In my continuing explorations into the enormous 180 degree change in 'mainstream' Christianity's view of divorce, from Christian marriage being widely held to be indissoluble 'back in the day' to todays easily attainable Christian sanctified and sacramentalized remarriages coming a dime a dozen, I found this humorous tidbit*:
In the view of historians such as Philip Williamson, the popular perception today that the abdication was driven by politics rather than religious morality is false, and arises because divorce has become much more common and socially acceptable. To modern sensibilities, the religious restrictions that prevented Edward from continuing as king while married to Simpson "seem, wrongly, to provide insufficient explanation" for his abdication.
So we see, for todays Christians, it isn't even IMAGINABLE that the plainly worded common marital vows (till death you do part, what God has put together let no man put asunder, yada, yada, yada) would EVER have been taken seriously by Christians, or even God/Jesus for that matter!!
I even induced a lengthy explanation from Drich by recounting how seriously marriage was taken when I was a kid (BTW, all my grade school classmates lived with their legally married and not cohabitating, since that was illegal too, birthparents except one kid who's mom had died and his dad, aware of the 'death you do part' clause had been realized, had then married a widow) and how, according to Drich, that harsh take on marital vows wasn't really necessary after all. I'm still finding his explanation of the liberalization of the divorce/remarriage thing a tough sled, plainly worded classic marital vows being what they are, and still not sure just why the Christians had to change things so drastically in so short a span of time. Hard to imagine a 'divorce lobby' picketing churches back then (as vocally as today's Christians seem to focus on family planning clinics) to induce a seismic change in church teachings and practice, and yet without churches being picketed, how else might such an ENORMOUS change been promulgated throughout Christendom ???
Is anyone aware of ANY church being bombed or attacked or terrorized back in the 60s or 70s to liberalize their stand on divorce/remarriage? HOW the holy crap did that happen ??? Was there a pro-divorce equivalent of Westboro Baptist back then shaming the rest of the churches to accept divorce and remarriage???
Damn, I have stumbled on the mystery of the ages here !!!!
*courtesy Wiki
In the view of historians such as Philip Williamson, the popular perception today that the abdication was driven by politics rather than religious morality is false, and arises because divorce has become much more common and socially acceptable. To modern sensibilities, the religious restrictions that prevented Edward from continuing as king while married to Simpson "seem, wrongly, to provide insufficient explanation" for his abdication.
So we see, for todays Christians, it isn't even IMAGINABLE that the plainly worded common marital vows (till death you do part, what God has put together let no man put asunder, yada, yada, yada) would EVER have been taken seriously by Christians, or even God/Jesus for that matter!!
I even induced a lengthy explanation from Drich by recounting how seriously marriage was taken when I was a kid (BTW, all my grade school classmates lived with their legally married and not cohabitating, since that was illegal too, birthparents except one kid who's mom had died and his dad, aware of the 'death you do part' clause had been realized, had then married a widow) and how, according to Drich, that harsh take on marital vows wasn't really necessary after all. I'm still finding his explanation of the liberalization of the divorce/remarriage thing a tough sled, plainly worded classic marital vows being what they are, and still not sure just why the Christians had to change things so drastically in so short a span of time. Hard to imagine a 'divorce lobby' picketing churches back then (as vocally as today's Christians seem to focus on family planning clinics) to induce a seismic change in church teachings and practice, and yet without churches being picketed, how else might such an ENORMOUS change been promulgated throughout Christendom ???
Is anyone aware of ANY church being bombed or attacked or terrorized back in the 60s or 70s to liberalize their stand on divorce/remarriage? HOW the holy crap did that happen ??? Was there a pro-divorce equivalent of Westboro Baptist back then shaming the rest of the churches to accept divorce and remarriage???
Damn, I have stumbled on the mystery of the ages here !!!!
*courtesy Wiki
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
