Like Button

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Optional Marriage

Dr. Mohler wrote an entry titled, Does Marriage Matter? about an article in Newsweek. The author of that piece said "Yes To Love, No To Marriage." I don't want to repeat what he says. He does a good job. I recommend you read it.

I have been struck lately, however, with this apparently absolute presumption that fornication and cohabitation is the standard forerunner of marriage. According to a recent survey, a growing number of Americans believe that "love doesn't necessarily mean marriage." That is, 44% said "they didn't need marriage to validate their relationships." A large majority of 30-somethings (73%) preferred to live together before getting married. I remember hearing a conversation between two coworkers some time ago. He said, "I'm getting married." She said, "When?" He said, "Soon. We're still virgins and we're somewhat anxious." She said (with loud incredulity), "Who gets married without sleeping with the person first??!!" While the fellow in the conversation expressed the norm of my day, it is the exception today. Beyond that, more and more are opting out entirely of marriage, choosing cohabitation instead. "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love." And so it goes.

Without marriage, how does one show a life-long commitment? Or is "life-long commitment" another casualty of "progress"? In the Newsweek article, Bonnie Eslinger writes, "Last year Jeff asked me to marry him, and I willingly gave my heart to the intent of his question." She didn't say "Yes" to marriage. She agreed with "the intent". What does that mean? If she refused to marry but agreed with the intent, what is the intent of "Will you marry me?" It says, "Will you surrender who you are to me while I surrender who I am to you?" It asks, "Will you commit the rest of your life to me while I commit the rest of my life to you?" It seems to me that minimizing or discarding marriage in no way agrees with "the intent of his question."

One of the things that "Will you marry me?" asks is "Will you join me in forming a new family?" Family ... what a concept. In the article, Eslinger talks of family. Unfortunately for her, family is defined. It includes blood and marriage relationships. It includes blood-line and legal bindings such as marriage, and adoption. It doesn't include "well-loved friends" ... by definition. But there are many other reasons for marriage. One of the most obvious is the legal ramifications. Our society places a value on "family" that does not include "good buddy" in matters of health issues, financial issues, property ownership, and so on and so on. We give honor to that overt commitment called "marriage" when it comes to matters of legal issues in a way that "lover and friend" doesn't get. Death benefits, Social Security benefits, health insurance, it goes on and on.

"Well, we should change the laws then," someone might argue. Maybe ... but there are so many other issues at stake in marriage. We Christians are aware of the moral ramifications. I almost wrote "acutely aware", but society has so invaded the Church that too many Christians are succumbing to the dumbing down of society in this issue. Still, there is no doubt that the Bible recognizes marriage as the only valid venue for sexual relationships and sees marriage as not merely "a piece of paper" or "a ring and a white dress," but a life-long union of two beings. "Union," perhaps, has become too weak a term. The joining of two people in marriage includes "the two shall become one," an idea that many have side-lined. But the moral ramifications of that union, the need for it, and the breaking of it are huge, so huge that in the Old Testament adultery was punishable by death. God thought very highly of marriage ... and still does.

Of course, what we Christians think isn't of real importance to many people, and the decline of Christian morality among people who call themselves Christians isn't helping matters. Still, setting aside the moral issues, besides family and the legal reasons there are the emotional reasons for marriage. In her article, Eslinger writes, "I don't need a ring as a daily reminder to myself or others that I am loved." It appears she has completely missed the point of the ring. The circle symbolizes eternity. It is not saying "You are loved." It is saying, "I promise so much more than love. I promise to love you for the rest of my life. I promise to give myself to you and no one else. We will be family, a unit, a 'forever' commitment to each other that we proudly display to anyone around us." There is so much more in marriage than "you are loved." I can't even begin to express how much more "husband and wife" means than "you are loved."

The fact that marriages fail is not a valid argument against marriage. Cars fail ... therefore it's better not to have a car, right? Because some people fail to do marriage correctly doesn't invalidate marriage. It may be a popular argument, but it is pitifully wrong. So many people trot out this, "Marriages fail" argument. In the Newsweek piece, Eslinger has a foster daughter. She hasn't adopted her; she is a foster daughter. Doesn't this say much the same thing as saying "No" to marriage? "Because marriages fail, I won't marry." "Because kids grow up and leave home, I won't be your legal parent. I'll just be your temporary guardian." Both say, "I will not commit myself wholly to you because of the potential for my pain. Bottom line: I will not give up my self." (Note: I'm not commenting on foster parenting as a whole; just in this specific situation.)

Eslinger says, "I am Jeff's partner, his friend and his lover, and he is mine. The terms 'husband' and 'wife' wouldn't even begin to describe our relationship." What an incredible statement. The suggestion is that "husband" and "wife" do not include the concepts of "friend" and "lover." She is saying that "friend and lover" is so much more than "husband and wife." Jeff, her boyfriend, worried that his family wouldn't be willing to come to some sort of "commitment ceremony". Imagine that! The couple isn't interested in marriage, isn't concerned about the legal, moral, or emotional ramifications of a marriage, and is so much more than "husband and wife", but is dismayed that his parents might not be interested in attending a "commitment ceremony." I think this hints at the truth, doesn't it?

Marriage in our society is in trouble. There is no question. People are refusing to do it right, and marriages are failing at a high rate. The definition of marriage is blurred because of our societal distance from the truth and too many voices between society and the truth. The value and necessity of marriage is not clear anymore because of the noise. Still, with or without the voice of truth, people know intuitively that marriage is important. But, to tell the truth, I can't fix the problem. Neither can you. So if you are married, consider this approach. When it comes to your marriage (as in all else), "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).

No comments: