Coffin Corner

 

A Tarnished Silver Anniversary

What is destroying marriage in the West — and what has sustained my husband and me through several potentially marriage-destroying events.

by Christine A. Scheller-->

Christine A. Scheller

A silver anniversary isn’t what it used to be. I know this from experience, having celebrated mine last month, but the data speaks for itself. According to a 2005 U.S. Census Bureau report, only 33 percent of us reached the milestone 10 years ago, whereas 70 percent of those who married in the late 1950s did. For previous generations, a 25th wedding anniversary was as much a simple consequence of time as it was cause to celebrate. Surrounded by as many divorcing and non-marrying loved ones as I am, I was a little embarrassed to draw attention to our special day. And like the older brother in the story of the prodigal son, I harbored some resentment about this fact.

My husband and I have been through a series of potentially marriage-destroying events in recent years, and I would have appreciated some salutations acknowledging our accomplishment. On Facebook, where I shared photos from our wedding day to mark the occasion, only a few long-married female friends and one never-married person posted well wishes. We received one card in the mail, from my parents. Perhaps we should have thrown a party, but that would have been insensitive given that two of our siblings finalized divorces in 2009. Of the 15 middle-aged siblings and step-siblings in our combined families, only 4 of us are currently married.

A recent Pew Research Center / Time magazine study indicated that over the past 50 years, “a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race,” with lower levels of income and education correlating with lower marriage rates.

The executive summary further states that “even as marriage shrinks, family — in all its emerging varieties — remains resilient.” But wait. More respondents said they would feel “very obligated” to help a parent (83%) or adult child (77%) in need than said this about a stepparent (55%) or a step or half sibling (43%), and only 39% would feel similarly obligated to a best friend. The old definition continues to have traction when it matters most.

The key finding of a 2010 study conducted by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia is that divorce, non-marital childbearing, and unmarried cohabitation have led to a dramatic increase in “fragile” and “typically fatherless” families over the past five decades. The executive summary includes this dire warning: “Today's retreat from marriage among the moderately educated middle is placing the American Dream beyond the reach of too many Americans. It makes the lives of mothers harder and drives fathers further away from families. It increases the odds that children from Middle America will . . . lose their way.” As marriage increasingly becomes an institution aligned with wealth and eduction, the divide “threatens the American experiment in democracy and should be of concern to every civic and social leader in our nation.”

In a blog post about the Pew study, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler declared, “Marriage was given to us by our Creator as the central institution for sexual relatedness, procreation, and the nurture of children. But, even beyond these goods, God gave us marriage as an institution central to human happiness and flourishing. Rightly understood, marriage is essential even to the happiness and flourishing of the unmarried. It is just that central to human existence, and not by accident.”

I believe this. So, although my 49-year-old husband is unlikely to ever work again because of a physical disability that has fundamentally changed both our marital and financial health in ways I didn’t anticipate, divorce is no more an option than it ever was. What is a daily choice is how we live together in light of these and other challenges. Not only do love and faith constrain us, so do the above cited personal and professional stats.

I am simultaneously compelled to resist the encroaching pressure of the easy out and feel a deep obligation to model fidelity and stability to the next generation in light of it. This is no easy task. I vowed to love my husband in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer and can say unequivocally that rich and healthy is a whole lot easier than sick and poor. I can also affirm that hardness of heart is the fastest route to marital decline (Matt. 19:8).

Penn State sociologist Stacy J. Rogers is co-author of Alone Together: How Marriage in America Is Changing. She explained the National Marriage Project findings to the Huffington Post by saying that education, first marriage, no children from previous relationships, and financial health produce fewer external stressors. She also concluded, “We put a lot of emphasis on the marriage to make us happy, and fulfill our lives. We're victims of unrealistic expectations.”

As much as I affirm lofty marriage ideals like Mohler’s, I believe discipleship in our age inevitably involves putting unrealistic expectations to death. Consider how we enthusiastically memorize a verse like Psalm 37:4 because it tells us that if we delight in God, he will fulfill our desires. We would do well to keep reading. Verses five and six add, “Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this: He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn, your vindication like the noonday sun.”

When my husband and I were in pre-marriage counseling, our pastor noted our mutual realism as an indicator of relational health. Twenty-five years later, reality is much more insistent and the truths of 1 Corinthians 13 are much more compelling.

share this

Posted by Katelyn Beaty on January 4, 2011 9:30 AM

The CT Interview

Sex Economics 101

Mark Regnerus, the early-marriage sociologist, shares his latest research on young adults' sexual attitudes and behavior.

Katelyn Beaty | posted 2/18/2011 10:15AM

 

 

No News Flash: The West is facing an economic collapse whose effects will stretch on for decades. News flash: The West is also facing a challenging marketplace economy in sex and marriage, at least according to Mark Regnerus. "Neither a strong gender constructionist nor a strong gender essentialist, but a sociologist" (at the University of Texas-Austin), Regnerus describes the traditional marriage economy this way: Most men want sex more than do women and have traditionally gained access to sex via marriage. In turn, most women have given sex for marriage, which has brought economic security and commitment.

Now, says Regnerus—whose 2009 "case for early marriage" in Christianity Today made quite a splash—women are expected to commence sex early, with little promise of commitment. And this hurts everyone, but especially women. Speaking with CT associate editor Katelyn Beaty, Regnerus explained this and other findings from his new book, Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press), coauthored with Jeremy Uecker.

You frame your research using sexual economics theory: Sex is a transaction in which men pay, via economic stability or education or as little as dinner, to get access to sex, while women pay with their sexuality to get goods that men can offer. Describing sex this way seems pretty cynical. Why use this theory to explain your research?

Because it's accurate. There are lots of lenses to use to evaluate how people make decisions about sex and relationships. Some of them are far more idealistic than realistic. I find the economic theory [developed by psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs] to be remarkably astute in its general description of how people make such decisions. My students—who can spot a pathetic argument on this stuff a mile away—almost always confess that this way of understanding relationships is consonant with their experience.

People will cringe to listen to it, but when they think about it, it's remarkable how accurate it can be. It works because it's rooted in basic differences between men and women and basic different interests in sex, marriage, and long-term relationships. As a Christian, none of it surprises me or discourages me. There's an inherent good and functional tension between men and women in this domain. Historically, sex was a key motivator for men to marry. Try to reduce that tension, that function, and all hell breaks loose—which is what we are witnessing.

That tension has been reduced, in part, by the fact that women now have much greater chances to pursue higher education and financially support themselves compared with 50 or even 20 years ago. But you say that women's education and the sex ratio imbalance it's created on college campuses comes at a cost.

Relationships that form under the current conditions of imbalance tend to become sexual more quickly than when they form under more balanced gender ratios, or when there are a lot more desirable men than women. Because whoever is the minority gender, so to speak, has more power, and especially in this sense, because women want marriage more than men do. So when there are more women in the pool, it lends itself to women competing for men rather than the other way around.

The imbalanced ratio indicates remarkable achievements for women's continued push for social and economic equality with men. But it spells something altogether different for their romantic relationships with men, which have become considerably more difficult to generate and maintain. As women who are highly educated and successful outnumber men, this drives down the "market price" of sex. There are plenty of women who are in sexual relationships that they aren't crazy about, who would like to be legitimately asked out, but they feel like they can't get it. He texts, and they "hang out." How lame is that?

share this page

|

]]>--> 3 more pages here http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/february/sexeconomics.html

February 2011, Vol. 55, No. 2

We fell in love by writing letters. In fact, this giving and receiving of hand-written letters, a piece of original art that mirrors the mind and heart of the writer, became an integral part of our dating relationship. Naturally, after Rachel accepted Chad’s proposal to be married, our minds turned toward incorporating written correspondence into the fabric of our engagement and marriage. At once it was decided that, as a lasting testimony to our marriage, we would sit down to write letters to one another describing the many things we looked forward to in our married life. Alongside our dreams about a home filled with children and friends, pursuing hospitality and courageous artistry, we described the sanctifying work God would surely accomplish through our marriage:

Rachel:

“What does this mean, to learn to love someone fully, abandoning all barriers, overcoming all fears…realizing more and more my own selfishness while simultaneously becoming more and more aware of God’s grace?”

Chad:

“We stand on the threshold of a grand adventure…so many memories, stories and future friends await us. I am confident in the Lord and his provision for us, and that through one another, he will continue to make us obedient and holy.”

We had wonderful mentorship throughout our dating relationship and engagement. Through the counsel of wise couples who had preceded us on the road of marriage, we were taught to adopt the right set of expectations:

“Marriage is going to be hard work.”

“You need to invest in your spouse, especially during your first year of marriage.”

“Serve one another and put your spouse’s needs above your own.”

We had been taught that marriage, (thanks to God’s infinite wisdom and mercy) is one of the most effective relationships for renewing us in the image of Jesus Christ. And while we understood that we were entering marriage together with the best possible advice and preparation, we did not yet fully understand the sheer gravity of what marriage requires of us. Just as the apprentice may study a craft but not become skilled until he actually begins practicing the craft, so too we were filled with knowledge yet lacked the opportunity to put our wisdom to the test.

We have not been married long. In every sense of the word, we are still newlyweds. And so we don’t pretend that our advice or insights into the married life have much credibility. What we can share, though, is the lesson we continue to encounter as we happily walk through these first months of marriage. Time and time again, we have found that our marriage is the means by which we are discovering our true selves.

This implies that upon entering the marriage covenant we were clinging to false selves: our counterfeit characters. As a consequence of our past sin and circumstance, we had both created identities in which we could hide, feel safe, and pretend that we “had it all together.” Because we were so focused on self instead of other, it became impossible for us to see ourselves as we truly are. We had come to believe that the world we had constructed in which we were the most important character was reality itself.

In defiance of this self-created and perpetuated reality, on January 8^th we chose to stand at the altar as living sacrifices, vowing to die to self and be an agent of God’s love and grace in the renewal of our spouse. To put to death the world of shadows we had constructed for ourselves and to begin contending with the world and one another as we really are.

Though the wedding ceremony is past, we continue to stand on the altar. Sunrise to sunset, day after day, we are requiring and required to sacrifice our defenses and paper-thin identities for the real, weighty and glorious self given to us in Christ.  By submitting to one another out of love and in humility, we reveal to one another the vices from which we need to repent and the virtues in which we need to deepen our roots.

There are two vices that we continue to run against in the beginning of our marriage. As the barriers continue to come down in the Glazener home and we continue to invade the formerly impenetrable kingdom of the ego, we find that we hold these two falsehoods as gospel truth:

1)     I am the most important person.

2)     I am self-sufficient and perfectly capable without you.

Our marriage has revealed these particular sins as first inclinations. But marriage also is providing the means by which we can repent and be healed of this selfishness. In our marriage, we have agreed that love and submission are two sides of the same coin: you cannot submit to that which you do not love, and if you are not willing to lay down your life then you cannot claim to love.

This mutual submission reminds us that our will is not the end-all; we live in accordance with the will of one wholly other than ourselves. And to live saying “not my will, but thy will be done” quickly reveals that we are incapable of perfectly conforming our will to the will of another.

This complete renewal we are after will cost us everything. On our wedding day, we stood hand and hand on the altar, vowing to sacrifice ourselves to our love. Our vows “until death do us part” still ring in our ears; death is not merely our final separation. Death, that total surrendering of body, mind and soul to another person created in the image of God, is also the place we begin. For as our master teaches us, it is only in giving that we receive. It is only in death that we receive a whole and happy life. And in God’s great mercy, he has given us to one another to be the agents of this renewal. Surprising us in those small moments in which we hear the voice of God through our spouse, or we see his loving gaze in the eyes of the beloved. We taste his love, his mercy, and his forgiveness through one another. And so we rejoice that our old, selfish selves are being killed by love, because we steadfastly cling to the hope that our final renewal is coming.