my example, it's a bit out of where CD describes the matter he's addressing, but I don't know if staying together would have been helpful at all to my brother and my dad, who did walk away from church for the most part after the divorce. I don't think they were believers or seeking before, and they were not after, either. So we can confuse these correlations with causation and miss a much bigger issue.

I have seen numerous examples where the church embraces the narcissist, abuser.... of the relationship while church disciplining the individual suffering. It is because the abuser plays very nicely into the processes that churches have laid out. They are more than happy to tell you what you want to hear. They will outwardly work on change, with the sole focus of getting the relationship back together so they can feed their sinful actions. Churches reward that behavior because it aligns with church discipline. The victim is resisting getting back together because they have been through this cycle all too many times and they fear for their safety, their mental health...... And because they are resisting getting back together when their partner is willing to get back together, they church discipline the victim, who more often than not leaves church in general. I have seen this played out more times than I would care to see it played out. It goes back to the woeful state of affairs in too many churches. Just because someone has a 4-year Bible degree doesn't make them a marriage counselor. Many were even trained in the 1980's and 1990's in bible colleges where the teachings in the counseling programs have been shown to be wrong. The counseling is either carried out by the church pastor, or some lay deacons who even have less experience, with the only focus on being that 1) divorce is bad and 2) restoration at all cost. Not all churches are like this, but many, many are.

A narcissistic abuser is going to hoodwink everyone around them. That's their main goal - and talent - in life. To convince everyone how great they are. Tons of professional marriage counselors fall for it, too.

But I'll not sidetrack the thread!

Despite the failings of counsel, it is far better for men, women, and children to work through their difficulties and learn to really love one another. It requires humility, and I believe even narcissists can change, if they will submit to the Holy Spirit.

I don't think we should write anyone off as a lost cause.

Now, saying that, I also don't counsel women (or men) to stay in an unsafe space. That may require separation, but hopefully the separation will wake up the one who is creating the unsafe place. The goal is redemption and regeneration.

One thing to note about the narcissism hypothesis is that about 0.5% of men have clinically diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder, but from the stats, about 40% of men who get married get a divorce. So the vast majority of the time, it's not a clinical NPD, but rather a much more mundane thing called "sin".

Which is good news and bad news. Good news is that sussing out what's really going on may not be as difficult as we'd guessed in general, and the bad news is that it means that our churches (and many mental health therapists) are just pretty bad at figuring things out.

Probably one good place to start improving things would be to spend a little more time figuring out the why of someone filing for divorce or separating. As others here have hinted, a lot of time, the goal is to smooth things over and avoid the nuclear option of divorce, and a lot of people will more or less say to ignore some very real problems.

Many times "staying together for the kids" is one of the worst things that could happen for the kids. The parents are perpetually unhappy and at each other's throats, and the kids have to exist in an unhappy, miserable, and sometimes abusive home. Because the parents are miserable they often take out their frustrations on the easiest target, their kids.

If my parents would have divorced while I and my siblings were kids it would have been much easier for us growing up. There is lasting damage that we deal with as a result of them staying together.

I'm not suggesting that parents shouldn't work through their problems or that marriage is unimportant and can be dissolved on a whim. My parents' problems were major and there was abuse issues involved as well. But "staying together for the kids" can have as many cons as it has pros.

I agree Don. The preferance is always to try to work through it and stay together. It is the Biblically right thing to do, and studies are clear that children do better in a nuclear family structure. We just need to make sure that doesn't cloud the right approach for a particular circumstance. It is really at the root of why God allowed divorce in the OT. Because of the "hardness of their hearts". Divorce should not be the preference, it should not be the easy out... And equally you see just as many people getting a divorce because of stubborness. Or because of feelings.

I got to take a good hard look at Deuteronomy 24:1-4 last weekend, and it struck me how strictly Moses actually bounds divorce. The divorce is only to be initiated upon "uncleanness" found, which is literally "nakedness" in the Hebrew and transitively.....about things like fornication and adultery, really. Then, once a woman is divorced, she cannot go back to her former husband once she has remarried, no matter whether husband #2 divorces her or dies.

I'd argue that the passage is coming very close to what Jesus argues, basically saying "once you do this, it is permanent--it is not to be a threat that you lob around to get your way with your spouse!".

And that's pretty much exactly what I'd say (and have said) to people considering divorce, or saying that they'd divorce quickly after the first evidence of bad behavior; this stuff is permanent, and if you force your ex to do a fire sale on assets to pay you off for the divorce, then pay legal fees, it's awfully hard to walk that back.

So as I walk through Jesus' words about hardness of hearts, I am wrestling right now with whether He's rebuking their Talmudic interpretation of the passage, or whether he's referring to the written Torah. I am leaning towards the former, because "you're throwing your wives away like last week's leftovers" seems more in keeping with what was going on, as this matches very well with Malachi 2:14-16 and how God responded to what was going on in Nehemiah's time--a point where the Pharisaical formulation of Mosaic theology was rapidly maturing.

The thing is, the biblical ideal is to heal the marriage if at all possible, or even to patch it up, if possible. In our culture, it is far too easy to bail on marriage, I don't think anyone can deny that. That is what Clifton is arguing for. That is what I would advocate for first, and even after the whole thing has blown up, if that produces repentance.

On the other hand, there are very painful situations which cannot be healed because of the hardness of hearts. Some men or women will not repent (I've seen it both ways). That's what some of you seem to be talking about, and from your own experiences. In the end, even those difficult situations would have had better outcomes if the unrepentant had really come to themselves and gotten right with God and their families.

I think that marital counseling has to be one of the hardest jobs for a pastor or anyone to do and get right, especially when claims of mental abuse are in play. Physical abuse is pretty black and white but there are so many variables in play with mental abuse that make it so hard to determine what is actually going on. Ultimately, we don't know what is happening behind the closed door of the marriage at home. Maybe professionals have ways of cutting through the various facades that people put up, but I suspect it is very difficult no matter what. I keep thinking of Luke 12:14, " who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?"

I think what makes it a bit easier for a professional is that 1) they spend all day every day for upwards of 30 years dealing with just this, and 2) they are more prone to propose separation. I think working to bring a family back together is exceptionally difficult.

For me, my parents stuck it out for the sake of the kids. And in my experience it was a positive choice. Mostly because the challenges that my parents were dealing with were mostly hidden from our view. I know many others where separation would have been better for the kids. I am thankful for God's mercy in my situation, because he spared me from the challenges of separation. For every legitimate separation there are probably 10 where it is just two selfish people who can't seem to overcome their struggles and learn that love is an action and not a feeling.

The Biblical ideal is not just to "stick it out" but to thrive in the marriage together. While that is the ideal, sin can enter the picture and Jesus himself allows for divorce in the case of fornication. What about abuse? Does the exception clause include abuse? An unstated exception? Or is unrepentant abuse ultimately a church discipline problem and separation/divorce is granted on the grounds of an unbeliever departing? What if the unbeliever doesn't want to depart the marriage? I'm looking for a textual answer to a believing spouse's Biblical options when abuse is not stopping. One possibility that I have considered is that the abused contact the authorities and pursue criminal charges against the abuser that, if confirmed via a conviction, would force a separation. But I think that would only work in cases of physical abuse.

Many Christian leaders put abuse under the framework of abandonement. Probably too long to lay out here, but, the thought process is that the abuser has abandoned the covenant of marriage by willfully committing aggregious and repeated sins directly against the abused, and in some cases significantly illegal sins.

Having dealt with this a few times. If someone is getting abused, either physically or mentally, separation should take place immediately. The church needs to walk circumspectly in this scenario. Because the abuser is exceedingly crafty and the fullfillment of his sin lines up with the approach of the church. Most abusers will say anything and agree to anything in order to create the allurment of reconcilliation. They need the abused to come back in order to feed their sin. And most churches are pushing for reconcilliation. So you can see the problem where inept leaders are pushing reconcilliation, which is exactly what the abuser needs to fulfill his sinful desires. Sitting down with the couple for one hour a week is fully insufficient to understand something so incredibly complex. Abusers are very, very good at what they do. And it is not just that they are good at purposly lying, but that an abuser's mind is built in such a way as to navigate these scenarios very well. It is why so many Christian leaders stay in their positions for years while they are sexual abusing members of their congregation. Abuse is also unlike many other sins in the fact that you cannot overcome it so easily. Especially when it is linked with other disorders like narcissism, where there is no cure.

If it is physical abuse the abused should report it directly to police and should pursue charges.

Here is one layout for the textual reasons why divorce is allowed for abuse

https://www.baptiststandard.com/opinion/voices/abuse-is-biblical-grounds-for-divorce/

One thing to note about the narcissism hypothesis is that about 0.5% of men have clinically diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder...

Estimates vary. Some more near 5 or 6%. However, that is for narcissistic personality disorder.

Most of what we're talking about here would be narcissistic personality trait. Clinically the difference between personality traits and disorders involve the question, "Is the personality trait so severe that it prevents the person from successfully functioning in some sphere of life."

When you look at the definition of narcissism, it's pretty close to what we might think of as "selfish." That's a lot of people.

Andy: The Biblical ideal is not just to "stick it out" but to thrive in the marriage together.

I agree. But it would also be good to say, "The Biblical ideal is to 'stick it out' but also to work toward thriving in the marriage together."

The old man, as Owen put it, is the great purveyor of thoughts to the soul to bring in the provision to satisfy its affections. Purveyor isn't just a communicator. It's a salesman. IOW, there is a part of us that is suggesting alternative life choices that "would make us happier." "You would be happier if you left your wife." "You would be happier if you had a relationship on the side with your [secretary, computer porn, etc.]." These are lies, but sometimes they are very believable. Accepting that God's plan is better than our thoughts about happiness sometimes is pure faith.

The place where I differ is that many seem to assume that the selfish person, the person with some narcissistic tendencies, somehow has this amazing ability to pull the wool over other peoples' eyes that defies the abilities of pastors, therapists, and the like to discern. More or less, the trait of true narcissists (diagnosable NPD) is attributed to the much larger portion of "selfish people" or "jerks".

Trouble with that is that in my experience, I don't see that. My former sister in law and brother in law were basically telling the same story, but differing on the way they interpreted things details. Same thing with my mom and dad, and same thing with others. The debates I've seen are over what the deeds done mean, whether they're justified, and the like.

Regarding abandonment, I see it as a walk through Matthew 18, really. You confront with two (initial confrontation was the spouses; they already did that and it doesn't need to repeated) witnesses present, verify what's going on (probably a couple of layers of sin there really), go before the elder board, see if there is repentance, work with them if needed...

....and if one person clearly persists in sin, say abuse or adultery or whatever, the board needs to make a hard decision "do we help the victim spouse to separate?" And once a couple separates, a truly abusive spouse is going to (as did my father) tend to keep going--in other words, they abandon their spouse.

Hence "abandonment".

David -- you article alluded to a more in depth article by Andy Naselli:

https://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019_Divorce_and_Remarriage.pdf

This article is about as thorough as you will find on the subject, and I always find him level headed and usually persuasive. Basically he argues that anything that breaks the marriage covenant is legit grounds for divorce. I'm still thinking through it, but what he says makes sense as I'm reading it. So, if he is correct, then the question is, when does abuse cross the line of breaking the marriage covenant?

AndyE,

Thanks for the link, I missed it in the article. I am familiar with the article and studied it a number of years back. I would say that it aligns pretty closely with my thought process. My view has been that this doesn't make it right, it just makes it acceptable and that other elements still stay in place (i.e. no remarriage...). What I like is that it is able to cover a number of difficult areas with a concise model and approach. The magic question is where is the line. Some will state, "you will know it when you see it". Others have said, "the elders should identify the line in a given situation and circumstance".

Jesus gave only one reason for divorce, yet the Apostle Paul made it clear that there was yet another reason. Thus, I do not take the position that these two exceptions were listed for us to conclude that they were the only reasons for divorce. That puts me in the camp of anything that breaks the marriage covenant is legit grounds for divorce. That, however, should not become an excuse to rush to divorce, but it is a reminder that the very reason for divorce is because people are sinful. Sin has serious consequences within a marriage, and divorce is part of God's grace for terrible situations. Being annoyed with a spouse, or not feeling as attracted to them as you used to, is not the same as having to escape a terribly sinful situation. I fear we have two extremes that are unhealthy/ungodly- the extreme of divorcing for frivolous reasons and the extreme of suggesting divorce is never or almost never acceptable. God had enough grace to allow for divorce we should as well.

One additional thought: Nearly all agree that adultery is grounds for divorce, yet there are those who are in such abusive situations that adultery would be easier to put up with than mental, physical, or verbal abuse.

Andy's comment here about legal charges "forcing a separation" deserves a bit of an extended response here. More or less, the basics are that it doesn't force a separation of any length, as most domestic/intimate partner violence charges are misdemeanors, and tend to be addressed with fines, counseling, and very nominal jail sentences if any. We're talking a week on the high side.

Plus, when you do that, most abused partners realize that what is at hand is the likely end of the relationship and their former way of life, and hence it takes a lot for people to pursue criminal charges--most abusers aren't going to stick around after footing the bill for legal defense and counseling, spending time in jail, fines, losing their guns, and the like. Really, some of the same is generally at hand before someone talks with the church, if they ever do. This is also why restraining orders generally don't help; they are only followed if the person who gets them really wants to leave the other person.

And then you've got any number of other issues, starting with the reality that emotional abuse (pattern of insults, more or less) isn't against the law, that law enforcement really doesn't want to deal with a lot of it, and that a lot of models like the Duluth Model are pretty much fiction.

On that last point, see the graph on page 1 of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' writeup about intimate partner violence. Apparently, just about as many women as men murdered their lovers in 1976, followed by a pretty sharp drop through the 1970s and 1980s, while murders of women by their lovers stayed in comparison relatively steady. So intimate partner violence is really one of the most "egalitarian" crimes out there--when the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, one of the big surprises was that about a third of those arrested were female, and for other violent crimes, men predominate by a ratio of about 90%-10%.

In the past 25 years, the overall number of victims has remained relatively constant at a bit above 2000, and the ratio is that female victims predominate by about a ratio of 2:1. I've got to wonder if the big thing that changed things was no fault divorce, not the Violence against Women Act.

Long and short of it; the legal process is a mess, and it really doesn't provide an "out" for the church to avoid accountability for helping a victimized spouse get out of a bad situation. So if someone comes to you, understand what a step they're taking, take it seriously, and you might end up showing the legal system how it's done simply because you're not starting with something like the Duluth Model.