Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Broken
In the region where I live, there is a hot-topic homeschooling case going on in the courts and in the news. The case involves a homeschooling couple going through a divorce after 21 years of marriage. Though at its heart is divorce, homeschooling unfortunately has become the issue. It is a really sad scenario.
The mother asserts that the father was supportive of the educational status of his children . . . that is, until he filed for divorce and realized he would have to support two households if his soon-to-be ex-wife didn’t give up homeschooling and go back to work. The father asserts the mother is only homeschooling to meet her own emotional needs and he wants to put the children in a private school.
Clearly the two have issues. Sadly, however, their issues are taking a backseat to the very real fact that their two teenaged children have become the reason they’ve made their issues so very public. It appears right now that the court is going to side with the father.
I’m a member of two homeschooling email groups, and both of them are readying their respective troops to show up to protest what’s happening. As much as I love homeschooling my children and am prepared to do what it takes to protect my right to do so, I’m not sure this hill is one I’m ready to die on. What this case needs is mediation . . . prayer . . . reasoning together . . . understanding . . . cooperation . . . repentance. What it doesn’t need is a bunch of scared homeschoolers picketing on the courthouse lawn.
If you read the comments on this St. Louis Post Dispatch article, you’ll see just how polarized these discussions have become. Some would make this story their case in point for why homeschooling should be outlawed, drawing fierce response from the homeschool-at-all-costs-because-public-schools-produce-blithering-idiots crowd. Neither group will listen to the other’s perspective, and as a result, neither is helpful to the discussion.
There are two sides to every story (though in this case, there are probably four). Without having lived with that family for 21 years, we will not ever really know those sides. We do know they are in need not only of a fair judge in St. Charles County, Mo., but also the only One capable of healing all things broken.
This case shouldn’t be a homeschooling litmus test, regardless of which side of the issue one is on; it’s worst case for both sides, and worst cases aren’t what we should be comparing—best cases should be. For the parents, for the kids, for all of us, this is not it.
back to top25 Comments to “Broken”
Why should the husband be allowed to divorce his wife in the first place? Doesn’t such laxity in the law degrade the biblical concept of marriage?
Report comment to moderator
I’d have to say that the “loving thing” to do (even to a spouse who has rejected you) would be to say: Since you’re in hard times I will put the kids back in gummint skool. Once you land back on your feet, I expect to home school. I’ll take a part time job and you can get by paying merely X% in child support.
Is there a NEW wife who sees it as unfair to her that she and hub should have to “subsidize” the “luxury” of home-schooling? I’d bet there is!!
Report comment to moderator
In homeschool families I know the husband (occasionally the wife) works a super-difficult but high paying job (or runs his/her business). It ain’t for everyone. While everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY to homeschool, I foresee this case morphing into another “entitlemt” right case.
Report comment to moderator
But how advisable is it for the mother to be working a “super-difficult but high paying job,” or running her own business? Homeschooling and homemaking go together. The fundamental problem is our lax rules on divorce. Chaos follows only when we start breaking God’s law, degrading the biblical institution of marriage. This man has no right to divorce his wife.
Report comment to moderator
This is best left to the couple, their kids and a mediator. I wonder what the kids want?
Report comment to moderator
As my husband says, it is most likely the divorce lawyer who has tried to find any issue to make the divorce as difficult as possible for the parties involved. In most cases, the lawyer can depend on the mother’s loyalty to the children to use as a tool to get what the father wants – be it reduced child payments or more of the community property. In the end, though, the losers are, as always, the children.
Report comment to moderator
In a country such as ours, it’s probably best not to have children. Until divorce is made illegal, not even homeschoolers can protect their children. And until these laws can be strengthened to reflect the biblical concept of marriage, it is best not to marry.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with the idea about the lawyer making it more difficult.
I also wonder why the ex-wife can’t work and homeschool teenagers. They have been homeschooled for eight years; they live in MO, a rather good place to homeschool as far as legal requirements, which I imagine to be pretty minimal. The kids are 16 and 14, old enough to take control of their education after doing it for this long, with Mom supervising. How about the homeschooling groups pitching in while Mom works?
I am against the divorce, but in this country, people can get them without too much trouble, which is why they are so troubling. I think the person filing for the divorce should be required to give up all claims of authority over the children; they should still be financially responsible for them, though. Maybe that would be a bit of an incentive to not pursue this craziness. This man has just plunged his family into poverty, let alone the damage from all the brokenness.
I would be curious as to there being another woman to support, too, and other kids. My BIL re-married, chose to raise his new wife’s kids, even adopting them, and neglected to support his own kids or be involved in their lives. So much brokenness when we pursue selfishness.
He that loses his life, will find it. He that keeps his life, will lose it. How true.
Report comment to moderator
CT #7 –
What good does not marrying and/or having children produce? What sort of message does this behavior send to the world around us? Are we to scared of the world that we dare not take the risk that our children might come in to contact with it? Is our nation beyond hope of redemption? We are called to be salt and light, and I would argue that being salt and light is not merely witnessing to others through our words, but also through our actions. If we believe that marriage is an institution created by God, what does our refusal to marry indicate, but that our fears trump God’s design? What does our reluctance to raise children in this nation show, but that we consider the harmful effects of society to be stronger than the power of God? Abstaining from marriage just because we live in a fallen culture is not evidence of purity, but of fear.
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand (#8) my husband and I agreed that whoever is the wronging party in the divorce has to take the children. With six of them, that should be incentive enough not to do so. (This is not in writing and not seriously a consideration.)
Report comment to moderator
JBH, you might consider Matthew 19:10ff, as well as the apostle Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 7. If the institution of marriage is corrupted, as it is in this country, we may do more to honor God’s original intentions for marriage by refusing to participate in today’s corrupted version of it. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with being fearful of sin. Please reconsider the example of Joseph, who fled from Pharaoh’s wife. Please recall that this present world is not our home. Or, when you took up the cross to follow Christ, did you expect that no sacrifices would be required? Such expectations are not of Christ, but of this world. And, far from helping her be a shining light, such expectation have only served to blemish and compromise Christ’s Bride.
Report comment to moderator
What is it that makes “today’s version of marriage” corrupted? Is it the culture or is it the people involved? While I do not deny that there are many influences in today’s culture that are harmful to marriage, the root problem lies within the hearts of the husband and the wife. The biggest obstacle to overcome in marriage is the fact that it is between two sinful human beings. But the grace of God is greater than our sinfulness. If the grace of God can overcome the biggest problem in marriage – our sinfulness – what reason do we have to believe that His grace can overcome the smaller issues as well?
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the story of Joseph –
I do not deny that we are to flee from sin. We are called to abhor what is evil (Romans 12:9) and sometimes we need to literally run away from a situation that would cause us to sin. But marriage is not one such situation. In fact, I would argue that marriage is as much a means to our sanctification as anything.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7, I would say that both of these verses should be read within the perspective of the Bible as a whole, particularly taking into account Genesis 2. If it were not for the fall, I would say that marriage would be normative for everyone. It is only after the fall that the complications come into play. It seems to me that the point of Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 is not that no one should get married, but that we should realize that marriage is not our primary goal in life, and that in particular situations (such as the persecution present in 1 Cor 7) one can better serve God by remaining single.
Report comment to moderator
JBH, your question in #12 is the fundamental one. That modern institution which is called “marriage” is a flawed perversion of the institution God intended. The biblical institution is a lifelong commitment from which a husband and wife are not permitted to forsake and re-marry. But the true standard is honored neither by the the federal government, the states, nor the church. Nor is the standard being honored by many individual Christians. Recent statistics show that, in America, born-again Christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists. Until at least our churches can stand together to authoritatively forbid couples to divorce and remarry, it is best for the individual Christian to remain single and childless. To do otherwise is to open the door for the catastrophes like the present one discussed in this thread.
Again, I fully realize that this is a hard doctrine. But the fact is that we are in a fallen world, our time here is only temporary, and individuals must take up the cross to follow Christ. To be a light in this world, one will have to be different. As it stands (recall the divorce rate among born-again Christians) the churches are more blemished and hypocritical than the world it seeks to enlighten.
Report comment to moderator
CT,
The statistic about more divorce among Christians is seriously flawed; I’ve seen the research. If you look only at true committed Christians (I forget the exact issues, but basically narrowing it down to Christians who attend church regularly and engage in other Christian disciplines, say giving to one’s church and reading the Bible a few times a week), divorce is much lower among Christians than unbelievers. It’s the definition of Christian that is faulty in some of these studies, in other words.
I agree that Scripture seems to indicate that it might be better not to be married during some times of persecution, but that is, first of all, not a command but a suggestion. Second, it has nothing whatsoever to do with times of Christian unfaithfulness. I’d say instead that during times of Christian unfaithfulness (as opposed to times of persecution), the proper thing is for Christians to be faithful. Don’t give up marrying, but marry and set a godly example. Further, this is specifically said elsewhere by Paul, where he says the correct response to sexual desire is to marry. In other words, we can’t say, “Maybe my spouse can’t handle himself if I marry, so I’d better stay single,” but we decide to marry if we’re tempted. Now, it does make it all the more important that one thoroughly investigate one’s future spouse, but today we need more committed Christians, including well-brought-up Christian children, and not fewer. If we face times of persecution, this advice might apply. Today, in my opinion, it does not.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, Your experience may be different from mine, but what I’ve seen is a failure on the part of churches, pastors, and individual believers to hold to the scriptural command. You might consider your own congregation and the Christians with which you yourself have fellowship. Are there divorcees among these? Have some divorced a believing spouse? Have some re-married? The Bible gives us a very clear standard, and in my experience most professing Christians – even those that regularly tithe and attend church functions – are hypocritically perverting this holy institution.
Report comment to moderator
CT #15 -
“To be a light in this world, one will have to be different.”
I fully agree with this statement. However, one must be different in ways that have a positive effect on others. Choosing not to marry because one feels that they would not be a good spouse or that they would not be able to make a lifelong commitment is an admirable choice that speaks of the person’s integrity. However, choosing not to marry because of the moral bankruptcy of the nation or even of the church is to place an inordinate amount of value on institutions. You say that marrying in this culture, with the current state of the church, will only “open the door for the catastrophes like the present one discussed in this thread.” I would respond that the possibility of sin is not cause enough to reject marriage out of hand. By the same logic, one should not remain single, because it opens the door for the tragic lifestyle of casual sex and fornication.
I will repeat my main argument, that the grace of God is more powerful than any institutional or societal influence. I do not see in the Bible evidence that singleness is the only option for Christians, and so short of a Biblical mandate, I can only conclude that advocating universal singleness among Christians is at least partially motivated by fear and the desire to seal one’s self off from the world.
Report comment to moderator
Well stated, JBH.
CT, I haven’t known a lot of divorced people in my churches, no. I’ve gone to conservative churches where people tend to take the Bible seriously, and that’s part of my reason for disputing a statistic that I’ve seen analyzed and proven wrong.
In my current church there are more divorced (and mostly remarried) people than I’ve had in my past churches. I don’t know the reasons in all cases, but in the ones that I do know, generally the person in my church was the one who was deserted. In my own family (mostly conservative Christians) we have a lot of married people–I come from a large family–and no divorce closer than one uncle. Again, between uncles and aunts, siblings, parents, etc., there are many marriages included in that group. Among my friends, one who was divorced before she was saved, one who was recently abandoned by her husband, and a few acquaintances who were divorced (abandoned) and in some cases remarried before I knew them.
And honestly, it makes sense that Christians would have a lower divorce rate. Is it too high? Yes. But if we could say that husbands and wives can enter marriage believing strongly in no possibility of divorce, putting God first, regularly attending church, being quite a bit more likely to be virgins when they marry, praying together, and living in church communities that frown on adultery and divorce . . . and end up just as likely to divorce anyway . . . that truly makes no sense. Nor does it fit what I have seen, of family members saying they will never use the word “divorce” even as a joke, and those family members consistently staying together. (The newest marriage among my four married siblings is 13 years old; my last living uncle has, I believe, been married more than 50 years.)
I’d say don’t marry until you find someone fully committed to marriage without divorce. That’s my own standard. If you prefer to be single, and think you can serve the Lord more effectively single, then you’re quite free to stay single. But marriage is the better state for most people, is a gift from God, and is not to be forbidden (biblically).
Report comment to moderator
JBH, you accuse me of placing an inordinate amount of value on institutions. If we were talking merely about the institutions of men, then I would agree with you. But yours is no way to speak of the divinely ordained holy institution of marriage. To deal flippantly with marriage, or to mold it into a form more comfortable to the compromised and hypocritical church as we presently find it, is to betray one’s calling as a Christian. The leaders and counselors in our churches presently treat this holy institution without due regard, allowing professing believers to divorce each other, allowing divorced persons to remarry, and allowing each of these into the fellowship of the church. These things ought not to be. If one believer divorces another, they are living in sin and should be excluded from the fellowship of every church until they come to their senses and repent. Pastors and individuals Christians who fail to rebuke such sinners share in their sin. Christians always say that they reverence the institution of marriage, but the they hypocrisy is near universal.
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.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Report comment to moderator
Before I go on, I would like to clarify. I believe that divorce is wrong and abhorrent to God. There are very few situations in which I would find divorce to be justified. Those who remarry while their spouse is living commit adultery, period.
However, I do not think I am dealing flippantly with marriage or trying to mold it into something more comfortable. I recognize that marriage today falls far short of what God designed it to be, but the solution is not to abstain from marrying until the church or society as a whole develops a higher view of marriage. Such a thing will not happen until Christ’s return, at which time marriage will no longer exist (Matthew 22:30). It is also clearly not God’s will that Christians forsake marriage in this world, or else Paul would not have spoken of marriage as a mystery referring to Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:32). I would echo Cheryl’s comment that marriage is not forbidden by scripture, and furthermore would say that one can glorify God through marriage.
I am not married, but Lord willing I hope to be someday. If that happens, with regard to my marriage (and with regard to any individual marriage) I would say that I couldn’t care less about the hypocrisy in society or in churches. All that matters for my marriage is me, my wife, and most importantly, God.
“But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?”
Report comment to moderator
JBH, though I agree with what you say in your first paragraph, what you say here is rather striking:
”
To put it simply, this attitude flies in the face of all the recent endeavors to oppose gay marriage. You make it sound as if society’s conception of marriage – and even the church’s conception of marriage – has no effect on your own.
Report comment to moderator
CT #22 –
“You make it sound as if society’s conception of marriage – and even the church’s conception of marriage – has no effect on your own.”
In one way, yes, and in another way, no.
Marriage is first and foremost a covenant – between the husband, the wife, and God. As such, the only things that should have an effect on one’s marriage is the Bible and the church’s teachings, to the degree that they in accordance with and supported by scripture. Society’s views on marriage should not be of any influence on one’s marriage.
This, however, is the ideal; in reality our behavior – in marriage and elsewhere – is influenced by everything around us, for good or ill. Therefore we should be aware of our culture, and seek to promote a biblical view of marriage. One of the best ways to do this is to set an example for others by showing them what a Godly marriage looks like and by teaching our children to esteem marriage as a gift from God, and not something to be taken lightly.
The point I was trying to make with my previous statement was that the only way a marriage can last is by the grace of God, so therefore a God-honoring marriage can exist within a culture that has completely abandoned the biblical view of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding gay marriage:
While the prevalence of homosexuality in our culture is a sad sign of the fallen society in which we live, the high divorce rate, particularly among professing Christians, is a greater cause for concern. I feel that churches investing in young marriages, providing support and counsel, will do far more to strengthen the cause for biblical marriage than any political measure. Similarly, homosexuality is a problem that the church ougth to deal with on an individual level. The best thing we can do for those who practice a homosexual lifestyle is not legislating a traditional view of marriage, but relating to them on an individual level, loving them and giving them the gospel. Changing the laws will not change their hearts – Jesus will.
Report comment to moderator
JBH, I am finding your comments, particularly the recent ones, refreshingly reasonable and thoughtful. I particularly respect your remarks on divorce as compared to gay marriage, since it is often in the juxtaposition of these issues that the hypocrisy of American Christians is most acute and reprehensible.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!