The Protestant doctrine of divorce and children
A further objection to the doctrine that claims an adulterous spouse is ‘as good as dead’ is that it fails to understand that marriage consists of both a marital relationship between husband and wife, and a parental relationship between parents and children. It fails to acknowledge that an ‘offending husband or wife’ is also a father or mother with parental responsibilities. The Protestant doctrine of divorce needs to explain whether the offending man is dead both as husband and father and whether the offending woman is dead both as wife and mother. Up to now the doctrine has singularly failed to deal with this issue. If the offending man is ‘as good as dead’ does this mean that the relationship with his children is also ‘as good as dead’? Take the example of the father who has an affair with his secretary. Because he is ‘as good as dead’, the ‘innocent’ mother is entitled to divorce him and remarry. But what are the consequences for the children?
If their father is ‘as good as dead’ as far as the marriage is concerned, is he still their father? Can a man who is ‘as good as dead’ in the eyes of the Church, fulfil his responsibility as a parent? And when the ‘innocent’ mother remarries, what is the relationship between her new husband and her children? Is her new husband also a new father to her children? And if not, then what is the relationship between her new husband and her children? Or is the new husband, in the mind of the children and according to the teaching of Jesus, another man who is committing adultery against the children’s father? So we see that the Protestant doctrine of divorce fails to explain the implications of its assertion that the offending party is ‘as good as dead’ to the children involved. It ignores the parental responsibility of husband and wife; it ignores the needs of children for the care, love and discipline of both mother and father; it ignores the need for children to grow up in a stable family environment.
The idea that Christ taught that adultery severs the relationship between parents and their children is absurd. It is unthinkable that Christ taught that children should regard an adulterous parent ‘as good as dead’. Yet the Protestant doctrine allows divorce even although one of the essential family relationships is still intact—the relationship between parents and their children. According to this doctrine, either Jesus believed that the role of the father is not really important, or that a father, although excluded from the family, can still fulfil his responsibilities towards his children. The implication is that Jesus taught that adultery is a sufficient moral ground to break a family home and deprive children of the care of either father or mother.
This doctrine has a devastating effect on children. It places the happiness of husband and wife above the moral well-being of children, and above the stability of the family. The children’s well-being is considered to be of secondary importance compared to the needs of the individual parents. What is more, when a parent leaves the family home because of a marital offence, this is made blatantly obvious to children, although they do not understand it. Children are astounded that their parents can so easily depart from the family home, and that they do so with the apparent blessing of the Church.
Does this doctrine really express the mind and attitude of Jesus towards children? Is Jesus, who received the little children despite the objections of his disciples, the one who is responsible for the doctrine that has led to millions of children growing up without a father? No, it is unthinkable that people should claim that the teaching of Jesus allows children to be deserted by their parents. The express purpose of the teaching of Jesus is to preserve the family and prevent children suffering the consequences of broken homes, even to the extent of stating, as he did, that marriage is indissoluble. It is unthinkable that the teaching of Jesus has made children the innocent victims of divorce. The falseness of the Protestant doctrine is a travesty of the teaching of Christ.
Because Jesus’ teaching against divorce was so strong and so opposed to the prevailing view of the time, his disciples responded with the amazing statement, ‘If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry’ (Matthew 19:10). Clearly even his disciples found it difficult to accept his uncompromising teaching, for they understood it to mean that marriage is for life, and so divorce with remarriage is not an option. This teaching was even stricter than the strictest teaching of the Pharisees. Jesus replied, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it’ (Matthew 19:11–12). With this reply, was Jesus acknowledging that not everyone could accept this word, which is the situation today, where remarriage has become common in some parts of the Church?
Jesus emphasised the seriousness of marital unfaithfulness by teaching that it can lead to a divorce (a separation from bed and board). A husband or wife who divorces his or her marriage partner because of marital unfaithfulness is not guilty of immoral behaviour. Instead it is the unfaithful partner who has been immoral. The shame of adultery is that it can split a family, and be the cause of suffering for all involved. It can therefore never be condoned, even though it may be forgiven. In some marriages, plagued by persistent unfaithfulness, divorce may be the only solution. In effect, adultery can wreck a marriage and damage the family. It is a heinous sin because it affects so many other people; it is a total disaster for all concerned.
However, Jesus taught an attitude of forgiveness and reconciliation. ‘First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift’ (Matthew 5:24). In a marriage in which there is marital unfaithfulness the innocent party should do all he or she can to persuade their unfaithful spouse to a change of heart, and so bring about reconciliation that would save the marriage. Many people, when they face the awful consequences of adultery, come to their senses and repent of their sin. Jesus taught that divorce can only be considered when there is marital unfaithfulness––and even then Hosea’s marriage is an example. Everything possible should be done to save a marriage. However, as we have already seen, a legal divorce for marital unfaithfulness does not allow a remarriage because in God’s eyes the marriage bond is still intact.