Abuse In Marriage As It Pertains to Christians

I don't usually publish whole articles in my blog posts, but since I am getting so many questions about this subject right now, I am going to post the contents of an article written in Christianity Today (October, 2007, author David Instone-Brewer) that I'm sure will answer a lot of questions regarding the idea of staying in an abusive relationship. There are so many Christian women who have believed (and for good reason) that it is imperative to stay in an abusive relationship because God hates divorce and that divorce is a sin. This article is like a breath of fresh air and really puts abusive relationships in perspective. Please feel free to share this with any and all women who need to understand this crucial and foundational portion of scripture:
I WAS BEING INTERVIEWED for what would be my first church pastorate, and I was nervous and unsure what to expect. The twelve deacons sat in a row in front of me and took turns asking questions, which I answered as clearly as I could. All went smoothly until they posed this question: "What is your position on divorce and remarriage? Would you remarry a divorcee or divorced man?" I didn't know if this was a trick question or an honest one. There might have been a deep-seated pastoral need behind it, or it might have been a test of my orthodoxy. Either way, I didn't think I could summarize my view in one sentence; when I thought about it further, I couldn't decide exactly what my view was. I gave a deliberately vague reply. "Every case should be judged on its own merits." . It worked; I got the job. But I made a mental note to study the subject of divorce, and to do it quickly. It's a good thing I did.  As it turned out, I was surrounded by people who needed answers to questions raised by divorce and remarriage. My Baptist church was located near an Anglican congregation and two Catholic churches. Divorced men and women from these congregations came asking if we would conduct their weddings, having been denied in their local churches. Then I found that some of my deacons had been divorced and remarried. Should I throw them out of church leadership? If I did, I would lose people I considered some of the most spiritual in the church, people with exemplary Christian homes and marriages.
The New Testament presents a problem in understanding both what the text says about divorce and its pastoral implications.  Jesus appears to say that divorce is allowed only if adultery has occurred: "Whoever divorces a wife, except for sexual indecency, and remarries, commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9).However, this
has been interpreted in many different ways. Most say that Jesus allows divorce only for adultery. But some argue that Jesus originally didn't allow even that. Only in Matthew does he offer an out from marriage: "except for sexual indecency." Beyond what Jesus says, Paul also allows divorce. He permits it for abandonment
by a nonbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Many theologians add this as a second ground for divorce.
Yet some pastors have found this teaching difficult to accept, because it seems so impractical-even cruel in certain situations. It suggests there can be no divorce for physical or emotional abuse, and Paul even seems to forbid separation (1 Cor. 7:10). As a result, some Christians quietly ignore this seemingly "impractical" biblical teaching or find ways around it. For example, they suggest that when Jesus talked about "sexual immorality," perhaps he included other things like abuse. Or when Paul talked about abandonment by a nonbeliever, perhaps he included any behavior that is not supportive of the marriage or abandonment by anyone who is acting like a nonbeliever. Many have welcomed such stretching of Scripture because they couldn't accept what they believed the text apparently said. But does the literal text mean what we think it does?
While doing doctoral studies at Cambridge, I likely read every surviving writing of the rabbis of Jesus' time. I "got inside their heads" enough to begin to understand them. When I began working as a pastor and was confronted almost immediately with divorced men and women who wanted to remarry, my first response was
to re-read the Bible. I'd read the biblical texts on divorce many times in the past, but I found something strange as I did so again. They now said something I hadn't heard before I read the rabbis!
'ANY CAUSE' DIVORCE'
The texts hadn't changed, but my knowledge of the language and culture in which they were written had. I was now reading them like a first -century Jew would have read them, and this time those confusing passages made more sense. My book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, is a summary of several academic papers and books I began writing with this new understanding of what Jesus taught.
One of my most dramatic findings concerns a question the Pharisees asked Jesus: "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?" (Matt. 19:3). This question reminded me that a few decades before Jesus, some rabbis (the Hillelites) had invented a new form of divorce called the "any cause" divorce. By the time of Jesus, this "any cause" divorce had become so popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament.
The "any cause" divorce was invented from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1.  Moses allowed divorce for "a cause of immorality," or more literally, "a thing of nakedness." Most Jews recognized that this unusual phrase was talking about adultery. But the Hillelite rabbis wondered why Moses had added the word "thing" or "cause" when he only needed to use the word "immorality." They decided this extra word implied another ground for divorce - divorce for "a cause." They argued that anything, including a burnt meal or wrinkles not there when you married your wife, could be a cause! The text, they said, taught that divorce was allowed both for adultery and for "any cause."
This single phrase that referred to no type of divorce "except immorality"-and therefore the new "any cause" divorces were invalid. These opposing views were well known to all first-century Jews. And the Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood. "Is it lawful to divorce your wife for any cause?" they asked. In other words: "Is it lawful for us to use the 'any cause' divorce?" When Jesus answered with a resounding no, he wasn't condemning "divorce for any cause," but rather the newly invented "any cause" divorce. Jesus agreed firmly with the second group that the phrase didn't mean divorce was allowable for "immorality" and for "any cause," but that Deutermonomy 24:1 referred to no type of divorce "except immorality." This was a shocking statement for the crowd and for the disciples. It meant they couldn't get a divorce whenever they wanted it - there had to be a lawful cause. It also meant that virtually every divorced man or women was not really divorced.
Luke and Matthew summarized the whole debate in one sentence: Any divorced person who remarried was committing adultery (Matt. 5:32;Luke 16:18),because they were still married. The fact that they said "any divorced person" instead of "virtually all divorced people" is typical Jewish hyperbole - like Mark saying that "everyone" in Jerusalem came to be baptized by John (Mark 1:5).  It may not be obvious to us, but their first readers understood clearly what they meant. Within a few decades, however, no one understood these terms any more. Language often changes quickly (as I found out when my children first heard the Flintstones sing about "a gay old time"). The early church, and even Jewish rabbis, forgot what the "any cause" divorce was, because soon after the days of Jesus, it became the only type of divorce on offer. It was simply called divorce. This meant that when Jesus condemned "divorce for 'any cause,' " later generations thought he meant "divorce for any cause."
Now that we know what Jesus did reject, we can also see what he didn't reject. He wasn't rejecting the Old Testament- he was rejecting a faulty Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. He defended the true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1. And there is one other surprising thing he didn't reject: Jesus didn't reject the other ground for divorce in the old Testament, which all Jews accepted. Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in Jesus' day knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect.
Before rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage; the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect-though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered!
These three rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows - we find them listed in marriage certificates discovered near the Dead Sea. In later Jewish and Christian marriages, the language became more formal, such as "love, honor, and keep." These vows, together with a vow of sexual faithfulness, have always been the basis for marriage. Thus, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce. The three provisions of food, clothing, and love were understood literally by the Jews. The wife had to cook and sew, while the husband provided food and materials, or money. They both had to provide the emotional support of marital love, though they could abstain from sex for short periods. Paul taught the same thing. He said that married couples owed each other love (1 Cor. 7:3-5) and material support (1 Cor. 7:33-34). He didn't say that neglect of these rights was the basis of divorce because he didn't need to - it was stated on the marriage certificate. Anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce.
Divorce for neglect included divorce for abuse, because this was extreme neglect. There was no question about that end of the spectrum of neglect, but what about the other end? What about abandonment, which was merely a kind of passive neglect? This was an uncertain matter, so Paul deals with it. He says to all believers that they may not abandon their partners, and if they have done so, they should return (1 Cor.
7:10-11).
In the case of someone who is abandoned by an unbeliever - someone who won't obey the command to return - he says that the abandoned person is "no longer bound." Anyone in first-century Palestine reading this phrase would think immediately of the wording at the end of all Jewish, and most Roman, divorce certificates: "You are free to marry anyone you wish."
Putting all this together gives us a clear and consistent set of rules for divorce and remarriage. Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:

• Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)

• Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1Corinthians 7)

• Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1Corinthians 7)

Jewish couples listed these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage vows. We reiterate them as love, honor, and keep and be faithful to each other. When these vows were broken, it threatened to break up the marriage. As in any broken contract, the wronged party had the right to say, "I forgive you; let's carry on," or, "I can't go on, because this marriage is broken." Therefore, while divorce should never happen, God allows it (and subsequent remarriage) when your partner breaks the marriage vows.
Reading the Bible and ancient Jewish documents side-by-side helped me understand much more of the Bible's teaching about divorce and marriage, not all of which I can summarize here. Dusty scraps of parchment rescued from synagogue rubbish rooms, desert caves, and neglected scholarly collections shone fresh light on the New Testament. Theologians who have long felt that divorce should be allowed for abuse and abandonment may be vindicated. And, more importantly, victims of broken marriages can see that God's law is both practical and loving.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Much Abuse is Too Much? (livingwellcc.blogspot.com)
• Recovering a Marriage After Abuse (livingwellcc.blogspot.com)
• Perception Is Often Skewed with Abuse (livingwellcc.blogspot.com)
• Stockholm Syndrome (livingwellcc.blogspot.com)
• Emotional Abuse (livingwellcc.blogspot.com)

Why Is It So Hard To Leave?

When you work with women who have been, are in or are close to someone in an abusive relationship, the question of why it is so hard to leave inevitably comes up.  I thought I would share with you a little bit of technical information that might help answer that question.  The question is not an easy one to answer and to fully understand some of the considerations that go into these decisions you need to understand the concepts of conditioning, addiction and our basic need for love.

Let's start with the relatively easy one....our basic need for love.  In many places throughout scripture we learn that as human beings, we are created for relationship and for love.  Back as far as the story of Adam and Eve we find God saying that it is not good for man to be alone, that he should have a companion.  In more recent times a study was done by a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School that basically showed human beings being happier and healthier if they have love in their life as well as approval from others.   In short, love is crucial to the existence of human beings. It is as necessary to a good quality of life as the air we breathe.

We also know that the withdrawal of love is torturous to the human being.  You can see that very well when you look at children who are disciplined by a parent who ignores them as a form of punishment.  According to Kelly Coutee,

"In early childhood, a parent can provide negative mirroring by being contemptuous of the child or by withdrawing love as punishment. During this developmental phase, fear that the parent will leave if the child is not good enough (abandonment fear) can later cause shame to be experienced in perceived abandonment. "

When we withdraw love from a child they will do almost anything to restore it, which is why uninformed parents find it an effective punishment.

As adults, we are affected the same way, especially if we have grown up with a lack of love and/or acceptance in our lives.  That lack eventually forms a deep seated belief system that effects the way we look at things, people and life until that belief is changed.  If our self esteem is challenged, if we believe that we aren't good enough, if we believe that only this person will love us or we have been made to feel responsible for the good feeling and well being of another person, we will cling to that which we know rather than embrace that which we don't know.  There is a colleague of mine who practices Emotionally Focused Couples therapy and his comment is "women don't leave abusive relationships because the negative attachment that they have is better than the perceived isolation they believe they will have if they leave."  That makes a lot of sense.

The next part of this equation is the idea of conditioning.  Operant conditioning is a type of conditioning where the use of consequences has the effect of modifying behavior.  Abusive relationships use operant conditioning by the abuser to keep the victim controlled.  Resistance is soon worn down as the victim is conditioned to respond to tone of voice, facial looks, physical positions or other things that the abuser might use to control behavior.  In the beginning, those indicators would be followed by action, but after the conditioning has been accomplished, only the threat is necessary.

The last piece of the puzzle comes under the heading of addiction.....gambling addiction to be specific.  Addiction to gambling is not an addiction that is predicated on a substance such as drugs or alcohol.  In substance addiction there is a physiological dependence that the body develops in relation to the substance which then creates symptoms of physical withdrawal when the substance is removed.  Gambling has no such physiological quality.  So why is it one of the most difficult addictions to break?  Because it employs Intermittent Reinforcement.  B.F. Skinner discovered a very interesting concept with intermittent reinforcement in that  behavior that is reinforced intermittently is much more difficult to extinguish than behavior that is reinforced continuously.

Intermittent reinforcement is best described by the example of a slot machine.  Slot machines pay off at intermittent times and in variable amounts.  If you have ever had the experience of interacting with one of these machines, can you remember feeling that you got?  Just imagine.....you pull the handle and 13 coins fall into the tray.  You are excited!  The next three or four pulls of the handle don't result in anything, however the next one results in 5 coins.  You aren't as excited, but you begin to anticipate that within the next few pulls of the handle, you could get a return that is as exciting or better than the first one.  Wow!  The anticipation is exhilarating and you continue to play.  With each pull of the handle your hope increases that the big payoff is just a few pulls of the handle away!  Many individuals can sit at a slot machine for hours and hours with the anticipation of "the big payoff"!

Now with that in mind, remembering how important love is to us and understanding that an abuse victim lives in a very controlled environment, what would happen if the "payoff" was love?  How addicting would it be if that "payoff" came at intermittent times...perhaps one day the abuser does something nice and then it happens again in three days.  Then it happens again in a week.  There's an incident a few days later but then s/he does something nice the next day, then again in ten days and then again in four days.  Imagine too that there are variable amounts of  love/kindness/happiness that range from just a ceasing from abuse to going out to dinner or a bouquet of flowers.  The victim's anticipation for the next "payoff" rises and falls, but s/he is still looking for the next time......s/he lives for the next time.  For all intents and purposes, staying in an abusive relationship is a form of gambling addiction.  The victim is gambling for the big payoff that seldom if ever comes.

Dog trainers understand this kind of reinforcement very well as it is a planned training schedule that works effectively to increase positive behavior in the animals.  Trainers make sure that although there are treats that are given for good behavior or positive reaction, but these treats are given at specific intervals, not each time and not at equal intervals.

Conditioning is a part of how we learn as human beings, but it can either have positive or negative results depending on the scenario.   Intermittent reinforcement  when combined with the giving and withdrawal of love is traumatizing and destructive when combined with an interpersonal relationship.  It results in a skewed connectedness that is on one hand painful, yet on the other hand provides a false hope for change.  In this state, individuals find it very difficult to leave a relationship.  They believe there is hope, yet that hope is built on an addictive pattern of behavior that will only continue to cycle until someone breaks the pattern.  It is not until hope is gone that an individuals feel free of guilt or responsibility to the relationship and often makes the decision to break free.  Add other conditions such as Stockholm Syndrome and/or PTSD and the confusion escalates and the decisions become more difficult and more complicated to make.

Hopefully this has helped to answer the question of why it is so hard to leave a relationship that is abusive.  Hope is a powerful thing, as it should be.  Proverbs 13:12 says "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but desire fulfilled is a tree of life."  Successful interpersonal relationships are life giving and that is the hope that every couple has when they enter in to one.  It is often difficult to discern when that hope turns from true hope into false hope.