Conclusion: Reflecting On The Terminology

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Conclusion:
Reflecting On The Terminology

 
Oddly enough, there was one aspect of the divorce process that Mary and I struggled with, which might sound odd because one might think that we struggled with each other, but that wasn’t the case.

During the divorce process, the thing she and I struggled with was that she lost access to the term “wife” and I lost access to the term “husband”.

That might sound inconsequential.

But it mattered, truly it mattered, which means that we had to come to terms with that loss.

That means, in our adjustment, it didn’t matter that we came to understand that in the archaic English, the term “husband” referred to an occupation (frugal manager; a tiller, a cultivator, and/or a farmer).

Additionally, that means, in our adjustment, it didn’t matter that we came to understand that in archaic English, the term “wife” was synonymous with the term “woman”.

Why?

Because, when referring to each other, we never used those terms in those archaic ways.

To this day, remembering back to when Mary and I were just beginning our SCECS Accepted Marriage, she and I can recall the then newness of me referring to her as my “wife” and she referring to me as her “husband” and that each of us had to grow accustomed to those terms.

For over twenty years, we lived with, and used those terms to refer to each other.

But no longer, now we have to grow accustomed to the new us, and how to refer to each other.

Yet, it still is true that we had to grapple with the reality that the modern definition of the English term “husband” had become part of my personal identity, and the modern definition of the English term “wife” had become part of Mary’s personal identity, and that those modern definitions were part of the identity of our personal relationship.

That means one of the difficulties of the divorce process from our SCECS Accepted Marriage, was that she and I were divorcing ourselves from the modern definitions of those terms, and losing the ability to refer to each other and our personal relationship with those terms.

Importantly, recognizing that losing access to those terms is part of the divorce process, it means that not everyone will want to lose access to those terms, even if/when they understand that the modern use of those terms is different from the archaic use of those terms.

Why?

Because those terms can function as an integral part of one’s self-identity, and not everyone can make or wants to make that kind of personal adjustment.

That is neither good nor ill, it is just life.

However, why does the divorce process take away one’s access to those terms?

For what it might be worth, I have already addressed that question. But the question is important, so I will give an answer.

My answer is that the families and entities within SCECS and the SCECS Accepted Marriage own the definitions of the term “husband”, of the term “wife”, of the term “marriage”, and of the term “divorce”.

As such, functionally, relationally, legally, the families and entities within SCECS do not care that the English term “husband” and that the English term “wife” have changed their definitional meaning.

That is because to the families and entities within SCECS, all that matters is how the term “husband” and the term “wife” are used, right here, right now, in the modern setting, and both of those terms relate predominately to the term “marriage”, which itself is related to the term “divorce”.

Personally, for me, I suspect that is a reason why the church does not have a problem using the modern understanding of those terms to translate the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible.

Additionally, I have expressed my reasons as to why the English should not use the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” to translate the Hebrew and Greek.

However, the social and legal reality is that the families and entities within SCECS determine the functional, relational, and legal use of the term “husband”, of the term “wife”, of the term “marriage”, and the term “divorce”.

Why?

Because the families and entities within SCECS have defined, developed, and provided understanding to the SCECS Accepted Marriage, to include the assigning of accountabilities, and responsibilities to the participants in the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Culturally and socially, that seems to be clearly observable.

In other words, recent modern American cultural history (last 150 years) has shown that the families and entities within SCECS have worked together to define, develop, understand, and assign accountabilities, and responsibilities to the participants of the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Consequently, the families and entities within SCECS make it known how they believe a man should present himself as a “husband” and how they believe a woman should present herself as a “wife”.

Operating from those things, the families and entities within SCECS then use their Electorate power to influence the direction of the State, who then has governing authority over the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

That simply means that Mary and I had to accept that the families and entities within SCECS, use their Electorate power to influence the direction of the State, and they use the State to govern the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

That means the families and entities within SCECS socially, relationally, and legally own the use of the term “husband”, own the use of the term “wife”, own the use of the term “marriage”, and own the use of the term “divorce”, and in turn seem to want those terms only associated with the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Therefore, when our divorce was finalized, the State, and by association the families and entities within SCECS who influences the State, no longer recognize Mary and I as a legal entity.

Therefore, legally, socially, and relationally to the SCECS Accepted Marriage, my relationship with Mary is no longer “husband and wife”.

Consequently, when Mary and I terminated our SCECS Accepted Marriage, we had to accept and grow accustomed to living with a new reality.

The new reality?

When we terminated our SCECS Accepted Marriage, we also terminated our social, relational, and legal association with the term “husband”, with the term “wife”, with the term “marriage”, and with the term “divorce”.

Only through this process did we see how much those terms had become part of our identity and our personal relationship, as defined by the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

So losing access to those terms is something that sat heavy, and requires/required she and me to adjust and grow accustomed to a new working reality for our personal relationship.

Yet, it is also true that Mary and I had to accept and reconcile to ourselves that losing access to those terms was part of the price that she and I had pay in order to have the freedom and liberty to govern our personal relationship through a Private Contract.

Share