In the past several years, I have shared some of the trauma of divorce and alienation suffered by three fathers in churches of Christ. In thirty-seven years of preaching, in general, perhaps nothing has shaped my opinion of my brethren more than these experiences.
As challenging as it is to keep long and complicated stories brief, I will try to limit myself to what is verifiable without sacrificing clarity. Of course, the individuals directly involved will remain anonymous.
These three stories share some commonalties. All six members of these divorced couples were members of the church with which I work as a preacher, though two of the couples had moved to other churches before they divorced. In each case, it was the wife who obtained the divorce. (This agrees with the information provided on the website, “Divorce Lawyer Source,” which reveals that, among couples with children, two-thirds of the time it is the wives who initiate the divorce. Such statistics soar to seventy percent in some states with no-fault divorce and even ninety percent among college-educated couples.) Also, in each case, the wives made no claim, or offered no evidence, that they were motivated by adultery on their husbands’ part. Furthermore, in each case, the wives received custody of the young children and alienated them geographically, if not emotionally, from their fathers, who ultimately were given relatively little time with them. (Each mother eventually sought, and received, permission from the courts to move, or leave, the children out of state.)
In addition, as part of the settlements imposed on the fathers, the wives received at least half of the common property and were able to get substantial sums given to them in the form of child support and alimony (or the equivalent thereof) at least until the children reached majority. (Child support is effectively money given to the mothers since, as the direct caregivers of the children, they also stand to benefit from its usage. For instance, she will also get to live with her children in any house the father’s child-support payments enable her to provide for them.) As if such losses were not financially eviscerating enough to these men, their lawyer’s fees reached five-digit figures. (One defendant recently told me that paying his lawyer to act in his behalf was like “flushing money down the commode.” Every action undertaken by a lawyer on behalf of his client comes with a high price tag and typically accomplishes little.)
I was naïve. I never imagined that our judicial system would allow such ravaging of husbands and fathers. It did not occur to me that American courts could have so very little interest in justice for fathers. It is no wonder that substantially more women seek divorce. No-fault divorce has deprived women of a significant incentive to work through problems with their husbands rather than resorting to divorce. When wives combine hatred of their husbands, whom they regard as the source of their misery, with the realization that the courts will not take their children from them but, instead, require the husband to continue providing for them, divorce does not seem like such a bad alternative to an unhappy marriage. (When I tried to persuade one wife to try seeking marital help first, she immediately quashed the idea with the words, “Counseling is not an option.”)
A recent newspaper article headlined, “Perfect together? Jersey holds distinction for having the lowest divorce rate,” underscores the monetary factor. That New Jersey would have a divorce rate lower than that of any other state runs counter to the stereotype, but perhaps even more surprising is the reason for it. “‘People assume that people in the Northeast divorce easily because they’re less religious, but that’s not the case,’ said Deborah Carr, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University. New Jerseyans may also stick together because here, well, it’s just too expensive to break up. … When Rutherford [NJ] attorney Evangeline Gomez tells clients how much they will have to pay in alimony, ‘their faces turn stone white and they look at me as if it’s the second coming,’ she said” [Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger, Sept. 26, 2011, pp. 1,6].
As deplorable as it is that divorce has been incentivized by making it easier for wives, the difficulties faced by the judiciary are understandable. No-fault divorce was supposedly put in place because divorces which required the plaintiffs to prove their cases could be emotionally traumatic, nasty, prolonged, and expensive affairs. Moreover, there are the children. Maternal-attachment, economic, and child-care factors typically make the mother the more reasonable choice as the day-to-day caregiver. If the children must be separated from one parent, courts almost always prefer that parent to be the father. (One lawyer told me that a mother would have to be something like a drug-addicted prostitute to have the courts take away her children.) All of this works in the favor of the wife, who knows that she can bend or break the rules and generally make it difficult for the father, with impunity. After all, judges are loath to put the mothers in jail or fine them. Such would only hurt the children, who then become to the mother the ultimate “human shield.” Furthermore, any father who wishes to seek redress through the courts has to dole out more money to a lawyer and listen to more counter-charges argued against him before jaded judges who have been wearied by hundreds, if not thousands, of such cases and may just want the “squabbling” to stop. This creates “no-win” conditions for the fathers, who soon yield to despair and resign themselves to the inevitable.
Perhaps we should not be surprised by such injustice from human courts, but we might expect better of our brethren. However, it deeply saddens me to say that this has largely not been the experience that I, and the divorced brethren I have tried to help, have had. Instead, most churches with which these brethren have had to deal have only added to the moral outrage foisted upon them by either ignoring, or even abetting, the abuse heaped on them by their disgruntled wives.
In the first case, the wife moved with her husband and their two children to another state, where, within a year, and after about twelve years of troubled marriage and two children, she declared that she was in an unscriptural union. The reason she cited was that she herself had committed fornication between separation from her first husband and the finalization of their divorce, which she had contended she got because he had “cheated” on her. She had theretofore claimed an inability to remember whether her fornication had occurred before, or after, the divorce. However, months after their relocation, she suddenly, and without explanation, “remembered” that the fornication had occurred before the court issued the divorce decree. Yet, as if completely oblivious to the highly suspicious nature of the wife’s claims, the preacher and ultimately most of the church supported her, though not before she cited a second (lack of proof of her first husband’s adultery), and then the brethren finally settled on a third (her legal status as a defendant in her first divorce) reason as to why her second marriage was unscriptural. She subsequently removed herself and the children from the home and successfully sued her husband for divorce, child support, possessions, and every cent of their $30,000-plus retirement savings. Thus, in the course of about one year, this beleaguered brother lost his wife, his children, his father (who was his primary source of support before he died early in the ordeal), his car, half his property, his life’s savings, and his job (a part-time one which he had while he attended school). For fathers, divorce gives something of a literal meaning to the phrase, “taken to the cleaners.”
Then, it was the church’s turn. When this brother followed the disciplinary process the Lord outlined (Matt. 18:15-17) by challenging the local preacher for blithely supporting his wife’s claims, not only was he withdrawn from for supposed slander, but so were his two supporting and well-regarded witnesses, one of whom was the church’s treasurer.
It is not my purpose to prolong a complicated story by assessing the different reasons given to justify this divorce nor to defend every action of the husband. I very much appreciate the courage and conscientiousness exhibited by a spouse who is willing to leave an unscriptural marriage (Matt. 19:1-9).
Yet, I am indignant beyond words when anyone advances, under the guise of the gospel, any personal agenda which is actually motivated by selfish ambition (cf. Phil. 1:15-18; Gal. 5:20). The fact that a woman is able to maneuver herself into marriage and motherhood by misconstruing her marriage eligibility status does not entitle her many years later to usurp a father’s authority over his children and remove them from the home he has provided for them, thus creating the situation which she then seizes as an opportunity to divest him of his property and obstruct his relationship and responsibilities to his children.
The Scriptures are even plainer than the initial reason cited by this wife for wanting a divorce, about the fact that, while divorce may end a wife’s obligation to submit to her husband, it changes nothing about God’s arrangements regarding her obligation to honor his authority over his children rather than arrogating to herself the right to deprive him of his control over them and displace him in this position. No one denies that children are to obey their mothers, but it is to “fathers” that God explicitly gives the ultimate responsibility to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).
Upon the one who would be an elder, the Lord also imposed the requirement of “…keeping his children under control with all dignity…” and “… to manage his own household…” (1 Tim. 3:4, 5). This is not a responsibility a brother gets only if, or when, he becomes an elder, any more than a brother has the responsibility to be “temperate” or develop any of the other qualifications of elders only if, or when, he becomes an elder. He has that responsibility already. The only question raised by the prospect of him becoming an elder is whether he has properly exercised it --- which he could not have done had it not first been recognized that he had it. (Would brethren allow a brother to become an elder if his wife treated his headship over his children the way they are pleased to allow her to do if she just divorces him?)
Furthermore, in most emphatic terms, God gave to “earthly fathers” the duty to give necessary discipline to their sons. “For what son is there whom his father does not discipline…, [without which they] are illegitimate children and not sons?” (Heb. 12:7-10). The father remains just as much the “head of his home” as he was before his wife left it.
The mission of John the Baptist reflects how critical the headship of the father over his children is. He was sent to “…restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers …” (Mal. 3:6; cf. Lk. 1:17). Yet, these divorcing mothers have seemingly done everything within their power, including manipulating both courts and churches, to reverse John’s efforts by ensuring that the hearts of the children are turned against their fathers.
It requires something more than a wife’s own temerity for her to claim that the fact that she is an adulteress or wants out of her marriage to the father grants her the right to nullify these Scriptures and proceed with the approval and aid of the church to remove his children from his home. She may succeed in using the courts to seize his fundamental, divinely-given rights and duties toward his children and ultimately do all she can to reduce him to the level of a sperm-donor and human ATM, but let no one dare say that she accomplishes such evil with the blessing of the church!
Furthermore, the means by which brethren have allowed divorcing wives to wrest fathers’ authority over their children from them could not be more plainly contrary to Scripture. These fathers did not yield this authority to their wives; they had it forcibly taken from them by the collaboration of courts, wives, and brethren themselves. These wives have been able to manipulate the discriminatory practices of the judicial system essentially to kidnap their children and plunder their husbands of their possessions. Paul explicitly addresses this when he says, “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? …I say this to your shame…On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren” (1 Cor. 6:1,5a, 8). Yes, a woman must appeal to a court to obtain a decree to dissolve a marital relationship to which she is not entitled. Paul is not addressing such a situation. What he does expressly forbid is the use of divorces and unbelieving judges to deprive their husbands of their possessions and children. It requires no lawyers and very little money to obtain just the divorce. However, when wives hire lawyers at exorbitant prices (perhaps effectively, if not directly, paid by their husbands) to litigate their cases and press for divorce arrangements optimally favorable to themselves, they are on the moral level of the kidnapper and thief (1 Tim. 1:9-11), and those brethren who “give hearty approval to those who practice” such (Rom. 1:32) are no better and will meet with no better judgment.
In the second case, the wife, her husband, and child relocated to another part of the state and another church. As marital difficulties moved to a head, she ceased attending this church and began attending, at least sporadically, with yet another church. (It is not uncommon for unfaithful brethren to “hit the road” in order to “tie the hands” of the church they left and avoid its discipline. In this case, brethren allowed this misconduct on her part with nothing more than a letter of exhortation, which left her in the limbo where she had the freedom she evidently sought to pursue her next step.) About this time, she filed for divorce. Desperate to avoid this eventuality, the husband reached an agreement which would allow her to move to a distant state with their child, while he remained behind to sell their house and find a job in that state, in exchange for her willingness to keep the marriage intact to “the best of [her] ability.” However, after getting settled in the state to which she had moved with their child, she broke her agreement and eventually refiled for divorce in the state from which she had moved and where her husband still resided. As if such actions on her part were not scurrilous enough, she was apparently able to become a member in good standing in the local church and received the support of her parents (who were members of the church), the preacher, the elders, and the church. After the preacher argued for the right of his wife to divorce him, the man sent to this preacher a sermon outline from which I had preached to the contrary. Yet, when I called the preacher by way of trying to help, the only response he had to make about it was that we would “have to agree to disagree.” In the end, he and the (other) elders allowed the wife to proceed with her divorce and divestment of her husband, as well as his deprivation of his child. The two churches of which they were members largely ignored his pleas for help.
In the third case, which occurred here, the wife first quit attending the assemblies and refused to give an explanation for her absences. However, her motive soon became apparent when her husband informed me of her intention to divorce him. When I called her, she confirmed this, but was unable to provide evidence, or even an affirmative answer, as to whether her husband had committed adultery. When she persisted in pursuing this course, we withdrew from her. Very shortly after the divorce was finalized, she remarried another man, from whom she also obtained a second divorce about a year later. She then asked the court to allow her to remove herself and her two children to another state. Faced with the threat of a decision favorable to his ex-wife, and financially and emotionally drained, the father acceded to what he feared would be inevitable, with the court-mandated proviso she would return the children to him every third weekend for visitation. However, as was predictable, it is the father who has lately had to make the trip to see his children.
This report describes only a small part of the misery these poor men, all of them brothers in Christ, have had to endure at the hands of their wives, all of them sisters in Christ. The only explanation possible for such selfish, cold, and cruel treatment is a bitter hatred which is utterly irreconcilable with Biblical love and defies the observation that “every one who hates his brother is a murderer…” (1 Jn. 3:15). As for the courts, we may expect such unconscionable conduct from a judiciary who have relatively little knowledge or care about justice, morality, and compassion. Those who regard it as a “right” for mothers to rip their children from their wombs think nothing of allowing them to rip their children from the arms of their fathers. Like Pilate or Gallio, they are “not concerned about any of these things” (Acts 18:17).
The last substantial hope two of these fathers had for the preservation of their relationship with their children was their own brethren. Yet, who would have believed that they would find in their brethren the same callous insensitivity that had plagued them in the world? Time after time, they sought help from brethren only to be met with cold indifference, if not hostility.
This realization is all the more painful considering that it is not inconceivable that, had brethren acted in united and solid opposition to the sin of these wives, travesty and tragedy might have been averted. However, this did not happen. Instead, in the two cases where such opposition might very well have been effective, brethren ignored or abetted the nefarious activities of the wives.
Even brethren not directly involved, but who still might have aided, made excuses or virtually lied to avoid helping. When finally pressured into applying their influence toward a rectification of wrongs done to a brother, they went about it in such a dilatory and ineffectual manner as to leave the impression of disinterest, laziness, dishonesty, reluctance, and cowardice. To put it plainly, they do not want to be bothered. Despite assertions of brotherly love and compassion, brethren generally do not want their hearts disturbed or their hands dirtied by such matters. Instead, they find it easier to tell the suffering brother, “‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet…do not give them what is necessary ….” With James, I say, “What use is that” faith? (2:16).
Brethren must do better than this! Given the liberalism, feminism, and worldliness threatening churches, we can expect more divorces. If a sister has a complaint against a believing husband, let her seek the help of counselors, family, friends, brethren, and the church, if necessary. Divorce is not the solution and certainly not the first step toward rectification of unhappiness. If the charge is adultery, then let her produce compelling evidence. Otherwise, no sister should enjoy the approval of the church in removing her children from the home, care, and control of their father. Judges may enforce her desire to divorce her husband and take his children, but that does not relieve the church of its responsibility to oppose her. Brethren have a grave duty imposed on them to investigate, and judge, her claims (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 6:1-11). Family, preachers, elders, and the church must resist her insistence on destroying her home and repudiating the Scriptures. Of course, they cannot make a sister, whose greatest love is for herself, honor God’s word, but they can, and must, rebuke her shameless conduct and, if she persists, withdraw from her, as the Scriptures require (2 Thess. 3:6).
