Thoughts about the New Testament, Personal Relationship, and Private Contract:
Matthew 19.6b – Did Not “Put Asunder” So Why Divorce?
Allow me to spend some additional time on the aspect of Matthew 19.6b KJV “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Mary and I do believe that God brought us together, and we believe that God assisted and led us, and thus joined us together.
In other words, Mary and I believe that God put each of us in the other’s path of life, and God wanted it that way.
Importantly though, Mary and I are no longer convinced that, before God, a personal relationship’s righteousness is defined, developed, and/or understood as being righteous only when formalized through the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Furthermore, legally and morally we are not required to govern our personal relationship via the SCECS Accepted Marriage, especially when the Church cannot even come to an agreement about the definitions, developments, and understandings of the personal relationship and/or the Private Contract, or the accountabilities and responsibilities of those in the personal relationship and/or Private Contract.
So while Mary and I divorced ourselves from the SCECS Accepted Marriage, we have not separated (have not put asunder) our personal relationship.
Instead, she and I have chosen to write a formal Private Contract to define, develop, and understand our personal relationship, providing ourselves with what we believe is best for accountabilities and responsibilities within our personal relationship.
Consider something, Mary and I met March 9, 1991. Shortly thereafter, maybe three or four months, she and I determined to commit to each other.
That was a personal relationship governed by an informal Private Contract, because nothing was written.
That informal Private Contract occurred long before others decided that our personal relationship needed to be recognized as official by receiving “marriage” counseling, and obtaining the license/certificate, and then filing that document for the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Mary and I came to understand three major things about the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
One, the families and entities within SCECS had determined the definitions, developments, and understandings of the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Two, the families and entities with SCECS gave their assignments of accountabilities and responsibilities to those in a SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Three, the families and entities within SCECS used the SCECS Accepted Marriage as a means to place authoritative government limitations to our personal relationship.
After learning that, we determined it was in our own best interest to obtain a divorce to terminate our SCECS Accepted Marriage, in order to separate us from families and entities within SCECS who govern the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Therefore through the official process to terminate our SCECS Accepted Marriage (referred to as divorce), we separated ourselves from those who seek to impose their preferences upon our personal relationship which is done through the legal license/certificate.
Therefore what Mary and I have done is divorce ourselves from the very thing that everyone advised us to obtain – the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
That was done in order to regain what we originally had, control over our personal relationship.
Therefore, in keeping with the truths of Matthew 19.6, Mary and I have not severed our personal relationship, because we are still in a personal relationship, because we believe our personal relationship was joined together by God.
This time though, we are making things far more formal by putting language and phraseology into our Private Contract that will provide definitions and methods for developing our personal relationship, give understanding to our personal relationship, and govern she and me, as individuals, to the accountabilities and responsibilities within our personal relationship.
Therefore, to be certain from a Matthew 19.6 perspective, Mary and I did not “put asunder” (as in separate or sever) our personal relationship.
Instead, we “put asunder” the SCECS Accepted Marriage, a type of contract that binds us as individuals into a legal document devised through the families and entities within SCECS.
In other words, we separated ourselves from a human legal device, in order to have more direct control over our personal relationship.
As I close this portion, I want to state that I am not, not in any way, promoting promiscuity, nope, not even in the slightest.
I am promoting that:
– the Biblical Hebrew and the Biblical Greek convey more about the personal relationship than the English conveys;
– the SCECS Accepted Marriage is an avenue to make formal and legal one’s personal relationship;
– the SCECS Accepted Marriage is specific with specific limitations, yet is also continually debated; and
– the personal relationship can be formal and legal without using the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Additionally, I am promoting:
– contractual obligations;
– contractual fidelity;
– accountability, responsibility, legality to the personal relationship;
– that the personal relationship is one of mutual reciprocity; and
– that individuals have the legal right to govern themselves.
All of this discussion might bring to someone’s mind a question: Ray, it appears that you and Mary had a wonderful relationship, why did you want to change it?
Keep in mind that for many (most?), the SCECS Accepted Marriage governs their personal relationship exactly the way they want, because that is exactly the relationship they want, and therefore that legal construct exactly matches what they need.
For me though, I think I can nail my answer to two things.
One, I want control over my personal relationship.
Two, I want freedom for my personal relationship.
When I was in the SCECS Accepted Marriage, as I have presented, SCECS governed my personal relationship, and that governance prohibited me from having direct control over my personal relationship.
Because, to be quite terse, the SCECS Accepted Marriage limits the personal relationship, which directly leads into the second thing – freedom.
A person might ask: How is it not freedom?
As uncomfortable as my answer will make some, the SCECS Accepted Marriage limits how many personal relationships I can have.
Legally, that is not freedom.
Because I want to have a personal relationship in addition to Mary, the SCECS Accepted Marriage cannot provide that which I need.
However, I care about three important things.
One, I care about Mary, so I want to provide legal means to protect her, by making sure she has access to me and the things she needs.
Two, I want freedom for my personal relationship.
Three, I care about whomever will be an additional lady in my personal relationship, so I want to provide legal means to protect her, by making sure she has access to me and the things she needs.
Therefore, for me, the constructs of the SCECS Accepted Marriage no longer matched exactly what I want.
As a closing thought, consider that there is an aphorism that goes something like: If you won’t govern yourself, others will govern you.
Back in 1992, I didn’t know two things.
One, how to govern myself, meaning how to govern my personal relationship.
Two, that I could govern myself, meaning that I could govern my personal relationship.
But now that I know, I choose to govern myself and that means no one, not one person, has the legal right to govern my personal relationship. It is my personal relationship, and I will govern it. Governing my personal relationship takes more effort, and requires me to do legal paperwork that others don’t.
But, for me, the efforts of governing my personal relationship are worth the freedom and liberty.