Tag: Marriage

Are Children a Burden or a Blessing?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 1 Comment

Earlier this summer, I picked up an old copy of Life magazine while on vacation. The cover picture and title caught my eye. There was a picture of a small baby (no older than a few months), and below the picture, the cover read, “The Baby Riddle: What will happen to American life if each family has one child? Or two? Or three?” The magazine was dated May 19, 1972.

After my wife gave birth to our fourth child two weeks ago, I decided to take out the magazine and read through some of the articles. Here are a few of the highlights—remember that it was written nearly 40 years ago. Addressing the “problem” of continued population growth, the author writes:

Both the Pill and easier abortion laws have helped lower the birthrate in recent years. So have inflation, job shortages and the women’s rights movement, all of which tend to encourage later marriages and fewer children. Last month, after an exhaustive two-year study, the presidential Commission on Population Growth and the American Future recommended that we now seize the chance to stabilize our population. The commission, headed by John D. Rockefeller III, favors abortion on request, free contraceptive information and supplies for all, including minors, and a national policy of zero population growth. Married couples would be encouraged to have an average of only two children (the present average is 2.3).

Back in 1972, many sociologists were sounding the alarm about a population bomb that would threaten food production, infrastructure, and the American dream. The magazine article proposed that if American families had three children, the population would balloon to 322 million by the year 2000 (current population of the US is over 312 million based on the population clock from the US Census Bureau), half the country would be short of water, food costs would increase by 40–50%, and 93% of all students would receive a worse education in 2000 than they could have received in 1972. These crises would all be the result of a population explosion.

But wait, there’s more:

Besides these direct measures [free contraceptive services, liberalized abortion laws, and state-subsidized sterilization], the commission noted with disapproval the large number of social and psychological pressures in our society that encourage too many people to get married and, once married, to have children.

Here we see a government commission disapproves of social pressures to get married and once married, for couples to have children. Well, I guess in some respects, they have gotten their wish. According to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), “nearly 4 in 10 U.S. births were to unmarried women in 2007.” In addition, the report states, “Most births to teenagers (86% in 2007) are nonmarital, but 60% of births to women 20–24 and nearly one-third of births to women 25–29 were nonmarital in 2007.” Social pressures for marriage have subsided, but women are still giving birth. The difference is that 40% of all births are now to single women, meaning that children are being reared in single-parent households at an alarming rate.

Some may see this trend as a positive example of the feminist movement. However, Maggie Gallagher suggests that marriage is important for the well-being of children. Among other conclusions, she reports, “Marriage reduces child poverty. Children in intact married homes are healthier, on average, than children in other family forms. Babies born to married parents have sharply lower rates of infant mortality. Boys and young men from intact married homes are less likely to commit crimes. Children raised outside of intact marriages are more likely to be victims of both sexual and physical child abuse.”

Finally, the article cites a then-forthcoming book by Shirley Radl bemoaning the fact that she ever had children. Here are some of her thoughts:

When I was pregnant the first time, we celebrated our eighth wedding anniversary. My husband gave me an exquisite pearl bracelet. Six years later I was picking up the pearls in my vacuum cleaner. My son had destroyed it. It is a sad symbol of how two children affected a once-beautiful relationship.

Bearing children is a gamble with lives of innocents. The greatest failure is to have children and learn too late you’re not equipped for that career. We who learned the truth must level with an unsuspecting generation of potential mothers. They must look beyond the myths, seek the truth, judge their capacities accordingly. Plan carefully: the life you save may be your own.

The overwhelming thrust of the articles in this 40-year-old edition of Life is that children are a burden. The act of having children must be weighed like a financial decision—do I invest in myself or in children? The focus is on personal rights, dreams, aspirations. If children get in the way of those things, then they must be a burden. Is that how Scripture describes children? Absolutely not!

In Psalm 127:3–5, Solomon writes:

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them;
They will not be ashamed
When they speak with their enemies in the gate.

The biblical perspective is that children are a gift, a blessing, a reward. Do children place a burden on the lives of adults? Yes. I will not deny that there are things we cannot do because we have four children. Do the rewards of four precious lives outweigh the burdens? No doubt about it! We need to maintain a biblical perspective on children and the blessing of having them in our lives.

_________________________

“The Crucial Math of Motherhood,” Life, May 19, 1972.

U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. POPClock Projection.”

National Center for Health Statistics, “Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States,” May 2009.

Maggie Gallagher, “(How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being?,” in The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, & Morals (eds. Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain; Dallas: Spence, 2006), 197–212.

Shirley Rogers Radl, Mother’s Day Is Over (Arbor House, 1987).

Should a Pastor Perform a Wedding for Unbelievers?

~ Evan Lenow

About six months ago, one of my students was actively pursuing a ministry position after graduating from seminary. During his search, a friend sent him a link to a new “ministry” that provided ministerial wedding services indiscriminately to anyone willing to pay the fee. They had a slick website and a pledge to “make your wedding personal” despite never meeting the minister until a few weeks before the nuptials. For me, this raised the question of whether or not a pastor should perform weddings with little or no concern for the spiritual lives of the couple.

For most ministers I know, the question of performing a wedding ceremony between a believer and an unbeliever is a non-starter. We quickly jump to 1 Cor 7:39 and 2 Cor 6:14–15. These verses make it clear that believers are instructed not to marry unbelievers. However, there are no biblical instructions regarding two unbelievers marrying. In fact, the assumption is that if believers are only marrying other believers, then unbelievers will be marrying unbelievers. That leaves us with the question of whether or not a Christian pastor should perform the wedding ceremony for two unbelievers.

Before we can answer that question, we first need to address the nature of marriage. While there are some (e.g., Catholics) who argue that marriage is a church ordinance (or sacrament), we must acknowledge that marriage was instituted prior to the church (Gen 2). There are also those who argue that marriage is a state ordinance (e.g., most secularists). However, there was no government in the Garden of Eden either. Instead, marriage is a creation ordinance given to all mankind as a gift. Russell Moore writes, “Marriage though, unlike baptism and the Lord’s table, is a creation ordinance, given to all people (Gen 2:23-24). It is good for unbelievers to marry rather than to live in immorality. It’s good for them, for their children, and for society as a whole.” There are a host of benefits to society that come from marriage—economic development from family-owned businesses, social stability through the family unit, and care for the young by parents.

If marriage is a creation ordinance and it is good for unbelievers to marry one another, then should a pastor perform a wedding between two unbelievers? My answer to that question is a resounding “No.” Let me explain.

First, a pastor is not a “lone ranger” exercising his ecclesiastical duties apart from the authority of the local church. When a pastor performs a wedding ceremony, he is placing his stamp of approval (and that of the church) on the marriage relationship. However, the church has no business giving its blessing to a marriage between unbelievers because there is no mechanism to hold them accountable. Moore states, “For unbelievers the church has no right to hold a couple to their vows through church discipline. They are not, after all, members of the church. A church that isn’t able to hold a couple to their vows (through discipleship and discipline) as witnesses to the covenant made (through discipleship and discipline) has no right to solemnize these vows in the first place. What would the church do if the unbelieving non-members were to break these vows?”

Second, Christian marriage is a depiction of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:22–33). A pastor’s intention in performing a ceremony should be to direct the couple and those witnessing the ceremony to understand that biblical picture. However, a marriage between two unbelievers lacks the key element to make that picture complete—a relationship with Christ. Without that relationship, a husband and wife have no desire to honor God with their marriage. Thus, the pastor should have no interest in blessing a marriage that sets out from the beginning with no intention to recognize God’s design for marriage.

Third, while proclaiming the gospel is appropriate (and necessary in my view) during a wedding ceremony, it should not be the goal of a ceremony to proclaim the gospel to the bride and groom. The best gospel proclamation in a wedding is the living testimony of the couple as they depict the Christ-church relationship. The pastor puts Scripture and words to that picture to explain it. Moore aptly describes the faulty view of performing weddings as evangelism:

Almost every pastor I’ve ever heard who performs weddings indiscriminately appeals to the evangelistic potential. Every community has the “wedding chaplain” pastor who will marry anyone. He is rarely the soul-winning firebrand of the community. As a matter of fact (though I’m sure there are exceptions), I’ve not once met an unbelieving couple who were won to Christ by a pastor who was willing to marry them regardless of their belief in Christ. I know of several couples, though, who came to Christ because a faithful pastor lovingly told them no, and told them why.

I believe that many pastors who perform such ceremonies are more concerned with not offending others than they are with seeing God’s design for marriage upheld. If two unbelievers want to get married, send them to a justice of the peace or someone else authorized to sanction a marriage. Moore concludes his admonition to ministers with the following:

For many young ministers, this question comes right down to a question of courage. If you’re not able, at the beginning of your ministry, to turn down family members and friends who expect you to act as a wedding chaplain for them, then how are you going to turn down unbelievers who want to [be] baptized? How are you going to defy the armies of antichrist, should it come to that? The gospel minister is made of sterner stuff than what many of us are accustomed to seeing. Refusing to place your ecclesial imprimatur on a Christless marriage is among the least dangerous things a minister will ever be called to do.

I agree with Russell Moore on this one. Let’s avoid performing such marriages, even when it is family members who ask. Placing our “blessing” on a marriage should be reserved for those marriages that will reflect the true nature of marriage and depict the Christ-church relationship. In fact, I would say there are even times when we should say “no” to believers who have the wrong intentions for marriage.

_________________________

Russell Moore, “Should a Minister Officiate at the Weddings of Unbelievers,” September 11, 2008. Moore’s article from three years ago helped to solidify my position on this question. I am greatly indebted to him for his brief, yet substantive thoughts on the issue.

Should a Pastor Perform a Wedding for a Cohabiting Couple?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

There is a growing trend in contemporary American society related to living together before getting married. According to the 2010 census data from the US Census Bureau, there were 7.529 million opposite sex unmarried couple households.[1] The National Marriage Project based at the University of Virginia notes:

Between 1960 and 2009, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States increased more than fifteenfold. About a quarter of unmarried women age 25 to 39 are currently living with a partner, and an additional quarter have lived with a partner at some time in the past. More than 60 percent of first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago. For many, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage. For others, it is simply better than living alone. For a small but growing number, it is considered an alternative to marriage.[2]

As a seminary professor who teaches a class on marriage and family, I try to prepare my students for that time in their ministry when someone asks them to perform a wedding ceremony. There are a number of questions we need to ask ourselves before agreeing to be a part of the ceremony. In fact, LifeWay Research released the results of a recent survey they performed on just this issue. The summary article can be found at Baptist Press and LifeWay’s Facts and Trends Online. The results are interesting and a little frightening.

The lead stat for the article relates to cohabitation before marriage. The study notes:

The survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors found that a majority (58 percent) will perform weddings for couples they know are living together. Nearly a third (31 percent) will not, and 10 percent are not sure.

When it comes to cohabitating couples, pastors who consider themselves mainline are more likely to perform weddings then those who consider themselves evangelical.

In response to the question, “When asked to do so, will you perform a marriage ceremony for a couple whom you know is living together?” 68 percent of mainline pastors say yes compared with 57 percent of evangelicals. Twenty-four percent of mainline pastors and 34 percent of evangelicals say no.

A minister’s level of education also reveals differences in pastors’ willingness to perform marriage ceremonies for couples who are living together.

A full 62 percent of pastors with at least a master’s degree will marry cohabitating couples while only 52 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or less will perform weddings for couples living together before marriage. Twenty-nine percent of pastors with at least a master’s degree will not perform such ceremonies compared with 36 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or less.

To me, this statistic about the willingness of pastors to perform weddings for couples they know to be cohabiting is disturbing. If we set aside the biblical material that relates to cohabitation and just look at the sociological data, pastors should be reticent to perform such marriages.

The National Marriage Project notes that cohabitation is more common among those of lower educational levels, lower income levels, the less religious, “those who have been divorced, and those who have experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood.”[3] After noting all these demographic details, National Marriage Project states:

The belief that living together before marriage is a useful way “to find out whether you really get along,” and thus avoid a bad marriage and an eventual divorce, is now widespread among young people. But the available data on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm this belief. In fact, a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage.[4]

Even though the authors acknowledge that the evidence is somewhat controversial, Wilcox concludes, “What can be said for certain is that no research from the United States has yet been found that those who cohabit before marriage have stronger marriages than those who do not.”[5]

So why would a pastor perform a marriage for a cohabiting couple when the sociological evidence says that such couple are more likely to get divorced? I think the answer is societal pressure and a desire not to offend. Certainly Scripture is clear in its condemnation of fornication (a KJV-style word for a pre-marital sexual relationship). Fornication and fornicators (as well as adulterers) are described as evil, subject to judgment, and not heirs of the kingdom of God (Matt 15:19; Acts 15:20, 29; 1 Cor 6:9; Heb 13:4).

What should one do when encountering this situation? Here are a few suggestions. First, remember that cohabitation is not the unpardonable sin. After Paul gives a vice list in 1 Cor 6:9–10 that says certain people, including fornicators and adulterers, will not inherit the kingdom of God, he states, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). We need to work with these couples to help them confess and repent of this sin. Ideally, this confession and repentance should have a public element to it within the church. This does not necessarily mean that they air their dirty laundry before the church on Sunday morning, but it should at least include their families and those in their circle of influence who are aware of the situation. Depending on the church, it may also include the entire church body.

Second, I believe separation from the cohabiting relationship is in order prior to marriage. This involves all aspects of the relationship. If it means a woman moves back home with her parents, or a man moves in with some friends for a period of a few months, then so be it. If the couple is not willing to do this for the remainder of the time leading up to the marriage, then they are not interested in honoring God with their marriage.

Third, assuming that the couple has cooperated in the first two points, I believe the pastor must still examine his own convictions about marriage to determine whether or not he desires to place his “stamp of approval” on the wedding by performing the ceremony.

I believe our culture has become too focused on the wedding ceremony, and some pastors are fearful that they might alienate an influential family in the church if they do not fulfill the daughter’s wish for a “dream wedding.” Marriage is much more than a ceremony. It is a lifetime covenant established by God (Gen 2:22–24). It is time we focus on the marriage and not the ceremony, but the decision to perform the wedding is part of that process.

[1] U.S. Census Bureau, “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2010,” Table UC3. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html. These couples self-identified as unmarried partners.

[2] W. Bradford Wilcox, ed., “When Marriage Disappears: The New Middle America,” The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America 2010, 76.  http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Union_11_12_10.pdf.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 76–77.

[5] Ibid., 77.

Polygamous Marriage: The Next Trend?

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

On Wednesday, Kody Brown and his four wives—the stars of TLC’s reality show “Sister Wives”—filed suit in federal court in Utah against the state seeking the decriminalization of bigamy (and by default, polygamy). The case is built upon the 2003 US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that decriminalized sodomy on the grounds that the state cannot interfere with the private lives of consenting adults (a.k.a., right to privacy). This current lawsuit hopes to overturn an 1878 Supreme Court decision that declared polygamy unsuitable for American society.

The lawsuit claims:

By criminalizing religious-based plural families and intimate relationships under the criminal bigamy law, Utah officials prosecute private conduct between consenting adults.[1]

In Utah, polygamy is a third-degree felony that can carry a penalty of up to 15 years in prison if convicted.

The Browns have attained fame recently as the stars of “Sister Wives,” a reality television show that follows their lives as a polygamous family. The show airs on the cable/satellite network TLC. Their marriages are considered spiritual marriages because the state will not issue marriage licenses for multiple wives. The Browns claim to be Mormons and participate in polygamy because they believe that their faith rewards those in multiple marriages with a higher place in heaven. Even though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (i.e., Mormons) disavowed polygamy in 1890, it is apparently still an issue in some sects of Mormonism, especially among fundamentalist groups.

Joanna Brooks, a Mormon scholar and author, notes that polygamy is still an open question to many Mormons. She states:

But the question of polygamy also remains wide open for millions of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worldwide. The mainstream LDS Church publicly disavowed the practice of polygamy in this life in 1890, but it has never officially disavowed the doctrine that plural marriage is required to enter the highest levels of heaven. Mainstream LDS men who are widowed and remarry continue to be “sealed” or married for the eternities to multiple wives, while mainstream LDS women may not be married or “sealed” for the eternities to more than one man. To this day, mainstream LDS communities are quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) divided on whether or not polygamy will be a fact of life in heaven.[2]

While the question of polygamy among Mormons is an interesting cultural question, there is a larger issue at play with this lawsuit. The real issue is whether or not the government will continue to redefine marriage. Even though the Browns’ attorney, Jonathan Turley, assured CNN’s John King (video available here) that the lawsuit was simply about right to privacy and not recognition of polygamous marriages, the clearly logical conclusion is that any case decriminalizing polygamy will also open the door to legalizing polygamous marriages. In fact, the lawsuit over polygamy is based upon the exact rationale that proponents of homosexual marriage are using in various states to seek recognition of their marriages.

With the recent action by the New York legislature and this lawsuit in Utah, the understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is under full-scale attack from multiple fronts. If the Browns win their lawsuit, it will probably only be a matter of weeks before lawsuits seeking state recognition of polygamy hit the courts. They will use the same arguments that have won the day (at least in some states) for homosexual marriage. Then the next two logical steps—using the same argumentation—will be polyamorous marriages (multiple husbands AND wives) and incestuous marriages. The claim will merely be a right to privacy and marriage as a civil right. We have started down a slippery slope, and I fear the slide may be uncontrollable soon.

[1] “‘Sister Wives’ stars sue over Utah anti-polygamy law.” CNN. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/13/sister-wives-stars-sue-over-utah-anti-polygamy-law/.

[2] Joanna Brooks, “Sister Wives Stars File Suit to Legalize Polygamy,” Religion Dispatches. http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/4852/sister_wives_stars_file_suit_to_legalize_polygamy/.

Robert George on Marriage

~ Evan Lenow

The New York legislature recently passed a law redefining the meaning of marriage in order to allow for “same-sex marriages” in the state. Robert George was interviewed by the National Review about the recent legislation. Here are a few excerpts.

The vote in New York to redefine marriage advances the cause of loosening norms of sexual ethics, and promoting as innocent — and even “liberating” — forms of sexual conduct that were traditionally regarded in the West and many other places as beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures.

Once one buys into the ideology of sexual liberalism, the reality that has traditionally been denominated as “marriage” loses all intelligibility. That is true whether one regards oneself politically as a liberal or a conservative. For people who have absorbed the central premises of sexual liberation (whether formally and explicitly, as liberals tend to do, or merely implicitly as those conservatives who have gone in for it tend to do), marriage simply cannot function as the central principle or standard of rectitude in sexual conduct, as it has in Western philosophy, theology, and law for centuries.

The institution of marriage has already been deeply wounded by divorce at nearly plague levels, widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation, and other damaging factors. To redefine it out of existence in law is to make it much more difficult to restore a sound understanding of marriage on which a healthy marriage culture can be rebuilt for the good of all. It is to sacrifice the needs of the poor, who are hurt the most when a sound public understanding of marriage and sexual morality collapses. It is to give up on the truth that children need both a father and mother, and benefit from the security of their love for each other.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He has written and lectured extensively on various ethical issues, including marriage. He generally approaches issues from a Catholic natural law perspective. I am always intrigued to read what he has to say on cultural issues because he is a good thinker and very clear. I don’t always agree with him, but I agree way more often than I disagree.

You can read the full interview here.