130 Sermon Illustrations on Divorce

Morris calls his son in New York and says, “Benny, I have something to tell you. However, I don't want to discuss it. I'm merely telling you because you're my oldest child, and I thought you ought to know. I've made up my mind, I'm divorcing Mama.”

The son is shocked, and asks his father to tell him what happened. “I don't want to get into it. My mind is made up.”

“But Dad, you just can't decide to divorce Mama just like that after 54 years together. What happened?”

“It's too painful to talk about it. I only called because you're my son, and I thought you should know. I really don't want to get into it anymore than this. You can call your sister and tell her. It will spare me the pain.”

“But where's Mama? Can I talk to her?”

“No, I don't want you to say anything to her about it. I haven't told her yet. Believe me it hasn't been easy. I've agonized over it for several days, and I've finally come to a decision. I have an appointment with the lawyer the day after tomorrow.”

“Dad, don't do anything rash. I'm going to take the first flight down. Promise me that you won't do anything until I get there.”

“Well, all right, I promise. Next week is Passover. I'll hold off seeing the lawyer until after the Seder. Call your sister in New Jersey and break the news to her. I just can't bear to talk about it anymore.”

A half hour later, Morris receives a call from his daughter who tells him that she and her brother were able to get tickets and that they and the children will be arriving in Florida the day after tomorrow. “Benny told me that you don't want to talk about it on the telephone, but promise me that you won't do anything until we both get there.”

Morris promises. After hanging up from his daughter, Morris turns to his wife and says, “Well, it worked this time, but what are we going to do to get them to come down next year?”

*

It seems the seeds of divorce are sown long before a couple recites their wedding vows.

New research shows certain relationship skills -- or the lack of them -- can predict whether two people are headed for marital bliss or a painful breakup.

The skills that predicted success will come as no surprise to marriage therapists or happily married couples.

“The ones who stayed happily married were likely to handle conflict constructively,” said study author Mari L. Clements, an assistant professor of clinical psychology at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Her report appears in the August issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family.

“Even in the midst of a difficult issue in their relationship, they were likely to treat each other with respect,” Clements said. “They were likely to listen to each other.”

Those headed for divorce were more likely to make negative comments about the relationship or the partner, she found. And this pattern was evident before the marriage ever took place.

Clements and her colleagues studied 100 couples over 13 years to predict and confirm the couples' marital satisfaction or distress. The couples had volunteered to participate in the Denver Family Development Project beginning in 1980 and were each planning their first marriage.

Before their wedding, they were tested using a variety of measures, such as a marital adjustment test which evaluates such factors as happiness, disagreement and confidence, a tool that allows a partner to rate the effect of their spouse's communication, and a relationship problem inventory.

“Couples who ended up divorced viewed each others' communication more negatively,” Clements said.

“We assessed them before they got married, when they still had all the rose-colored glasses in place,” she said. “We followed them for 13 years.”

As the study continued, 58 couples were considered happily married (although some had fallen into distress and then recovered), 22 were married but not happy and 20 had divorced.

The findings are actually good news, Clements said, because the lack of skills leading up to unhappiness and divorce can be dealt with in counseling. “The way you handle conflict, the way you communicate with your partner, we can [help people] change those,” she said.

And it's not that the happily married couples are perfect, Clements said. “It wasn't that the couples who are happy never undermined or insulted their partners,” she said. “They just did it less.”

But even a few hurtful remarks can turn a small problem into a big one over the years, she said. “Say I only say one nasty thing to my partner once a day. But over 13 years, to hear it every day will have a cumulative effect.”

Marriage expert Thomas Bradbury calls the findings “noteworthy” because they show how a handful of variables assessed even before marriage can reveal important information about how a relationship will evolve.

From the study, “we see how the presence of harsh and critical comments, even very brief and well-intentioned ones, can accumulate to erode spouses' feelings of closeness and intimacy,” said Bradbury, a professor in the department of psychology at the University of California at Los Angeles and author of several books on marriage and divorce.

“I agree with Dr. Clements and her colleagues that more work is needed on this topic, but already we can see that our relationships, like most things, require maintenance and attention. John F. Kennedy said it best: The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. Attending to our relationships now, today, is essential if we want them to remain strong into the future.”

In a continuing Hollywood tradition that probably marks a societal trend, in January 2005 Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston announced their impending divorce in glowing terms. Their statement to the press included this sentence:

“We happily remain committed and caring friends with great love

and admiration for one another.”

I count seven positive words; God needs only three words - "I hate divorce." (Malachi 2:16).

The picture in the WASHINGTONIAN magazine perfectly symbolized a nation with the highest divorce rate in the world. It featured a wedding cake with a bride and groom on top. Lurking behind them were two gloomy, dark-suited figures: two little lawyers, each one holding a copy of the prenuptial agreement.

“Love is all you need — unless the marriage ends in divorce,” wrote Washingtonian editor Kim Eisler. “Then a prenuptial agreement is the best defense.” He called the prenup “a divorce insurance policy.” Well, that's probably true — but wouldn't it be better for couples to have a marriage insurance policy?

This is the goal of my friend Mike McManus, founder of Marriage Savers. McManus points out that most marriages take place in churches. This means Christians can become a force for building stronger marriages, and thus help cut the divorce rate. Many churches try to meet the challenge by requiring long and demanding periods of prenuptial counseling. The problem is that many couples will say, “No, thanks,” and hold their wedding at the church down the street where there are no requirements.

To solve this problem, McManus has instituted Community Marriage Policies — uniform policies and rules that all the local churches adopt together. Catholic and Protestant, liberal and conservative, black and white clergy all band together to radically reduce the community's divorce rate.

Typically, clergy agree to require engaged couples to undergo four months of marriage preparation including a premarital inventory to evaluate the maturity of the relationship. Community Marriage Policies are now in place in more than 186 cities, and the results have been phenomenal.

Last year the Institute for Research and Evaluation examined the impact of 114 Community Marriage Policies all of which were signed by the year 2000. The Institute compared counties that had these policies with similar counties in the same state that did not have them, taking into account the fact that divorce rates were generally declining. They found that divorce rates in cities or counties without a marriage policy fell by 9.4 percent over seven years. But divorce rates in cities or counties that did have a Community Marriage Policy fell by 17.5 percent — nearly twice the rate of communities without them. Dr. Stan Weed, president of the Institute, estimates that between 31,000 and 50,000 divorces were averted.

“Clearly,” says McManus, “we hold in our hands the answer to America's divorce rate.” And he's right.

The troubling question, however, is will the Church accept the challenge? Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia, writes that America's houses of worship are “traditionally the most important custodians of marriage in the nation.” And yet, he concludes, they “have been unable and unwilling to foster the beliefs and virtues that make for a strong marriage culture.”

What an indictment of the Church — one that we must answer. A pastor who marries any couple that comes knocking needs to recognize his complicity in America's divorce epidemic and the perceived need for all those lawyers waving prenups at the bride and groom.

I hope you'll read Mike McManus's book, MARRIAGE SAVERS and learn more about how your church can help couples build lasting marriages — and help heal America's divorce epidemic.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Much like test driving a car, an increasing number of couples today say they want to “test drive” their relationship by living together before marriage. What they don't know, a new study says, is that they may be dooming the relationship from the start and increasing their chances for divorce if they eventually do marry.

The “State of our Unions” report, released annually by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, says that more people are cohabitating today than ever before. There were 5 million cohabitating couples in 2004, compared to 2.8 million in 1990, 1.5 million in 1980 and only 523,000 in 1970.

Although more than half of all first-time marriages today begin with a live-in relationship, the report says, such arrangements can be detrimental to a marriage. The report was released in mid-July.

“The belief that living together before marriage is a useful way 'to find out whether you really get along,' and thus avoid a bad marriage and an eventual divorce, is now widespread among young people. But the available data on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm this belief,” the study's authors, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, write. “In fact, a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage.”

Bill Maier, Focus on the Family's vice president and psychologist in residence, said the report should be no surprise to those in the pro-family movement.

“The average young person in America who enters into a cohabitating relationship isn't aware that they may be sabotaging their chances for eventual marital success,” Maier told Baptist Press. “...Study after study after study shows us that cohabitating is a bad idea.”

Two factors, Maier said, have contributed to the rise in cohabitation. First, an increasing number of Americans lack any religious commitment. According to the National Marriage Project study, those who are “less religious” are more likely to live together. Second, Maier said, an entire “generation of young people” have grown up in a culture rampant with divorce.

“Therefore, they're gun-shy. They're skiddish. They don't want to make the same mistake that their parents made,” Maier said.

But why do cohabitating relationships often doom the marriage from the get-go? At least three theories exist:

• The relationship itself lacks commitment.

“Often on the part of the man there is a tendency to have his cake and eat it, too,” Maier said. “The woman is hoping that the man ultimately will commit to marriage. The man, in his heart, may have no intention to get married.”

That lack of commitment often carries over into the marriage.

Scott Stanley, a psychologist at the University of Denver, believes that women tend to “over-interpret” the meaning of living together. Men, he said, are often not thinking about marriage.

“Such a disconnect puts women at greatly increased risks for adverse outcomes, especially if a child results from the union -- which has become increasingly common,” Stanley wrote in a 2002 paper, “What is it with men and commitment, anyway?” Stanley's latest book, “The Power of Commitment,” examines cohabitation.

• Cohabitating couples enter into legal and financial ties -- such as joint bank accounts and lease-sharing -- that make it more difficult to break up and in the end may make marriage inevitable. Combined with a lack of commitment on the front end, the marriage is more likely to end in divorce. Stanley and two other researchers have labeled it the “inertia hypothesis.”

In a paper earlier this year, the team told of a fictional couple -- Bob and Mary -- who move in together. Mary has the goal of marriage; Bob does not. Eventually, she becomes pregnant.

“When they eventually move on into marriage, with some considerable reluctance on his part, a higher risk marriage is born from an already higher risk relationship,” the paper, written by Stanley, Galena Kline and Howard Markman, states.

• Couples who cohabitate have characteristics different from non-cohabitating couples.

For example, couples living together are more likely to be “less religious,” to have less income and to have parents who are divorced, the National Marriage Project study said. All three characteristics increase the likelihood of divorce.

In addition, cohabitating couples also are more likely to involve child or spousal abuse, the report said.

Negative characteristics of live-in arrangements, Maier said, impact children, who are involved in 40 percent of cohabitating relationships, according to the National Marriage Project.

“...[T]housands of research studies now ... show us that children do best on every measure of well-being when they are raised in a home by a biological mother and father [who are married],” he said. “There is just no dispute.”

In addition to being more likely to cohabitate, Americans today also are less likely to marry, the report said. In 2004, 55.1 percent of those age 15 and older were married. In 1980, it was 63.2 percent; in 1960, 69.3 percent.

Americans, Maier said, have forgotten the meaning of marriage.

“I think there is a real selfishness in our culture; there is a real self-centeredness -- 'it's all about me and my happiness and my fulfillment,' ” he said. “Unfortunately, when it comes to relationships, if we don't put the other [person] first, if we don't focus on our spouse's well-being, our relationship is probably going to be destined to fail.”

The Christian church, Maier said, has a responsibility to speak the truth about cohabitation and to strengthen marriages.

“It needs to come from the top down -- from denominational leaders, from pastors,” he said. “Every church should do everything it can to provide lifelong stable marriages.”

*

Mom, dad and kids. Three single roommates sharing a house. An unwed teenager with a baby. Three generations living under one roof. A widowed father raising a daughter.

Are these all families? It depends whom you ask. The Southern Baptist Convention’s Baptist Faith and Message statement defines the family as “persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.”

Families, in all their forms, need a church family, said Cindy Sneed, a licensed professional counselor and mental health services provider from Franklin, Tennessee.

Children’s ministers today are being asked more often to provide spiritual direction not only for the needs of children but also for the children’s families, Sneed said, noting that the title “minister to children and their families” is becoming more popular.

“We are pretty clear on what we think God means about a family –- married parents with children,” Sneed said. “But what about a widowed parent and children? What about a divorced parent with children? What about a couple who has no children? The lines begin to blur.”

Asked to define a family based on what they observe in society, workshop participants provided such answers as: a group that shares life experiences together; a group that has a common bond; people living together who are related by marriage, blood or adoption; people who love and support each other; people who live together under one roof; moms, dads, kids, grandparents and cousins; brothers and sisters in Christ; people you don’t pick but have a relationship with anyway.

Asking about the kinds of families in their churches, the number of responses surprised the participants: traditional married couples with children they had together; couples with no children; single (widowed, divorced or never married) parents with children; blended families; grandparents raising grandchildren; biracial couples with birth children; empty nesters whose grown children have moved out; empty nesters whose grown children have moved back in; teen parents; multi-generational families; working families who see little of each other due to job situations; military families; children’s homes families; foster families; families with one or both parents in prison; families with members with special needs.

“See, we have all kinds of families in our churches,” Sneed said. “How are we going to minister to them? The needs are overwhelming.”

FAMILIES’ VULNERABILITY

One trait all of these families share, Sneed said, is vulnerability. Some may have more pressing needs than others, but every family has a point of crisis when a church can step in and make a difference.

“As churches, we need to be in the business of welcoming these vulnerable families into our fellowship,” Sneed said. “Where else will these families look when they need help?”

Why, though, is it so difficult for churches to reach out to hurting families? The answers hit hard, Sneed said: It takes a church being willing to step out of its comfort zone and reach out to families who may not be reaching out to the church.

Sneed mentioned The Next Door ministry founded by First Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn., to help women coming out of prison. “During our first year we have worked with 50 women who, among them, have 144 children. Statistics tell us that more than 70 percent of women who come out of prison will be back in within six months. These families need help.”

When the women are released from prison, in many cases the only place they have to go is back to the situation they left -– drugs, prostitution and abuse. The six-month program offered by The Next Door gives these women a safe place to live, counseling and job skills training to help them get their lives back together and avoid being one of the 70 percent.

“I’m not going to stand here and tell you every one of these women makes it,” Sneed said. “They don’t. But a lot do and when they make it, their kids benefit too.”

FAMILY MINISTRY IDEAS

Sneed organized workshop participants into groups to imagine some ways they could minister to some of the vulnerable families in their churches. Among their ideas:

• For traditional families: Realize that no matter how it looks on the outside, no family is perfect. Any two-parent family could be six months away from becoming a single-parent family. Provide marriage seminars, parent-child classes, etc.

• For single-parent families: Provide budgeting and financial information, free or reduced-cost childcare, assistance with car maintenance, a “hot-line” with church members who can help when needs become overwhelming.

• For families with members with special needs: Make sure the church is handicapped-accessible with ramps, restrooms and elevators. Provide helpers to work one-on-one with children with special needs so they can be involved in Sunday School. Offer respite care so caregivers can have some time to shop, keep appointments or have some time to themselves.

• For military families: “Adopt” a base/post family whose own family lives far away; offer to help new military families get to know their new community. If a parent is deployed, provide help for the remaining parent akin to any other single parent.

All families need a church family’s love and support, Sneed said. “It’s not a question of whether we think their family is good enough or fits our definition of what is appropriate. We have a responsibility to minister to all these families and show them the love of Christ.”

Comparing the church to emergency rooms that are required under law to provide treatment regardless of an individual’s ability to pay, Sneed asked, “Wouldn’t it be something if our churches had the same requirements for spiritual health and stabilization for people and families in crisis? Our churches would be required to do their best to meet the needs of anyone who asked for help. If we couldn’t help, it would be our responsibility to help them find someone who could.”

*

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE -- WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THIS BEFORE?

By Myron Horst

The research for this report began a number of years ago in an attempt to find out what God’s Word has to say about divorce and remarriage. Is divorce wrong? Is the adultery in remarriage an act or a state? In what cases are divorce and remarriage permitted? What place do divorced and remarried couples have in the Church? Can the church accept them the same as any other married couple? As I look at the interesting truths that I found in Scripture on divorce and remarriage, I have to ask myself, “Why didn’t we see this before?”

It is important that we know and understand what God's truth is about divorce and remarriage. The subject of divorce and remarriage has the potential to be a deciding factor of eternal life or death - Heaven or Hell for someone. One day each of us will be judged by Jesus Christ by God's Law; not the lower court’s (the local church’s) opinion of God’s Law. If the Church has said that a particular divorce and remarriage situation is not sin and God says it is sin, it is too late on Judgment Day for the one who was in that situation to find out God's truth, repent and be saved from hell.

Therefore, divorce and remarriage is a matter of eternity in heaven or hell: a subject of utmost importance for us to understand exactly what God has to say about it. Eternity in hell is too long to risk putting faith in the opinions and reasoning of others. We need to know what the truth is, and what God says is right and wrong.

Divorce and remarriage is a significant subject which many people, as well as the church, face. Many marriages are being severed by divorce. Today, the divorce rate is no different in the church than among the ungodly. Everyone has an opinion about it, and everyone is entitled to hold an opinion about divorce and remarriage. However, the personal opinions and human reasonings that others share tend to obscure what God says about divorce and remarriage. This is particularly true when a line of reasoning (that is in error) is stated by a number of well respected, highly educated Christian sources. When error is repeated as truth, the number of people who believe it to be truth increases. Those who believe that a particular erroneous line of reasoning is truth also see God's truth as error. God's truth on divorce and remarriage then does not make sense because it does not line up with what they have been told and with what they believe to be true.

We need to be like the Bereans and search the Bible for ourselves to see if what is being confidently stated as truth is truth. As I have checked out things that I have read or heard, I have found a lot of error being stated as truth in the church. People who I highly respected had not done the careful research that I thought they had. I also found that often they were relying on the writings of others rather than a careful study of the Bible.

The subject of divorce and remarriage has not been exhaustively studied in the Bible, even though it has been extensively studied and written about. The Bible is a rich gold mine of spiritual truth and there is even more to be learned. In fact I am still learning more as more and more of the puzzle pieces are revealed.

GOD HATES DIVORCE

On many doctrines, God speaks His will as clear, and sometimes more clearly, in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. We find this true on the doctrine of marriage and divorce. God hates divorce. God says in Malachi 2:16 that “He hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment.” No only does God tell us that He hates divorce, but He says that divorcing one's spouse removes a person from fellowship with Him. He will not receive the worship of a person who has divorced their spouse. God says “And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” (Malachi 2:13,14)

We see from this passage in the Old Testament that divorce and remarriage is a serious matter. We see that God hates divorce. Not only does He hate divorce, but when a Christian divorces their spouse, it removes them from fellowship with God and He no longer receives their worship. Because God expresses His feelings so strongly about divorce, we need to be careful to correctly discern what God is saying on the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, lest we be guilty of removing ourselves or others from fellowship with Him.

THOSE WHO CAN NEVER DIVORCE:

A couple who committed fornication together before they were married can never divorce. In Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 God says: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” This passage is significant because it significantly limits what the phrase “saving for the cause of fornication” in Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9 can mean. There is no exception for divorce and remarriage if the couple had sexual intercourse together before they were married.

HOW DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE ARE SEPARATE EVENTS AND THEREFORE ARE TWO SEPARATE, ALTHOUGH RELATED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION.

Many people view divorce and remarriage as one and the same for purposes of discussion. For instance, the assumption is often made that if a person living in a remarriage situation cannot be accepted as a member in the church, then a person who is divorced is not able to be able to be a member in the church either. When divorce and remarriage are viewed as one and the same, it significantly hinders one from understanding what God says about both divorce and remarriage. The assumption is often made that divorce makes a person single again and that remarriage is the purpose of divorce. Because remarriage is viewed as the purpose for divorce, they view divorce and remarriage as one and the same: if divorce is permitted then remarriage is also. However, this is not the case according to Scripture.

We will see that according to Scripture, divorce and remarriage need to be viewed as two separate events, and therefore as two separate, although related, items for discussion.

GOD MAKES THE MAN AND WOMAN ONE

Marriage is more than a marriage certificate from the civil government. In marriage, God makes the man and the woman one. God says about the being made one aspect in Malachi 2:15: “And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.”

Jesus also stated that it is God who joins a man and woman together as one flesh in marriage: “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'“ Matt. 19:4-6

Divorce is a legal action that the civil government (not God) has established. A couple may go to the church to get married, but they have to go to the civil government to get a divorce. The Church cannot grant a legal divorce. Although divorce can end the legal aspect of a marriage, it cannot end the “one” aspect of the marriage which God has joined together. Once divorce occurs, a person is not single again in God's judgment, and therefore not free to marry another person even if their first spouse has remarried. The “one” union with their spouse can only be ended by the death of one of the marriage partners. According to Jesus, a marriage cannot be ended by the legal proceedings of the court. There will be more on this later.

In the same passage in Malachi 2 where God states that he makes the man and woman one, God also clearly states that after divorce the marriage is still binding “yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” (Malachi 2:14) Divorce does not end the “one” aspect of the marriage that God joined together when they were married.

God also says, “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” Romans 7:3.

WHAT IS THE ACT OR ACTION THAT IS ADULTERY IN REMARRIAGE?

Jesus makes it clear that adultery occurs in remarriage. This is stated clearly in the following passages:

“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matt. 5:32);

“whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9);

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” (Mark. 10:11,12);

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Lk. 16:18);

“So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Rom. 7:3)

The term “adultery” is the Greek word “moichao” Strong's number 3429. In all the Greek lexicons (dictionaries) I checked there was only one definition given for this word and that is “to commit adultery”. Thayers adds, “to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife”

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary also gives only one definition for the word adultery: “Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.”

Jesus added to this and stated that a man can commit the sin of adultery in the fantasy of his mind without the physical act taking place. Jesus said that for a man to desire in his mind to have sexual relations with another woman, that man commits adultery in his heart. Mt. 5:28: “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” According to the definition for the Greek word for adultery that Jesus used, the act or action that is adultery in remarriage is voluntary sexual intercourse with a person whose first husband or wife is still alive. Adultery is not divorce, adulterating the marriage, nor the one time act of remarriage. Adultery is the sexual relations of the remarried couple the first time, and every time thereafter.

WHY DIVORCE IS NOT ADULTERY

Divorce is a serious act of defilement against the spirit and every other aspect of the marriage. But nowhere in the Bible does God say that divorce is adultery. There is no definition in any dictionary or Greek lexicon that says that the action of defiling the marriage is adultery. Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse, either mentally or physically, where at least one of those involved is married to someone else. Defilement of a marriage is a consequence of adultery. But neither defiling a marriage nor divorce is adultery. Jesus makes it clear that adultery occurs in remarriage, not in divorce. “And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matt. 19:9b.

WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT ADULTERY IN REMARRIAGE?

When Jesus said, “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9) He said something significant that I did not see for a long time. When Jesus made that statement, He was stating that divorce does not end the first marriage. People have always assumed that divorce ends the first marriage, but Jesus said that it is not true. The sin of adultery can only occur if one or both of the persons involved is married. If neither of the persons are married the term adultery cannot be used. When Jesus said that “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”, He was stating that when a man marries a divorced woman he is living with another man's wife and therefore is guilty of adultery. Divorce does not make a man or a woman single again. Divorce does not end a person's first marriage. That is why a person commits adultery when they marry and live with a divorced person.

Do you get the significance of Jesus’ use of the word adultery? Adultery could not occur in remarriage if divorce ended the first marriage. Adultery can only occur in remarriage because the divorced spouse is still married to their first marriage partner in Jesus’ judgment. (Jesus is the Judge we will stand before, for our hearing on Judgment Day and it is important that we understand our Judge’s reasoning and logic if we want to enter Heaven.)

The significance of the sin of adultery in remarriage is that divorce does not end a person's first marriage! God has joined the husband and wife together as one. “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'“ Matt. 19:4-6. Man's civil action of divorce in the court system of this earth, does not end the “one flesh and one spirit” aspect of the marriage that God has joined together.

ADULTERY IN REMARRIAGE: AN ACT OR A STATE?

Is the adultery a one time act that occurs only on the day of remarriage or is the adultery the sexual union of the remarried man and woman throughout their marriage? This question is often phrased: “Is it (the sin of adultery) an act or a state?” Many would like to view the adultery in remarriage as a one time act because then the remarried couple can repent of their one time act and continue in their remarried state without separating or making any other changes. But is the adultery in remarriage only a one time act?

The term “commiteth” (adultery) in Matt. 19:9; and Matt. 5:32 is in the present indicative. Spiros Zodhiates states that “The present tense represents contemporaneous action, as opposed to action in the past or the future. It normally refers to continuous or repeated action. However, in the indicative mood. it may represent punctiliar action. The indicative mood is the only mood in which distinctions can regularly be made about the time when an action occurs. Examples: he will go, they had said, she saw.”1 Therefore, the phrase “commits adultery” may refer to a specific time when adultery occurs but it may also refer to continuous or repeated action of adultery. Some have used the present indicative definition to state that the adultery only occurs one time at marriage and does not occur after that. However that conclusion cannot be decisively made from the present indicative. Every act of adultery (sexual relations in remarriage) occurs at a specific point in time and all repeated acts of adultery occur at specific points in time. At the same time the present indicative does not indicate that the act of adultery cannot or does not occur again. There is the possibility with the present indicative that continuous or repeated action of adultery does occur.

God states that the sexual intercourse of a divorced and remarried couple is adultery. Therefore each time they have sexual intercourse they commit an act of adultery. As they continue to have sexual relations and there is no repentance, it becomes a state of adultery. Therefore, adultery in remarriage is both an act each time it occurs, and a continuing state of sinning. The action of remarriage is not adultery.

Both an act or a state of adultery, is sin. Either one bars one from fellowship with Jesus and from entering Heaven. One is guilty of sin before God until they have repented of the sin and stopped the sin. One cannot repent of the “act” adultery but continue in it and expect God to ignore the fact that they are continuing to commit adultery.

THE INTERESTING ILLUSTRATION OF GOD AND ISRAEL'S DIVORCE

To gain further insight into God's position on divorce and remarriage, I did a study on God divorcing Israel in the Old Testament. I discovered some interesting things that I had never seen before, that I believe clarifies some of what we wrestle with in the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament God uses the analogy of marriage to describe His relationship with His people - in the Old Testament with Israel, and in the New Testament of Christ and the Church.

In Jeremiah 3 God states that He gave Israel a certificate of divorce. However at no point did that annul or end the covenant that He had made with the ten northern tribes of Israel even though Israel had married other gods. Jeremiah 3:1 says “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.” In spite of the command by Moses in Deut. 24:1-4 that a divorced woman could not return to her first husband, in Jer. 3:1 God says to Israel, “Yet return again to me.”

God infers that the instruction given in Deut. 24:1-4 on divorce and remarriage is not a command that He gave to Moses. God says in Jer. 3:1 “They say” not “I said” in referring to Deut. 24:1-4. He then goes on to ignore the command that a divorced woman may not return to her first husband by saying “yet return again to me.”

Jesus also implied that divorce and remarriage in Deut. 24:1-4 was something that Moses permitted because the people demanded it, but it was not a permission that God gave. Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so. In Matt. 19:8 Jesus said, “ Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” Jesus at no point indicated that Deut. 24:1-4 was a command that God gave to Moses. Hardness of heart is refusing to believe what God has said and is sin. Jesus could not endorse the excuse of hardness of heart as justification to do the opposite of what God had said.

In addition we see that divorce and remarriage did not end God's marriage covenant with Israel. In Jer. 3:1-8 God says: “ They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. 2 Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed. 4 Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth? 5 Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest. 6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”

God asks Israel to return. He says in V. 14 “For I am married unto you” (even after divorce and remarriage!) Jer. 3:12-14 “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:”

Ezekiel was younger than Jeremiah. Ezekiel wrote from captivity in Babylon after Israel's divorce. He testifies that God's covenant with Israel was not ended by divorce and remarriage. Ez. 20:40-44 “For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things. 41 I will accept you with your sweet savour, when I bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye have been scattered; and I will be sanctified in you before the heathen. 42 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers. 43 And there shall ye remember your ways, and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. 44 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.”

WHAT IS CLARIFIED ABOUT DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE BY THE EXAMPLE OF GOD AND ISRAEL'S DIVORCE?

1. Neither divorce or remarriage ends the first marriage. God said to Israel after He had given her a certificate of divorce, “For I am married to you” (Jer. 3:14) Therefore, in remarriage adultery occurs as if there had been no divorce.

2. God indicates, and Jesus confirms, that Moses’ command allowing divorce and remarriage and prohibiting the returning to the first spouse after remarriage, was not a command that God gave to Moses. It is was something that Moses permitted because of the hardness of people's hearts, and is not one we are to follow, nor can we use it to justify divorce and remarriage. It was never God's will from the beginning. Matt. 19:8 “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

3. God's desire is that the first marriage partners leave all other marriage partners, return, and be reconciled to each other. God said, “Yet return to me” (Jer. 3:1)

4. One must never give up hope that a wayward spouse will return.

FURTHER SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FIRST MARRIAGE IS NOT ENDED BY DIVORCE

In looking at whether divorce nullifies the first marriage in God's eyes and therefore makes it permissible for a remarried couple to remain remarried, there are several additional passages of Scripture that indicate that divorce does not end a person's first marriage.

In Malachi 2, God indicates that even though divorce occurs that He still views them as married. In v.14 He states after the divorce has occurred “yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” God says here that divorce does not end the marriage covenant. After the divorce she is still his wife and companion.

Another passage is Mk. 6:17,18. This is the account of King Herod and Herodias. Even though Herod was not to marry the wife of his brother there is another observation here. The Jewish historian Josephus writing in the latter part of the first century AD tells us that Herodias was divorced from her first husband and had married Herod. This passage indicates that even though she was divorced and remarried she was still considered the wife of her first husband by God. “ It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.” If divorce nullified the first marriage in God's eyes, then it would not matter who she married after the divorce. She would no longer be the wife of anyone and it would not be possible for her to marry her husband's brother, because she would not have a husband to marry his brother. John the Baptist was killed by Herod and Herodias because he told them they needed to separate from their immoral remarriage relationship. It was not a message they wanted to hear! The first martyr in the New Testament was John the Baptist, because of the stance he took on a divorce and remarriage situation.

If remarriage had nullified the first marriage, Herod and Herodias would not have been living in sin. But, Herodias was divorced and remarried and they were living in sin.

HOW REMARRIAGE DOES NOT END THE FIRST MARRIAGE

There is not any example or teaching in Scripture that the act of remarriage ends the first marriage. Nor is there any place in the Bible where the making of a covenant with a second person ended the covenant with the first person. Jesus clearly stated that remarriage does not end the first marriage when He said “Whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” The first marriage is not ended by remarriage. A person can commit adultery only with someone else's husband or wife. If both of the persons involved in sexual immorality are single it is fornication not adultery.

To say that remarriage ends the first marriage is to say that remarriage is the “divorce” from the first marriage. There is nothing that Jesus said that would indicate that remarriage was “divorce” from the first marriage. Romans 7:3 states clearly that remarriage does not end the first marriage and that only death ends the first marriage. “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” I have not found any place in the Bible that would indicate that remarriage is the “divorce” or an event that ends the first marriage.

WHAT DOES GOD SAY CAN END A MARRIAGE?

God clearly says that the death of one of the marriage partners ends their marriage and frees them to marry another person. “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man..” (Romans 7:3) , Jesus also said that death ends a marriage in His response to the Sadducees. “And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven'“ Mark 12:24,25. We see from these verses that marriage is ended at death because it does not continue into eternity. In I Cor. 7:39 God also says: “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

Death is the only thing that I could find that God says ends a marriage so that the person is free to marry another person.

WHAT DOES THE “EXCEPTION CLAUSE” MEAN?

There are two “exception clauses” on divorce in Matthew. One of the first things that I noticed is that they do not address the same thing. It is often implied that both “exception clauses” give permission for remarriage. I noticed that the exception clause in Matt. 5:32 does not give an exception allowing remarriage. The exception only applies to whether the person initiating the divorce is responsible for causing their spouse to commit adultery. That exception does not permit divorce or remarriage. The last part of the verse, “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” removes any question that this exception clause allows remarriage after divorce. Matt. 5:32 states: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: AND WHOSOEVER SHALL MARRY HER THAT IS DIVORCED COMMITTETH ADULTERY.”

The second clause is in Matt. 19:9. Here Jesus says: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: AND WHOSO MARRIETH HER WHICH IS PUT AWAY DOTH COMMIT ADULTERY. I discovered that modern translators have altered this verse to make it say something totally different than what Jesus originally said. The NIV (and most modern translations) reads totally different than the KJV. The first major change in the NIV is the incorrect twisting of the “translation” of the Greek word pornea as “marital unfaithfulness.” By twisting the meaning of pornea, the NIV opens wide the gate for divorce and remarriage in every divorce situation. In every divorce case at least one spouse is maritally unfaithful to their spouse. The very act of one spouse divorcing their mate is a serious act of marital unfaithfulness. In many divorce cases both spouses view the other as being maritally unfaithful in some way. Therefore, the NIV wrongly gives permission for at least one spouse to get remarried in every divorce situation!

The second major change to this passage is the removing of the last third of the verse, the phrase: “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “ It is wrong to remove words of Jesus from the Bible. This error has led many men and women into the sin of adultery, thinking that it was permissible to remarry. The Church can make changes in the version of the Word of God that it uses, but it can not change the true Word of God that Jesus will use to define sin on Judgment Day.

Divorce and remarriage was common in the Roman Empire in New Testament times and the centuries following; however, I was not able to find this “exception clause” in Matt. 19:9 in any of the writings of the early Christians in the first 300 years A.D. The early Christians always quoted Matt. 5:32, but never the reading we have in Matt. 19:9. I found this significant, because these men, speaking for the early Church did not understand Jesus to be giving an allowance for remarriage after divorce.

To translate the phrase “except for fornication” as “except for adultery”, giving adultery as grounds for divorce and remarriage has some problems. If a man's wife committed adultery, how would her adultery keep him from committing adultery if he divorced her and remarried? Or to ask the question another way, is there any teaching or example in the Bible that would indicate that adultery by one marriage partner ends their marriage and makes them single again in God's eyes? I have not found any Scriptural teaching or example where adultery ended a marriage, unless the spouse committing adultery was stoned. If he or she was stoned to death, that would end the marriage. Jesus' words immediately following this exception clause make it clear that He was not giving permission to remarry after adultery. “And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (He gave no exception). God considers the first marriage valid even after a legal divorce and remarriage.

What then does the “exception clause” mean? Jesus was speaking to Jewish men, the Pharisees, in response to their question when He spoke these words in Matthew 19:9. Jesus said “Except it be for fornication and shall marry another.” Fornication is sexual relations with another unmarried person before one is married. The Jews required a man to write a certificate of divorce to end an engagement. We see this illustrated in the story of Joseph and Mary. Joseph believed that Mary had committed fornication with someone else and was planning to divorce her even though they were not yet married, when God stopped him.( Matt. 1:19,20)

What Jesus said to these Jewish men, the Pharisees, in Matt. 19:9 is that divorce and remarriage is sin unless the divorce occurred in the engagement period. Even then the engagement could only be broken if the fiancée committed fornication with another person. Jesus said that if the man divorced his fiancée in the engagement period before marriage occurs, then it is permissible for him to marry another. The exception only applied to the Jewish custom requiring divorce to break an engagement. I could not find any evidence that the Roman law or custom required a certificate of divorce to break an engagement. We do not find the Matt. 19:9 “exception clause” repeated any other place in the Scriptures.

THE TEACHING OF THE RABBIS IN JESUS' DAY

To correctly understand Jesus' response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19, we need to understand the broader context and what positions the Jews had on divorce and remarriage in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees were testing Jesus to see which rabbinical school of thought Jesus would side with. The Roman society around them allowed divorce for any reason. In the Oral Torah, which the Jews in Jesus' day held equal to the Old Testament Scriptures, is found three explanations (schools of thought) of what Moses meant as grounds for divorce. Usually it is stated that there were two schools of thought in Jesus' day, but when I researched it in the Mishnah (The Oral Torah) I found there were three schools of thought. The third school of thought was “no fault” divorce - Rabbi Akiba

The positions of the following three rabbis are found in the Mishnah, Gittin p. 90a, 90b:

1. Beth Shammai - If he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct. (Divorce is allowed in the case of adultery)

2. Beth Hillel - even if she has merely spoiled his food. (Divorce is allowed for any reason)

3. Rabbi Akiba - even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is. (No fault divorce)

The Pharisees were questioning Jesus to see which explanation Jesus would side with. They asked Jesus if divorce was lawful for “any reason”. The disciple's response clearly indicates that in Jesus' response He did not side with any of the rabbis’ explanations in the Oral Torah. Jesus' exception for divorce was much narrower than “marital unfaithfulness” (NIV). The response of the disciples tells us that Jesus' response to the Pharisees did not support any of the schools of thought in the Oral Torah. “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” Matt. 19:10. Jesus' response to the Pharisees also tells us that He did not side with any of the Rabbis interpretations of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in the Oral Torah. He said that the permission allowing divorce and remarriage had never been God's will. “From the beginning it was not so.”

How divorce among Christians is disobedience to God's command not to take a believer to court.

1COR 6:1-11 “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

HOW DIVORCE REMOVES ONE FROM FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD -- THE NEED FOR FORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION

God tells us that divorce removes one from fellowship with Him. In Malachi 2:13 He says, “And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.”

In a divorce situation there is a lot of hurt, anger, and bitterness that occurs between the couple, the children, the extended families of the couple (their parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins) and friends. These deep wounds of a divorce affects those impacted by the divorce for the rest of their lives. God makes it clear that these wrongs and offenses need to be repented of and reconciliation needs to occur.

Matt. 5:23,24 “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”

God also makes it clear that one needs to forgive any offenses that the other spouse has committed. All bitterness, anger, and hatred need to be repented of and put away. This is what God says:

Mk. 11:25,26” And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” (The last sentence has been removed from the NIV!)

Matt. 6:14,15 “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Matt. 18:35” So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” (“his trespasses” has been removed from the NIV. Immediately following this verse is Jesus teaching on divorce and remarriage.)

I John 2:9-11 “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.”

I John 4:20,21” If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”

Because divorce removes a Christian from fellowship with God, that person needs to be sorry, repent of the sin of divorcing their spouse, and ask God to forgive them. That person also needs to go to all the family members and tell them that they are sorry for the hurts and offenses that they have caused them through the divorce and ask for their forgiveness. In addition, that person needs to forgive all the offenses that brought about the divorce and the offenses that occurred in the divorce process, whether the other spouse is sorry and asks forgiveness or not.

“IF ANYONE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HIS OWN”

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (I Timothy 5:8) God says this about providing for a person's mother to whom they have not made any vows. How much more does this apply to a man providing for his wife to whom he has made a vow to provide and care for. The same is also true for the wife. She has made a vow to care for her husband. Divorce is an abandonment of provision for one's spouse and is the same as denying the faith. It is sin. To take this one step further, it is also sin before God for a divorced man not to pay child support for his children.

God expects us to take our responsibilities to provide and care for our family members very seriously. If Christians do not provide for their own families, they deny the faith and are worse than unbelievers.

*

The transition to adulthood used to be one of the main goals of the young. Adulthood was seen to be a status worth achieving and was understood to be a set of responsibilities worth fulfilling. At least, that's the way it used to be. Now, an entire generation seems to be finding itself locked in the grip of eternal youth, unwilling or unable to grow up.

Concern about this phenomenon has been building for some time. Baby-boomer parents are perplexed when their adult-age children move back home, fail to find a job, and appear to be in no hurry to marry. Though the current generation of young adults includes some spectacular exceptions who have quickly moved into the fullness of adult responsibility, the generation as a whole seems to be waiting for something -- but who knows what? -- to happen.

Frederica Mathewes-Green sees the same phenomenon. In her brilliant essay published in the August/September 2005 edition of First Things, Mathewes-Green describes this new reality with striking clarity.

She begins with the movies. Describing herself as a fan of the old black-and-white classics from the 1930s and 1940s, Mathewes-Green remembers how young actors customarily played the part of mature adults. Actresses like Claudette Colbert and Jean Harlowe were “poised and elegant” onscreen. She notes, “Today even people much older don't have that kind of presence.” She then compares Cary Grant with Hugh Grant. The first Grant was “poised and debonair” while the more recent Grant “portrayed a boyish, floppy-haired ditherer till he was forty.” She cites reviewer Michael Atkinson, who dubbed today's immature male actors as “toddler-men.” As Atkinson describes the distinction, “The conscious contrast between baby-faced, teen-voiced toddler-men movie actors and the Golden Age's grownups is unavoidable.”

As Mathewes-Green explains, “Characters in these older movies appear to be an age nobody ever gets to be today. This isn't an observation about the actors themselves (who may have behaved in very juvenile ways privately); rather, it is about the way audiences expected grownups to act.” Fast-forwarding to today's Hollywood culture, she observes: “Nobody has that old-style confident authority anymore. We've forgotten how to act like grownups.”

Frederica Mathewes-Green is surely correct in seeing this contrast. Gladly, she not only depicts the reality as we now face it -- she goes on to explain how we have arrived at such a state of institutionalized immaturity.

As she sees it, “The Baby Boomers fought adulthood every step of the way.” In other words, Mathewes-Green points to the parents of this current generation of young adults as the locus of the problem. Speaking of her own generation, she remembers: “We turned blue jeans and T-shirts into the generational uniform. We stopped remembering the names of world political leaders and started remembering the names of movie stars' ex-boyfriends. We stopped participating in fraternal service organizations and started playing video games. We Boomers identified so strongly with being 'the younger generation' that now, paunchy and gray, we're bewildered. We have no idea how to be the older generation. We'll just have to go on being a cranky, creaky appendix to the younger one.”

Mathewes-Green's analysis pushes back even further than the baby boomers. She blames the parents of the baby boomers for trying to protect that generation from the realities of a cruel world and a hard life. Having fought and survived the great trial of World War II, they wanted to protect their own young children. “They wanted their little ones never to experience the things they had,” Mathewes-Green explains, “never to see such awful sights. Above all, they wanted to protect their children's innocence.”

Mathewes-Green is a writer of great ability. Her picturesque imagery makes her point with poetic force. She describes the days “when large families lived together in very small houses” and when “paralyzed or senile family members were cared for at home.” When the realities of life were not hidden away, institutionalized, and sanitized, children grew up understanding that life itself is a trial and that adulthood requires a willingness to grow up, take responsibility, fend for oneself, and fight for one's own.

In summary, Mathewes-Green believes that the parents of the 1950s “confused vulnerability with moral innocence. They failed to understand that children who were always encouraged to be childish would jump at the chance and turn childishness into a lifelong project. These parents were unprepared to respond when their children acquired the bodies of young adults and behaved with selfishness, defiance, and hedonism.”

In her historical analysis, the parents of the baby boomers attempted to separate childhood and adulthood into two completely separate compartments of life. Childhood would be marked by innocence and adulthood by responsibility. As Mathewes-Green warns: “Be careful what you wish for.” Missing from this picture is a period of urgent transition that would turn the child into an adult. What we face now is a generation of children in the bodies of adults.

Understanding the reality of the problem is a first step towards recovery. Nevertheless, mere description is insufficient as an answer to this crisis.

In days gone by, children learned how to be adults by living, working, and playing at the parents' side. The onset of age twelve or thirteen meant that time was running out on childhood. Traditional ceremonies like the Jewish Bar Mitzvah announced that adulthood was dawning. This point would be clearly understood by the young boy undergoing the Bar Mitzvah. “By the time his body was fully formed, he would be expected to do a full day's work. He could expect to enter the ranks of full-fledged grownups soon after and marry in his late teens. Childhood was a swift passageway to adulthood, and adulthood was a much-desired state of authority and respect.”

Today's patterns of schooling do not, in the main, appear to produce a similar result. Instead, the educational process continues to coddle, reassure, and affirm young people without regard to their assumption of adult responsibilities. This approach, Mathewes-Green explains, prepares children “for a life that doesn't exist.”

When a generation is continuously told that its options are limitless, its abilities are boundless, and its happiness is central, why should we be surprised that reality comes as such a difficult concept?

Mathewes-Green points to the delay of marriage as the most interesting indicator of what is happening. As she notes, the average first marriage now unites a bride age 25 with a groom age 27. “I'm intrigued by how patently unnatural that is,” Mathewes-Green observes. “God designed our bodies to desire to mate much earlier, and through most of history cultures have accommodated that desire by enabling people to wed by their late teens or early twenties. People would postpone marriage until their late twenties only in cases of economic disaster or famine -- times when people had to save up in order to marry.”

Is the current generation of young adults too immature to marry? Mathewes-Green insists that if this is the case, it is only because the older generation has been telling them they are too immature to marry. Does early marriage lead to disaster? Mathewes-Green is ready to prescribe a dose of reality. “Fifty years ago, when the average bride was twenty, the divorce rate was half what it is now, because the culture encouraged and sustained marriage.”

Look carefully at how she describes the personal impact produced by this pattern of delayed marriage: “During those lingering years of unmarried adulthood, young people may not be getting married, but they're still falling in love. They fall in love, and break up, and undergo terrible pain, but find that with time they get over it. This is true even if they remain chaste. By the time these young people marry, they may have had many opportunities to learn how to walk away from a promise. They've been training for divorce.”

Rarely does one article contain so much common sense, moral wisdom, and promise. The way to recovery surely must start with a rediscovery of what adulthood means and a reaffirmation of why it is so important -- both for the society and for individuals. Adulthood must be tied to actual, meaningful, and mature responsibilities -- most importantly, marriage.

There is reason for hope. Many in this new generation demonstrate a willingness to buck the trend. They are the new pioneers of adulthood, and they will be uniquely qualified to influence their own peers and to reshape our own culture. Taking marriage seriously as a life-long commitment, they will be more inclined to raise children who will understand what it will take to live as adults in our time of confusion. They will understand that eternal youth is not a blessing, but a curse.

The Institute for American Values and the Georgia Family Council have just released a sobering study titled “The Taxpayer Cost of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing.” The study notes that while the debate on marriage usually focuses on its social, moral, and religious qualities, marriage is also an “economic institution.” It is a “powerful creator of human and social capital.”

In other words, healthy marriages produce the kind of people who are better able to take care of themselves and their families.

Unfortunately, as the report documents, there are fewer healthy marriages in America now than there were 25 years ago. Between 1970 and 2005, the percentage of children being raised in two-parent families dropped from 85 to 68 percent.

The principal causes of this drop were the high divorce rate and the increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births. While the number of divorces has declined slightly in recent years, the percentage of children born to unmarried mothers has continued to grow.

As I said earlier, the costs of this family fragmentation are not limited to the children. As one expert wrote, “Divorce and unwed childbearing create substantial public costs, paid by taxpayers.”

How much? A minimum of $112 billion a year. That is more than a $1 trillion a decade in “increased taxpayer expenditures for antipoverty, criminal justice ... education programs,” and lost tax revenues.

What is more, the “human and social capital” lost from family fragmentation has an economic impact that goes far beyond government expenditures.

Even if you set aside the social, cultural, and moral dimensions of marriage, it is clear that government has a vital interest in promoting healthy marriages. Even modest increases in the number of “stable marriages” could save taxpayers a lot of money.

Thus, the report recommends increased spending on “marriage-strengthening” programs, like the marriage-skills classes offered by the state of Oklahoma.

The release of the report coincides with Pope Benedict’s visit to Washington and his meeting with President Bush. The subject of marriage in America is expected to be on their agenda.

I will not presume to speak for the Pope or the president, but I think that they would agree that the most important thing government can do to fight family fragmentation is to stop promoting marriage substitutes.

What I told “BreakPoint” listeners about Britain yesterday is also true of the United States. In both instances, a decline in marriage and an increase in family fragmentation coincided with the introduction of legally sanctioned substitutes for traditional marriage (like civil unions and, now, same-sex marriages).

The Pope has called these substitutes “dangerous and counterproductive as they inevitably weaken and destabilize the legitimate family based on matrimony.”

Even the best “marriage-strengthening” program can not compete with the message “marriage doesn’t matter.”

That is why, if you want to make a dent in the social and economic costs of family fragmentation, the first order of business is to promote and strengthen traditional marriage and accept no substitutes!

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4574]

This Christmas nearly one quarter of young adults between 18 and 35 will have to decide which parent to visit for the holidays — that is, if they are lucky enough to still have a relationship with both of their divorced parents. These are the children of the no-fault divorce generation, many of whom continue to be weighed down by the baggage of their parents’ separation.

For a long time, popular psychology taught that these wounds didn’t exist, or at least that children were resilient enough to bounce back easily. One book published in 1989 optimistically asserted that it would “only take a year for children to come to terms with their basic feelings of loss of the original family and any rejection or desertion by a parent.”

But by 2001, Judith Wallerstein’s groundbreaking book The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce was beginning to tell a different story than many of us thought was the case. She had followed the lives of 100 children of divorce, from childhood into adulthood. She found that as these children matured into adults, the pain of their parents’ divorce was still affecting their relationships, their work, and their parenting.

Reading the litany of statistics about the children of divorce can be depressing. They are more likely to struggle with delinquency, alcoholism, and even divorce themselves. It’s easy for these now-grown children to feel that they are irreparably wounded. But for the most part, our churches either aren’t equipped to identify or to deal with these wounds.

Happily, some answers to the problems facing a new generation of adults still dealing with their parents’ divorce is closer than we might think.

In her new book Child Of Divorce, Child Of God, author Kristine Steakley examines how our understanding of who God is can heal those wounds. Quoting from 19th-century theologian and writer George MacDonald, Steakley writes, “Everything depends on the kind of God one believes in.”

The lessons Steakley draws out are not trite spiritual Band-Aids. Rather, they are the result of Steakley’s own struggles as a child of divorce. She deftly shines the truths about God’s character on these difficult issues.

For example, how can a young adult who saw his parents renege on their vows comprehend a God who does not lie, who is always true to His word? Or what does it take for a young adult who prematurely carried his parents’ burdens to realize that God truly shares in carrying our burdens?

Steakley lays a solid framework for rebuilding a shattered sense of hope and self. She stacks these truths about God’s character, stopping to admire each sturdy stone along the way.

The result is a book that points to a path of healing for all those who are still carrying hidden wounds of their parents’ divorce.

The sad fact is that Christian marriages are just as susceptible to divorce as others. So chances are that if you yourself aren’t struggling with the effects of divorce, you certainly know some folks who are. Recommend this book, Child Of Divorce, Child Of God, to them.

And re-affirm your own belief that knowing God more deeply really is the answer to all of our deepest wounds.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Living happily ever after needn’t only be for fairy tales. Australian researchers have identified what it takes to keep a couple together, and it’s a lot more than just being in love.

A couple’s age, previous relationships and even whether they smoke or not are factors that influence whether their marriage is going to last, according to a study by researchers from the Australian National University.

Love is not enough to make a marriage endure, Australian researchers said. They cited a number of factors that affect whether or not newlyweds will live happily ever after.

The study, entitled “What’s Love Got to Do With It,” tracked nearly 2,500 couples -- married or living together -- from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated.

It found that a husband who is nine or more years older than his wife is twice as likely to get divorced, as are husbands who get married before they turn 25.

Children also influence the longevity of a marriage or relationship, with one-fifth of couples who have kids before marriage -- either from a previous relationship or in the same relationship -- having separated compared to just 9 percent of couples without children born before marriage.

Women who want children much more than their partners are also more likely to get a divorce.

A couple’s parents also have a role to play in their own relationship, with the study showing some 16 percent of men and women whose parents ever separated or divorced experienced marital separation themselves compared to 10 percent for those whose parents did not separate.

Also, partners who are on their second or third marriage are 90 percent more likely to separate than spouses who are both in their first marriage.

Not surprisingly, money also plays a role, with up to 16 percent of respondents who indicated they were poor or where the husband -- not the wife -- was unemployed saying they had separated, compared with only 9 percent of couples with healthy finances.

And couples where one partner, and not the other, smokes are also more likely to have a relationship that ends in failure.

Factors found to not significantly affect separation risk included the number and age of children born to a married couple, the wife’s employment status and the number of years the couple had been employed.

Picturesque Biertan, one of Transylvania’s seven Saxon Unesco World Heritage villages, feels frozen in time. Horse-drawn carts are still a part of daily life, and local residents gather to trade their wares in a cobbled village square. At the heart of the village, a 15th-Century fortified church towers over the surrounding structures from its hilltop perch.

Inside the church grounds, along one of its fortification walls, is a small building with a room inside barely larger than a pantry. For 300 years, couples whose marriages were on the rocks would find themselves here, locked away for up to six weeks by the local bishop in hope that they would iron out their problems and avert a divorce.

It may sound like a nightmare – but records show that this ‘marital prison’ was rather effective.

“Thanks to this blessed building, in the 300 years that Biertan had the bishop’s seat we only had one divorce,” said Ulf Ziegler, Biertan’s current priest.

Today, the small, dark prison is a museum complete with long-suffering mannequins. The room has low ceilings and thick walls, and is sparsely equipped with a table and chair, a storage chest and a traditional Saxon bed that looks small enough to belong to a child. As couples attempted to repair their marriages inside this tiny space, everything had to be shared, from a single pillow and blanket to the lone table setting.

Lutheranism, the religion of the Transylvanian Saxons, governed most aspects of life, and although divorce was allowed under certain circumstances – such as adultery – it was preferred that couples attempt to save their union. So a couple seeking divorce would voluntarily visit the bishop, who would send them to the marital prison to see if their differences could be reconciled before they parted ways.

“The prison was an instrument to keep society in the old Christian order,” explained Zielger, who noted that it also protected women and children, who were dependent on the family unit to survive. If a divorce did occur, the husband had to pay his ex-wife half of his earnings, but if he remarried and divorced again, the second wife was entitled to nothing.

In the 12th Century, Saxon settlers ‒ originally from areas that today are France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany ‒ were invited by Hungary’s King Géza II to settle rural Transylvania and protect it against threats from Tatar and Ottoman invaders, as well as develop the area economically. Transylvanian Saxons were industrious craftspeople; Biertan became an important market town and cultural hub with a 5,000-strong population in 1510.

Walking through the streets of Biertan as the sun begins to disappear behind the rolling hills, a few locals sit outside drinking beers and a farmer moves his hay cart through the village. The imposing church, with its nine surrounding fortification towers, is illuminated by bright lights and its purpose evident: it was a central point for the early Saxon settlers - a place of safety and worship.

The view from the church’s nearly 11m-high fortification walls next to the marital prison extends out across the village and surrounding countryside. Many current residents work their land using old-age farming techniques, and trade their wares to earn a living. Weather-worn shepherds can be spotted in the surrounding green hills herding sheep - a scene that likely hasn’t changed much over the past several centuries.

Life continues to move at a slow, meditative pace; however, these days there is less economic and religious pressure on struggling couples to remain together.

“The reason to remain together was probably not love. The reason was to work and to survive,” Ziegler said. “If a couple was locked inside for six weeks, it was very hard for them to have enough food the following year, so there was pressure to get out and to continue to work together.”

Ziegler believes that, even today, the concept of a marital prison has potential lessons for any modern marriage. And he’s not the only one: he says that he’s received requests from couples looking to use the prison to repair their own struggling marriages.

“In modern families, there is less and less time for each other, we are more selfish than our ancestors,” Ziegler said. “We suffer from loneliness, which is why today we need to talk more, so we can find out what is important to us and what connects us.”

I still remember my sadness on hearing that an old friend, someone I believed was a sincere Christian, was leaving his wife. I was shocked and disappointed. How could this man, committed to both his spouse and his Lord, fall in love with another woman?

An essay by the late Sheldon Vanauken helps answer the question and reminds us that such temptations are all too common.

Vanauken, best known as the author of the powerful love story entitled A Severe Mercy, also published a collection of essays called Under the Mercy, which explores these feelings.

In one essay called “The Loves,” Vanauken describes how a Christian friend named John shocked him by announcing that he was leaving his wife to marry another woman. John explained his sudden change of heart by saying, “It seemed so good, so right. That’s when we knew we had to get the divorces. We belonged together.”

As Vanauken explains, John was “invoking a higher law: the feeling of goodness and rightness. A feeling so powerful that it swept away ... whatever guilt [he] would otherwise have felt” for what he was doing to his family.

Sadly, many people love their spouse not as a person, but as someone who evokes certain feelings. Their wedding vow was not so much to the person as to that feeling. So when such people fall in love with someone else, they just transfer that vow to the other person. And why not? says Vanauken, “If vows are nothing but feelings?”

Vanauken dubs these thrilling emotions “The Sanction of Eros.” When John spoke of the goodness of his new love, “the sacred approval [he said he] felt could not possibly have come from [God,] whose disapproval of divorce is explicit in Scripture. It is Eros, the pagan god of lovers, who confers this sanction upon the worshippers at his altar.”

Vanauken continues, “The pronouncement of Eros that this love is so good and so right that all betrayals are justified is simply a lie.” But worst of all, those caught in its thrall of Eros are convinced their love is different, even sacred. They do not dream, Vanauken says, “that every other lover has the same assurance.”

Now, can the Eros type of love -- this emotional and physical attachment -- be a healthy part of a marriage? Of course! But Eros is not the type of love that glues husbands and wives together “‘til death do us part.” That love would be Agape love -- the love modeled by Christ’s self-sacrifice on the cross for His Bride, the Church. Agape is the love Paul talks about in Ephesians 5:25, when he commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

Agape seeks to bless the other person; it is totally self-giving. Eros, especially outside of marriage, seeks only to use the other. Its goal is self-gratification. And that’s why pastors have to work hard to teach engaged couples about the necessity of understanding Agape lvoe. At some point, Eros will almost certainly beckon with an exciting new love -- and the feelings of rightness, and even sacredness, may be overwhelming.

Couples need to know that only when Christ and Agape love are at the heart of their marriage can they withstand these temptations.

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

[It is often reported that Christian couples have the same divorce rate as non-Christians. (For example, see .) The truth is that the commitment level of the Christians makes all the difference.]

"The Couple that Prays Together," by Dr. David Stoop, Marriage and Family Matters, August 6, 2012.

I want to report the results of a fascinating research project led by Christopher Ellison at the University of Texas, San Antonio. and reported in the “Journal of Marriage and Family.” But first, I want to look back to the late l980’s when the Gallup people did a similar study on how personal faith impacted marital satisfaction. The results of that study were reported in a book written by a priest named Andrew Greeley. It was titled, Faithful Attraction.

One of the outcomes of that study led to the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, in Phoenix, Arizona (www.nameonline.net) to report that when couples prayed together on a daily basis, less than 1% of those couples would end up getting a divorce. The numbers were 1 out of 1156. Pretty amazing when the divorce rate in the general population is reportedly around 50%.

Now there is this new study that goes even further than just looking at couples praying together. Ellison and his associates included race and ethnicity as factors, and focused on working-age adults. And they looked at four things: 1.) The effect of a couple belonging to the same denomination; 2.) Their attending religious services together; 3.) Shared beliefs and values; and 4.) What they did at home in the way of worship activities.

The study looked at 1387 couples with an over representation of ethnic minorities. The results were stated in terms of marital satisfaction. Some of their findings were to be expected. Those couples who shared the same faith, and who regularly attended church services together, reported a higher level of marital satisfaction. Those who were involved in activities at the church also reported an even higher level of marital satisfaction.

The most interesting finding to me was that when couples shared religious practices at home, which included reading the Bible together and praying together, the level of marital satisfaction was even significantly higher. Those shared behaviors in the home had a strong impact on how satisfied each was with their marriage. The strength of those statistics on shared religious practices were strong enough that the researchers also believed that if couples would share these practices in their home, those behaviors could be seen as predictors of a strong marriage, and obviously a higher degree of marital satisfaction.

Unfortunately, not very many Christian couples read the Bible together or pray together. The number I’ve heard is that only about 4% of Christian couples pray together on a daily basis. The reason might be related to the fact that not many Pastoral couples pray together daily. Their percentage is only about 6%. But the important take-away from both this study, and the Gallup study, is that if you want to strengthen your marriage and even “divorce-proof” your marriage – develop a consistent pattern of reading the Bible together and praying together in your home.

Ready to begin?

====================

“Pastors: That Divorce Rate Stat You Quoted Was Probably Wrong," by Ed Stetzer, September 27, 2012.

Since I have written quite extensively about the abuse of stats by evangelicals and the media in the past, it was refreshing to see a recent article at the Gospel Coalition show some new data that corrects some erroneous divorce rate statistics which seem to get thrown around the Internet, in the media, and, unfortunately, in the pulpit. The stat in question was that Christians divorce at roughly the same rate as the world.

But what did the actual research show -- particularly when research practicing Christians?

People who seriously practice a traditional religious faith -- whether Christian or other -- have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice.

What appears intuitive is true. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes---attend church nearly every week, read their bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples---enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public, and unbelievers.

The article draws from research found in Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites... and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, the 2010 book by Bradley Wright (and for which I wrote the foreword), as well as an article by W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Williamson in American Religions and the Family.

Specifically, the research shows that couples who are active in their faith are much less likely to divorce. Catholic couples were 31% less likely to divorce; Protestant couples 35% less likely; and Jewish couples 97% less likely, which in itself is quite impressive, I must say.

So what does this mean for you, for me, and for our churches? I see three takeaways: There will unfortunately still be divorce; discipleship is an integral part of marriage; and we must be careful when quoting statistics.

Divorce Isn’t Going Away

This is an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless. I, like many of you, am a child of divorced parents (as is Donna, my wife). My children have had friends whose parents have divorced. I’ve had friends in the ministry who have divorced. And while we sometimes have a tendency to think of it as just another part of our culture, it should break our hearts to see marriages end.

Erwin Lutzer correctly stated “in marriage, the goal is holiness, not happiness.” Marriage was intended to be a God-ordained commitment between one husband and one wife for one lifetime as one flesh. Sin has broken that, and we see those effects all around us. However, we have the Power in us to overcome. Christ is faithful to hold marriages together when they are centered on Him and His redemptive work on the cross. If our marriage is focused on holiness, happiness will inevitably follow. I’ve never met a couple who has divorced because they were pursuing God too much.

Discipleship Is Integral to a Healthy Marriage

Our spiritual growth affects everything about us. To build on the previous point, holiness does not just happen. Sanctification and holiness are the products of work. Marriage is like a muscle. It does not become stronger unless it is exercised.

This is partly on my mind because of my Sunday message at Grace Church -- I’ll be preaching on adultery and divorce the next two weeks as we work through the Sermon on the Mount. Divorce is a scourge and part of the answer is well-discipled Christians.

Be Careful When Quoting Stats

Christians aren’t the only group to be misrepresented. Parents of special needs children are victims of this as well. But as pastors who are charged with proclaiming Truth (with a big T), we must also commit to proclaiming truth (with a little t). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a speaker or pastor misquote a stat or tell a story that was actually not true. For that matter, I’ve done it myself at times -- but that does not mean we cannot all do better.

I’ve been in the audience or backstage at conferences when a stat that came out of my office was quoted incorrectly by another speaker. And as for your little stories, Snopes.com exists for a reason, pastors. Please, I beg of you, use it. Stories and stats may help you make your point, but please research, confirm, and cite them.

One reason this is so important in this area is that when we say things like “the divorce rate for Christian couples and non-Christian couples is the same,” we give the impression that Christ makes no difference in our lives and in our marriages. That is offensive to the work of the Spirit in us and simply not true. We must not give Satan a foothold in our marriage, and bad stats can do just that.

So, do couples who say they are “Christians” divorce often? Sure. Almost 8 of 10 Americans say they are Christians and they, well, look like the other 2 out of 10 who don’t claim to be Christians. But, when a pastor says, “Christians and non-Christians divorce at the same rate,” that is not what they people hear. If you are a pastor, they think that you should know what a Christian is, and that you must be saying that Christians (people who follow Christ) divorce at the same rate as the rest -- and that’s not true.

Marriage is a gift from God. One for which I am extremely grateful. So, pastors, please don’t undermine it with inaccurate stats or misleading citations of those stats.

What’s changed isn’t marriage, but the types of people who are likeliest to get married.

Since 2008, the percentage of American marriages that end in divorce has fallen, and in this paper, the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen has quantified the drop-off: Between 2008 and 2016, the divorce rate declined by 18 percent overall.

After accounting for the rising average age of married Americans and other demographic shifts during that time, Cohen found “a less steep decline — 8 percent — but the pattern is the same.” That is, the divorce rate in 2016 was still lower than one would have predicted if the demographics of married people were the same then as in 2008.

When I asked Andrew Cherlin, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University, how to make sense of this trend, he opened his explanation with something of a koan: “In order to get divorced,” he said, “you have to get married first.”

The point he was making was that people with college degrees are now more likely to get married than those who have no more than a high-school education. And the key to understanding the declining divorce rate, Cherlin says, is that it is “going down some for everybody,” but “the decline has been steepest for the college graduates.”

The reason that’s the case is that college graduates tend to wait longer to get married as they focus on their career. And they tend to have the financial independence to postpone marriage until they’re more confident it will work. This has translated to lower rates of divorce: “If you’re older, you’re more mature ... you probably have a better job, and those things make it less likely that you’ll get into arguments with your spouse,” Cherlin says.

Divorce rates had been increasing since the mid-1800s, in part because of what Cherlin described as “a gradual growth in the sense that it was okay to end a marriage if you’re unhappy.” Divorces spiked after World War II, peaking in 1980.

Cherlin says that in the late 1970s, when he received his Ph.D., it was widely expected among researchers that the divorce rate would continue to rise. But it hasn’t, and what’s behind this unforeseen development is the decline of marriage — and the corresponding rise of cohabitation — among Americans with less education. As the sociologist Victor Chen wrote for The Atlantic, those without college degrees were a few decades ago significantly likelier to be married by age 30 than were those with college degrees. In 2018, Chen notes, “just over half of women in their early 40s with a high-school degree or less education are married, compared to three-quarters of women with a bachelor’s degree.”

Chen connects this trend to the decline of well-paying jobs for those without college degrees, which, he argues, makes it harder to form more stable relationships. Indeed, Cohen writes in his paper that marriage is “an increasingly central component of the structure of social inequality.” The state of it today is both a reflection of the opportunities unlocked by a college degree and a force that, by allowing couples to pool their incomes, itself widens economic gaps.

So, looking at married couples alone doesn’t capture the true nature of American partnerships today. “If you were to include cohabiting relationships [in addition to marriages], the breakup rates for young adults have probably not been going down,” Cherlin says. In other words: Yes, divorce rates are declining. But that’s more a reflection of who’s getting married than of the stability of any given American couple.