For Better Or For Worse
I have completed a revision of the song "I Built The Cage," discussed in my post of Sunday, May 15. I am going to hold off posting and analyzing it for a couple days, to give it more time to settle. In the meantime, if you'd like to join that discussion, add some thoughts you haven't already shared, or just check out some "rough draft" lyrics, please go to that post.
In the meantime, here is something to discuss. Stephanie Coontz, in a special for the Washington Post (that was reprinted in the Courier Journal this past Sunday) has a provocative piece on marriage. It touches on the "divorce revolution", and some efforts by evangelicals to create "covenant marriages," wherein the pledged parties could not legally file for "no-fault" divorce, as well as the sexual revolution, "love" as the driving force behind modern marriage, as opposed to earlier factors, and many other issues.
Check it out at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000108_2.html
Here is her conclusion:
Marriage is no longer the institution where people are initiated into sex. It no longer determines the work men and women do on the job or at home, regulates who has children and who doesn't, or coordinates care-giving for the ill or the aged. For better or worse, marriage has been displaced from its pivotal position in personal and social life, and will not regain it short of a Taliban-like counterrevolution.
Forget the fantasy of solving the challenges of modern personal life by re-institutionalizing marriage. In today's climate of choice, many people's choices do not involve marriage. We must recognize that there are healthy as well as unhealthy ways to be single or to be divorced, just as there are healthy and unhealthy ways to be married. We cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and care-giving will take place in a traditional marriage. That series has been canceled.
What do you think, Monkey Maniacs?
posted by Bobby @ 4:55 AM
24 comments
24 Comments:
Having only read the two paragraphs you posted and not the whole article, I'd say that I agree with her first paragraph. And I would go on to say that this reality and mentalities like the one she goes on to express and encourage in her second paragraph have a whole heck of a lot to do with the moral and cultural crisis in which our society finds itself today.
I disagree that "(w)e cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and care-giving will take place in a traditional marriage." Do we have to recognize that, UNFORTUNATELY and SADLY ENOUGH, a lot of people choose and will choose to operate in a way that is less than good for them? Yes. But do we then change what we promote and the advice that we give (to our children!) based on circumstance and a reality driven by moral corruption rather than on truth? I think not.
Agreed. She has diagnosed the problem well, but her solution seems to be that we all should throw our hands up in the air, say "Oh well," and accept an "anything goes" status quo.
But what can we do? In other words, if we say, as we must, that marriage is in a bad state, what can we do to turn things around? What about "covenant" marriages? Are they a good idea?
What about her notion that part of the problem is that we modernites marry for love?
Having accepted a premise that something has changed for the worse in this society, and having declared that the writer's solution regarding marriage (which amounts to "when a horse breaks it's leg, shoot it to death") is bad, what do we do to change the moral climate and, as she put it, "reinstitutionalize" marriage?
Yes, Cheryl. Many marriages happen every day between people who have never actually LOVED each other.
I think many people these days choose their friends with more care than they choose their spouses. And consequently, many friendships last longer than marriages -- because they were built on something more solid.
But this is just one small part of a bigger problem.
I do agree that the "love revolution" is a HUGE part of the problem. I would strongly disagree with her that there are "benefits" of marrying for love that make it more valuable or enjoyable than traditional marriages based on other motivations. And that is because, if marriage was truly more satisfactory and beneficial today, being motivated by love, then it would be a coveted state and not something to be avoided. Such is not the case.
But the whole "marrying for love" thing has to be qualified, as well. When society talks about marrying for "love", they are not referencing a passage in Corinthians. They are talking about feelings and emotions. Any relationship that is built on "love" will fail when the feelings fade or change, which they most inevitably will. So I think it's more than people marrying for lust and calling it love. I think it goes back to how people define love. And it is usually not a verb when you get down to the heart of it.
Whew!! Bobby you scared me. SInce it was in print that's ok, but if it were online we would be in trouble...well I would be since I ran the sunday edition online and I already had several mistakes that night, so I didnt need to add to that list....thanks for the near heart attack ahhaha. The washingtonpost articles we cannot put online, but we can have those in print..... ok now to read the article.
Well from that excerpt, I think she has some valid points but is slightly full of it. Yes more folks are staying away from marriage. But from what I see is today's social impacts of self so therefore they set themselves up with the highest standards and are not willing to work things in a marriage.
Even at that Marriage seems to fail so very often. What is more worthy is it a relationship or holding to your word? Our word seems to be meaning less and less these days we do what we want as long as it benefits us.
Now it's true not all may be fit for marriage, but this marriage in God but live in man (rules, society, etc) just isn't working that great. Most will say yes to God to be married, but have nothing in their hearts.
Now marriage means so much less these days as we are having same sex marriages, whats next farm animals marriages?
From what I have seen with my own eyes, parents divorce, a friends failed 2 month marriage, and relationships in general...marriage is meaning less these days and is not taken as seriously as it should be. A balance, trusting, bonding, relationship. Whether its faith based marriage or not, they all fail as often and should me taken more seriously and delicately.
Lorie: I would have to agree that there are benefits (ie.) it is better, to marry for love than for "other" reasons, such as money, property, social standing, having someone to help you do stuff, etc. I couldn't imagine not marrying primarily for love.
But I agree with you that "love" should be defined by the Bible, not by society. It is certainly not some feel-good emotion that can come and go like the wind, as society would have us believe.
Tom: some good thoughts there. Actually, divorce is higher among evangelicals than the population at large. Not sure why, but that is definitely bad. And I think it's what leads Christian leaders to create things like "covenant" marriages.
I couldn't imagine not marrying primarily for love.
That's exactly what anybody in our generation would say, but just realize that this is primarily a modern view. And definitely not the heart of the biblical concept of marriage. You love the one you marry, yes, but don't necessarily marry for love.
Obviously there are issues like compatibility, etc. And I'm definitely NOT talking about being with someone you don't like, but I think if we really look at God's original design for marriage (as it's laid out in Scripture), it didn't include falling in love and then getting married. Interesting, huh?
If you're talking about the original commission to Adam and Eve to "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth," I'd say the earth is pretty well filled. We don't need to all be pairing up and marrying for the primary sake of reproduction.
Now, that is not to say this commission is null and void, and that childrearing isn't God-blessed, but I don't think we should attach to it the same urgency of the Great Commission, nor expect that all Christians, even those who marry, should carry out the Edenic commission (whereas all are required to fulfill the Great Commision).
As far as things like marrying for, say, financial security -- I'd say, in this culture, that is worse than marrying for love, and will more likely lead to divorce. Most adults can take care of themselves. And the #1 statistical reason for divorce in America is money problems (not saying this should be grounds for divorce, just saying that statistics list this as the #1 stressor in marriage, and the #1 reason people call it quits).
What I'm interested in is: what do we, as Christians within a society, propose to reverse the trend of family decay? And I don't think the solution should include anything like "arranged marriages" or anything that amounts to marriage for reasons other than love. I can't see it happening.
I do think that a big part of the solution, though, is to reclaim the word "love" and show what it truly entails.
In college I had a christian friend from India. One weekend his parents called him and told him that they had found a wife for him and that he needed to catch the next flight home to meet here. He was pretty excited about it. He trusted his parents judgement to find him a Godly compatable woman. When he got there he spent some time with her. Both of them got an opportunity to say no to the deal, but they decided to get married. They got married that weekend, and my friend flew back to Lou. to finish his classes. She joined him here a few months later. They are very much in love now and have a very solid relationship, but I don't think that you could say that they loved each other when they first got married.
I'm not talking about reproduction and I'm not talking about marrying for financial reasons. The reason God gave people the gift of marriage is because 1) "it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone", and 2) marriage is an illustration of our relationship with God.
Lorie: but I would say those two reasons are part and parcel of love. And again, I am not talking about love as defined by Hollywood, Music Row, or Broadway. But I understand your point -- and yes, two people who don't share a romantic attachment can marry for deeper reasons, and eventually find themselves romantically attached. But again, looking at it from our standpoint, I don't think it would be a good idea that people marry so they won't be lonely, or to illustrate our relationship with God.
I know that's not what you're advocating, I'm just trying to steer the discussion into "What practical steps can the American Church take to reverse the trend of marital decay."
Brian: I understand, and I'm sure there are many people, especially from other cultures, who have wonderful marriages that were arranged by their parents.
But again, bringing it back home: just to casually think about the ages of people who read this blog (people whose ages I know): 32,33, 24, 26, 30, 43,24 ... in other words, life-long Americans who are well past their childhood years, who have, in most cases, not lived with their parents in a long time, who have not come out of a culture where parents pick their mates ...
Who is willing to say "I think I've found my mistake. What I need to do, as a fully functioning adult, as someone who has the Holy Spirit living inside, is wait for the call from Mom and Dad saying 'Guess what! We've selected your marriage partner!' "
Is this really the solution for us, and for the millions who are in a similar place in life?
I do think the answer would be teaching a new perspective in the American church and in godly homes that helps young/single people understand that marriage is not intended to be a romantic undertaking motivated by overwhelming feelings of desire and happiness, but rather a blessing given by God in which falling in love, sex, child-rearing and realizing our own sinfulness and selfishness and watching God transform us as we pour ourselves out for another person takes place.
I also don't think that our aversion to letting parents and loved ones have determining input on our marriage partner says anything about the system itself or the probability that, if we viewed marriage in a godly way, it would work just fine. It has more to do with our selfishness, mistrust and sinful pride than anything.
I think an adult who has left home years ago, let alone one who is living as a regenerated Christian, should not abdicate their responsibility to, with God's leading, select their mate. It is not a burden that their parents, who have ALREADY RAISED THEM, should have to bare, even if they want to.
Now, in cultures like India, people are raised from infancy to think of arranged marriages as the norm. The mates are selected while the children are still minors, or shortly after attaining their majority.
In Brian's example, the guy was in college -- probably between 18 and 22. And he had been raised in a culture where arranged marriages were normal.
Lorie, your definition of marriage, as it should be taught to children, is great.
And Cheryl has some good points as well.
Great discussion, everyone!
Yeah many good points. I do see much on Lirie's side of things. I know that it should be a blessing and should be in God, for God, and by God. But I know the part of being alone, is not good and thats the hardest part of the struggle. It really is redefining love and udnerstanding of what marriage is. Yes I too would like to be married one day but not by means of man where we mary for love or the sake of being married, but also would rather be married by scripture as it does seem so much more fulfilling on more than one level.
I know I do not want a family or children to go through the things I did when my parents were divorced when I was 10. Its too much for anyone let alone a child to bear. That alone is reason enough to try, with God's grace, to bear the aloneness and obtain a more fulfiiling relationship through god's eyes.
When I see a marriage done right, in scripture, I feel so much better than I do for thsoe that are not. It shows they have some more serious bonds between ewach other and God.
I like the idea of covenant marriages, but only if they are preceded by intense counseling sessions with clergy, counselors, or others trained in the church to advise and counsel engaged couples. This process takes place at Sojourn. I've heard Jason Heath talk about it quite a bit -- he and Johanna meet with the Cospers regularly. They have a workbook, assigned readings, and of course lots of discussions and activity. That, coupled with the community group, the support of the church at large, and their family and friends, should give them a great start.
Now, if you have some situation where a couple says, "Sure, I'll sign this covenant thingy," and there is nothing more than that, then you're gonna get a bunch of people in romantic love who would basically sign anything at that point. But it won't necessarily make the marriage any stronger or make it less likely to end. It just means that when it does end because one or both decides they don't feel that tingly feeling any more, it will be a nastier, longer divorce process.
See, Bobby, what you are describing as the responsibility of the church and elder and clergy (ie. premarital "counseling" and/or guidance) is one that I believe was traditionally intended to be fulfilled by the God-fearing extended family unit and elders. That's part of what I was talking about in terms of the state of marriage being what it is today as a result of a long philosophical and cultural shift.
I realize that. But the fact is, most young couples do not have a "God-fearing extended family unit and elders" who are willing to take up this task.
Even most God-fearing families are non-committal about steering a couple through a courtship. And there is also the fact that family members (particularly those who are not truly being led by God) often have their own axes to grind, and would offer advice or dictums based on personal preferences that may not truly reflect the character of Christ.
But you are right -- what I am saying that churches should do is what, ideally, families would do (to an extent. How many family members are really trained in counseling? And how many are really willing to counsel each part of the couple equally, rather than one as the child and the other as the One Who Wants To Take My Child From Me?)
There has been, as you say, a long cultural shift. Because of this, we cannot assume that families are doing what they should be doing. We who are able to fill the gap should fill the gap. That's what the family of Christ is all about. Christ promised that those who lost families would find that same care and compassion, 70 times over, through Him. Let the dead bury the dead.
It seems like you assume that most people need a trained counselor to walk them through pre-marital counseling. I would beg to differ.
And this: "often have their own axes to grind, and would offer advice or dictums based on personal preferences that may not truly reflect the character of Christ" can be (and usually is) true of anyone---even a premarital counselor. Even our pastor, who I've heard does great premarital preparation in conjunction with his wife, is going to be motivated and biased in what he recommends and advocates based on his own preferences and experiences.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
For the record, I do agree that the true solution is in changing the culture, and in greater familial involvement. But it's a long-term solution that is going to take a lot of time. I'm just thinking of things that the Church can do NOW to begin this process. I know we can't realistically expect the already too-busy pastors, teachers, and elders in our church communities to do everything that families should be doing.
Yes, everyone brings their own prejudices. But to the same degree? Surely not. The more you personally have at stake in something, the more your prejudices can affect your advice. That's just human nature. But again, I am not the enemy of family involvement. And it's great that you have such a wonderful family that you trust so much regarding your future. But the average American does not. What is your solution for them?
I'm just saying that one way we could strengthen marriages is through premarital counseling in the church. Are you disagreeing with this statement? And if so, why?
What exactly are you begging to differ? We agree that, even in the Church, marriage is in a sad state. I'm saying that we, the Church, brothers and sisters in Christ, need to step up and be, for each other, what many of us don't have -- this hypothetical family you describe.
The minority of people for whom this ideal family is a reality -- good for you. What is your solution for the rest of us? "We'll be praying for you."?
Do you truly not see a role for the Church in helping people make the right choices and making sure they get off on the right foot?
Well, sure they can do that. But is it helping? The church has been doing that for YEARS and marriage, views about marriage and divorce rates have grown consistently worse. It's a fundamental philosophical flaw, not a pragmatic problem.
You are right -- it is a fundamental problem. Pragmatic solutions are only "stop gap" measures. But we need to use them, ALL THE WHILE working to change the culture and the philosophical flaw that we have all accepted as the norm.
Post a Comment
<< Home