A said something just as an aside the other day, and it's stuck in my mind ever since. I don't even remember the context clearly, but he mentioned (as if it were obvious) that the evangelical Christian church is the only workplace in which it would be tolerated that I would essentially be fired from my only money-earning position, simply for having divorced. In no other sector of society but the Church would that be grounds for losing one's livelihood, especially when the agreement to divorce was a direct result of my partner's extra-marital relationship.
And I realized I had simply accepted this as part of the price of choosing, in the face of his choices, to end my marriage to P. I was, of course, hurt and at first quite angry that it didn't seem to occur to anybody in leadership of the church I had co-founded that some sort of monetary recognition for my 20 years of service might have been in order. I did eventually ask them for a continued monthly pittance of €100 in order to keep my health insurance payment covered, to which they agreed; but now I find myself wondering if anything at all would have been offered had I not specifically requested that. And that too ended, of course, when I resigned my membership.
I did eventually hear that P had tried to convince the then-LT that it was their responsibility to take care of me financially, which they resented, and they wanted him to take responsibility for me financially, which he resented. In the end I suppose everyone may have assumed the other one did it, so nobody did. And it's quite true that I took poor advice (from, as it turns out, an enabler of P's) and did not request much in the divorce settlement, nor any alimony beyond 1 years' support. I simply did not have the energy to fight for more (and believe me, it would have been a fight), nor did I think it was necessary. After all, I had assured plans to sell part of the investment which was a large part of the settlement-- not having been informed that it was already spent and thus worthless. That would, as I have mentioned in earlier posts, have been a few years' assistance.
Don't get me wrong; the price has definitely been worth paying. The life I now live is in so many ways much simpler, freer and happier than the one I had before, though more financially constrained. I would not go back for the world. But it does seem odd that it has been pretty much universally accepted that of course I could not possibly continue in any of my paid competencies within a local church context.
I understand compassionate leave was in order, and I did continue to receive a reduced paycheck the second half of the year we divorced, though I was not "working". I suppose that was considered a form of severance pay. It's true that I had been ministering more in an outside context than within for several years, but I was still considered "in leadership". And it's also true that, by that time in a very long and painful process, I was trusting nobody in that leadership team, so it's likely none of them felt they could even talk to me without running the risk of getting their heads bit off. (To be fair, they didn't even try.)
But it's still a bit odd that we all accepted this, if I may call it that, financial abandonment (no pension, no lump settlement) as a matter of course, after 20 years' service. I know people in the congregation were hurt and confused by the divorce (did they think I was not?!). And I myself was certainly knocked back and did need a break from active ministry.
But I didn't lose all my wisdom, practical knowledge, spirituality and authority just because my marriage failed.
Nor have the other "ministry ex-wives" out there who got the raw end of a male mid-life crisis. One effective bilingual missionary girlfriend of mine (whose husband was indisputably the cause of the breakup) ended up moving back to America, though the call on her life is missions. Yes, she has a place to live but after several years she is still single and she is still poor, that last mainly because her ex (who remarried the day the divorce was finalized) has never fulfilled his responsibilities to her required by the settlement contract --and nobody, including her own believing children whom their Daddy treats and pampers, seems to either be aware of that or to care much if they are.
I can't help feeling that in a community of which Jesus said "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), this sort of thing
simply
shouldn't be
considered acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment