John H Armstrong

The Problem of Romantic Myth

Could it be that modern church culture elevates the romantic experience of falling in love even above religious commitment to Christ? Author Dan Brennan, in his provocative and important book Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions, believes the answer is yes. He believes that we have so emphasized romantic passion as a unique, one-of-a-kind, love that all other love is seen as relatively unimportant in comparison with this amazing love. Almost every marriage seminar that I have ever heard celebrates romantic love in marriage as God’s greatest gift to human beings.

It never seems to dawn on many Christian teachers that the Bible does not clearly support this understanding. Could the myths of our culture have so overwhelmed the radical message of Holy Scripture that we have accepted a profound Freudian influence without realizing it?

Many Christians, especially single Christians, are driven to excessive preoccupation with themselves through such imbalanced teaching. They already feel unloved and unwanted. Then the church gives them this romantic message as if this is the totality of what Scripture says about relational, human, intimate love. Brennan concludes that, “The romantic myth ironically undermines self-esteem and worth among those within romantic relationships, too” (34). As odd as this might seem at first glance I believe he is profoundly correct. In our culture “Love and sexuality are fused together in the ideology of romance” says Kathy Werking, a pioneering scholar in the study of cross-gendered relationships. Brennan concludes: “This is the fruit of romantic idealism, not romantic realism. The notion that one idealized relationship is the be-all, end-all for passion, intimacy, emotional commitment, friendship, happiness, fidelity, and depth has a cluster of powerful myths supporting it within the evangelical community” (35) .Amen Dan!  I believe these myths need to be exposed and then carefully sorted out if we are to embrace a truly  missional theology of community. As odd as it might seem this book has a lot to say about the way Christians are called to live holy lives in a confused world.

Let me be very honest about the nature of the problem here. I have several male friendships of long standing. These involve deep intimacy and profound love with uncommon affection. These relationships could easily prompt someone to assume that I was gay if I shared the depth of these relationships too openly. (By the way, I do not share this openly for a number of reasons, one being love is between those who love, not for everyone to hear out of context!)

Question: Do you ever tell another person, besides a parent, your spouse or a sibling that you really love them? Is this kind of talk and emotional expression dangerous or truly healthy? I suppose I can get away with this depth of friendship with men, so long as others do not hear our private conversations. Most do not consider them to be a threat to my marriage. (The problem here is that more than a few married men have left their wives for a man, including more than a few prominent evangelical preachers whose names some of you would know.) But to suggest that this kind of friendship might grow into deeper godliness between a man and a woman who are married (or not) to someone else is beyond belief in most churches I have been around in my lifetime. Again, keep in mind that I have already said this has to be worked out in a loving way with your spouse. No secrets and no hidden agendas! Brennan is very clear about this in the book.

Brennan lists three myths that he believes lead us to romantic idealism. I want to address each of these briefly. (By now you should get the point that I urging you to read the whole book!)

The first myth is extremely important whether or not you ultimately agree with cross-gender friendship or not. Brennan calls this myth the idea that a “one flesh” relationship can satisfy all our deepest longings for oneness. We are right to affirm the place of passion and fidelity in marriage. But is  our present“one flesh” idea a romanticized idealism that justifies deep friendship only in marriage? Passion in marriage is good, at least from time to time. But we have made passion the norm and then treated it as the highest human good this side of heaven. This myth treats marriage as the one place where the intimacy of union with Christ is supremely enacted in our flesh. (We base this on Ephesians 5 which needs a radical redo on how we have subtly allowed our culture to influence how we interpret this text.) This “totalisation of life” (Brennan’s term) is then passionately taught by well-meaning evangelicals who want to protect marriage from failure. In the process we unwittingly promote an ideal that is simply wrong. This view treats all other relationships as peripheral. One of the great problems with this is that without other friendships, even if they are not cross-gendered friendships, a marriage suffers a kind of unhealthy expectation when this happens. We place all our hope and need in only one other person. We then expect our mate to provide everything that we need emotionally, spiritually and relationally.

Further, this view fails to see that married couples go through various seasons of life and different interpersonal challenges that will never measure up to the mythological dream. Brennan rightly concludes: “Oneness and sexuality have become synonymous” (36). We expect couples to pair off and find total and complete intimacy with each other and with no one else. This expectation can actually cause great harm to marriage. As indicated I believe it puts so much on the other person that it threatens a good marriage.

Evangelical ministers and authors continually talk about  having your “private little castle.” By this deep Christian friendships are discouraged, even with the same sex as in my deep male friendships mentioned above. Through such stories we then baptize the romantic myth and use Christian texts to support it. But if you peal this myth back far enough you will soon discover Freud lurking in the shadows of these ideas. The language of desire was not always associated so closely to sexual intercourse in past ages.

Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan in the fourth century, extols a different idea, one that is prominent throughout the history of the church. “What is a friend, but a partner in love? You unite your innermost being to his, you join so thoroughly with him that your aim is to be no longer two, but one” (38). Admittedly, Ambrose was not writing about cross-gender friendship but modern Christians I know have little or no place for this kind of language or practice in any way other than in marriage. We begin to think about “sex” as soon as we read such a statement.

Brennan rightly asks if the “perfect soulmate” dream of so many Christians is not actually a harm to real love. Marriage cannot carry the weight of this myth day-in and day-out. And in an a culture that has overly sexualized all human emotion and satisfaction we have turned intimacy into the language and practice of sexual union alone. Brennan thus writes: “All intimacy has been primarily eroticized . . . therefore the relationship of ‘one flesh’ is able to enter the wild depths of passionate communion” (42). Sexual formation, in a post-Freudian culture, is primarily about genital sex and the experience of sexual pleasure found in this arena of love. This observation leads Brennan to state his second myth in this way: “One flesh” can satisfy our deepest yearnings for sexuality. Christian history has a troubled history when it comes to dealing with sexuality in a healthy way but one has to seriously wonder if the pendulum has now swung too far in the other way in the modern era.

The last myth that Brennan cites is: “One flesh” can satisfy our yearnings for deep friendship. He rightly argues that since Freud friendship has suffered untold harm because of our association of sex with the meaning of friendship. This leads to an expectation that our spouse becomes everything that we need emotionally and spiritually. All other friendships become unimportant, or they are at least way down the list. In fact, if you have deep friendships outside of your wife or husband, it is seen as the greatest threat to total trust in your mate possible. If you do not have this trust in your marriage, then it cannot survive. Are we, once again, expecting too much of one person?

Quoting my friend Rodney Clapp, Brennan suggests that the most important question to ask after decades of marriage is not “Am I still in love?” The better question is: “Are we stronger, deeper, continuing Christian friends?” After forty years of a very good and solid marriage I could not agree more. My friendship with Anita is deeper and stronger than ever before. And we continue to grow into a deeper and deeper experience of real friendship. No one is a better friend to me. We delight in one another, take comfort from one another and trust one another like never before. God alone gets the glory in this relationship. I believe we have found a mature love, not in the romanticized mythology that much of the church taught us in our early days as a couple, but in moving into something far better and more mature. For me personally I believe that I hurt my wife by often expecting more from her than she could ever give to me. Indeed, I expected of her things that God never promised to me or to her. Sadly, the church fed this expectation.

Dan Brennan dedicates his book to his own best friend, his wife Sheila. Knowing Dan and Sheila I believe this is true of their life and love. They celebrate friendship with others while they deeply share life together as husband and wife. Dan’s book will trouble many Christians. The problem is that too few will understand why it does. It is time for the church to begin a serious conversation about intimacy, friendship and human sexuality. Surely anyone with their eyes open understands the need to correct our false ideas as expressed in these three myths.

I fear this book will create opposition, but not for the right reasons. I found myself conversing with Dan as I read. I kept saying, “I am not sure I would say it that way,” or, “You should be more careful in how you present this application.” At the same time his handling of Scripture, tradition and friendship never failed me, not once. I believe he has spoken a needed prophetic word to the whole church. I hope thoughtful Christian leaders will read him and seriously engage with his thesis. It is time to begin a new conversation about friendship, a conversation that does not run straight to the dangers of temptation and lust that result in a new list of man-made rules. I believe this conversation is needed for many important reasons. One is that it will actually help us curb the very sins that we talk about so much regarding the breakdown of marriage. This may seem counterintuitive but it is right.

Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions ought to be read and talked about by Christians who care about truth and love. I fear it will take years for people to really hear what Dan Brennan is saying but anything this important requires us to at least begin the conversation sooner than later. Let it begin and let it grow!

Tomorrow: Aren’t You Playing with Fire?

The Marriage Pool

The Economist recently reflected on the “skewed sex ratio” that often results in there being more women who desire marriage than available men. The exact opposite problem exists in China where girls are more often aborted. Research shows that most people marry someone of the same race who lives relatively close to them. If this is true then what is happening in the African-American community in America is an incredibly complicated social problem with massive implications.

One in nine black males between 20-29 years of age are behind bars. Add to this men who have been imprisoned and are now free and the number is much higher. Not only are incarcerated men not able to marry but ex-cons rarely make it in marriage either. Removing so many men from the marriage pool thus has enormous implications.

The Economist asks, “Could it be . . .  that mass incarceration is a symptom of increasing social dysfunction, and that it was this social dysfunction that caused marriage to wither?” The magazine says, “Probably not.” One study concludes that a higher male imprisonment has lowered the likelihood that women will marry and thus caused a great shift away from women towards men in marriage.

One obvious response to this social dysfunction lies in the power of the church, especially in the black population centers, to “be the church.” Community will provide real life solutions to such problems. A good starting point for those of us who are white would be to actually get to know our neighbors who may not live next door to us. Sometimes these neighbors live a lot closer to us than we know but we have not cared all that much to find out.

Single Life

Yesterday I referred to the church’s great need to teach celibacy, not simply as a requirement before marriage but as a calling that is given to some because of their unique place in life. I know that many will say, “This is not fair. If others can enjoy sexual experience then why can’t I?” The problem with this response is that it misses the whole point of the kingdom of God and the call of Christ upon our lives.

A friend recently reminded me that almost all of us read the Scriptures with our preconceived notions firmly fixed in our minds. As a result the teaching of Jesus doesn’t shock us since we already have simplistic ready answers to texts that are problematic. When it comes to this issue I can’t think of any text for which this is more true than this one:

Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies will be right in your own household. If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine, or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are nothing worthy of being mine. If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it (Matthew 10:34-39, NLT).

And what about these words?

Jesus asked, “Who is my mother? Who is my brothers?” Then he pointed to his disciples and said, “Look, these are my mother and brothers. Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!” (Matthew 12:48-50).

We can only find ourselves, as followers of Jesus, when we give ourselves up. The moment of our conversion, known or not, signifies the beginning of our vocation under the cross. The moment is to be always distinguished from the moment of our realization of a divine vocation. This second moment refers to the “kairos,” which is a time that brings us into the fulfillment of our unique meaning before God. All our desires, passions and thinking must be disciplined (rightly ordered) under the work of divine grace. To accept Christ’s yoke is to accept discipline. This is the missing call in our day.

The single person has a special responsibility placed upon them for sure but it is not an impossible one. To say that it is would be to say that Jesus places a yoke on us that is too hard to bear. Single Christians must look beyond the cultural counterfeits---careers, commitment-free relationships and the pursuit of selfish desires and comforts---just as married disciples must do the same in a totally different context. They also have to seek healing from the wounds of past relationships, including past sexual relationships. Either God’s grace can bring this healing or it cannot.

I think the great temptation to singles is to “keep all my options open” and to realize that “something better is just around the corner” because God will be good and give it to me. But singles are called to ongoing conversion, through the bright times of day and the dark times of the night. One Catholic thinker writes: “We must consent to what we did not choose.” Singlehood is not generally wanted, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual. But singlehood is possible and can be a state in which great grace is known and lived powerfully. Any other message is not faithful to the teaching of Jesus himself.

The married person, as a matter of practice, puts their spouse first. I tried for some years to believe that I pleased God first and my wife had to adjust. I was wrong. In pleasing her, rightly and biblically, I was pleasing God. But a single person has only God to please. If you are single the next person to cross your path is the person you can put first. If you are married this cannot be true, at least not at all times.

Modern Family

The popular ABC sitcom “Modern Family” recently received several expected Emmy Awards for being the best television show in the business. There is a chicken-and-egg debate about shows like this one. Do they represent culture or do they create culture? Surely it is some of both but I believe it is more the former than the latter.

This popular prime-time show features three decidedly non-traditional families living in a way that anyone from a few decades ago could not remotely recognize as an American family. But if this show represents changes in our society what exactly are those changes?

Consider some facts.

1. 50% of marriages in the United States are still estimated to end in divorce. Yet the divorce rate is slightly down. The reason is that the marriage rate has dropped almost twice as quickly in recent years.

2. A 2005 Rutgers University study found that 8% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners.

3. The same Rutgers study found that only 63% of children in the U.S. grow up with both biological parents.

There can be no mistake about the further erosion of our understanding of family when besides redefining marriage as something other than a lifelong commitment we have radically uncoupled the bearing and educating of children from marriage as well.

Many of my Catholic friends believe that the beginning of this slide was artificial contraception. To some extent I agree. (Study the debates about contraception with an open mind and you will see why I say this without fear of contradiction!). Though I do not hold a Catholic view on this question I respect their view for the reasons generally given. Let me explain.

Some gay activists have argued that artificial contraception has rendered so many heterosexual couples sterile as to entirely remove the idea of procreation from the basis of what constitutes a marriage. And now with the rise of in vitro fertilization we have further undermined the relationship of marriage to procreation. Again, popular culture reflects this in the rash of recent movies on forms of procreation that have nothing at all to do with marriage.

Battling same-sex initiatives will almost surely be ineffective so long as we do not understand marriage biblically. Christians and churches need to rediscover the challenge and glory of self-sacrifice, life-long love as the basis for a covenant between a man and a woman in holy marriage. And this relationship is fundamental to raising healthy, well-balanced and spiritually sensitive children.

The strongest (true) defense of marriage is not found in the politicization of the homosexual debate or in passing laws to defend marriage. Clearly the answer is to build strong, healthy and biblically defined marriages. Let the church major on what it can and should do and let the state sort out the parameters of what it will do. Honestly, we have little choice the longer we remain on this cultural road to nowhere. We are going to have to learn how to live in Babylon whether we like it or not.

How the Church Can Properly Respond to Same-Sex Practice

I have frequently suggested that the church is making huge mistakes in how it addresses the modern same-sex debate. Let me explain, albeit simply, what I mean. I want to articulate several truths that I believe we desperately need if we are to move forward with a compassionate and faithful biblical alternative to accepting everything the culture tells us about sexual practice.

First a few comments of analysis.

1. The church has chosen to primarily fight same-sex thinking and practice through politics. This is a debate that we are bound to lose unless something unforeseen happens. We are sure to lose this battle in the culture and we will likely lose it inside many churches as well, given enough time. “Just say no” will not stop same-sex practice nor will it help serious Christians who do not want to surrender their bodies to unsanctified sexual inclinations.

2. Treating same-sex practice as the ultimate evil can not be supported by Scripture (if properly read and interpreted within the historical context of the church’s faith and practice). Anyone who reads the Bible can plainly see that same-sex practice is only addressed a few times in the New Testament and it is listed alongside other sins that most churches tolerate. So long as we single out this sin as the most hideous of all sins we will lose the battle both in and out of the church.

3. Dividing the church over this issue is unacceptable. I know the arguments. Most of them suggest that this is “the line in the sand” and if we do not stand here we will embrace sodomy in the name of Christ. If we do this then the church is doomed. This logic is not rigorously logical if you have a right view of faith and of a human, flawed and broken church. I personally oppose liberalizing the church’s stance on same-sex marriage and practice. I have said that I oppose same-sex practice in every context where I have served. At the same time I refuse to condemn those who disagree with me. (I can express my response without condemning everyone who disagrees with me.) I have made my understanding clear and I will not violate my conscience in the process but I have not “drawn a line in the sand” and said, “All who cross this line are not Christians and I am leaving you behind.” Sin is far too insidious and complicated for me to make this one sin the test for orthodoxy. Having said this I am well aware of the dangers inherent in approving personal sin and lifestyle choices that will harm the body and soul of all those who practice them.

In short I remain in a church where this debate rages and will do so until I am forced out because of conscience. I would not leave because someone, or some group in the church, “crossed the line.” In every case that I know the most liberal churches still affirm the historic faith while at the same time they teach things that are in error. But so do some of the most conservative churches I know but few are willing to see or admit this problem. If the ancient biblical standards are applied to the modern church in the West we all fall far short of what we ought to be. And who raises the pressing question of how much schism is acceptable when we already have experienced far too much? History tells me schism almost never solves the problems it set out to solve.

A friend who left the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) put this well for me. He said, “We did not leave our church when many of our friends left many years ago. We left when the church completely and finally left us. And we left with tears and a broken heart, following bishops that sought to keep the church faithful to its own confession but failed. Further, we did not leave to protest but rather to plant vibrant, healthy churches.”

So what should be done positively to address this problem of same-sex practice inside the church?

1. We must offer real hope and real healing to those who are trapped in the sin of sexual lust and ungodly practice. We must not just offer this to people in the grip of same-sex attraction but to everyone involved in sexual sin, in both mind and practice. Read that sentence again. This includes just about everyone I know if you follow it carefully.

2. We must not single out any one type of sin, especially because we find it personally offensive. Rather, we must treat all sin as a call for radical grace and true sanctification. We must teach people to be mature disciples and offer them living role models of narrated truth. This means the church must become genuinely inter-generational. It also means we must not create an atmosphere where any sinner would feel repelled by our words and actions because we are intolerant and judgmental.

3. We must recover the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-2. We must teach people, young and old, that God designed a covenant called marriage and marriage is designed for one man and one woman who enter into a great mystery because they desire God’s blessing upon them and their family. The Genesis story has been lost, at least as a defining mega-story. We debate the details of exegesis and miss the epic nature of what is actually going on here. God made us “male and female” (both genders) in his image. He then brought us together in holy covenantal union to become “one flesh.” Only this powerful story will help us recover the holy meaning of true marriage.

4. We must teach the biblical doctrine of celibacy. And we must teach the Pauline ethic found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-20. We must further teach that those who freely give themselves to illicit sexual relations will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5-6). And we must explain the somewhat complicated, but truly relevant, words of 1 Corinthians 7:20-40. This content should be factored into our thinking and teaching as normative Christian teaching. Remaining unmarried is a distinctive kingdom choice that some should make. I celebrate marriage but I feel we have turned it into a human right more than a divine calling. In the process we have given single people little hope unless they can find a sexual partner. Can a person have strong sexual desires, for the same sex or for the opposite sex, and remain free and single? The answer has to be yes or the whole history of the church has been wrong and the Scripture has plainly misled us.

Sadly, most evangelicals do not teach celibacy, except before marriage. They seem to hear this as a “Catholic” dogma. It is nothing of the kind if you search the Scriptures carefully. We are not defined by sexuality and our bodies are meant for so much more than sexual pleasure, even though it is a wonderful gift to the married.

There is a positive way forward in the midst of great chaos and confusion. Will we pursue this way or simply keep fighting the “culture wars”? If we fight these battles it will be to our own loss and only lead to continued ineffectiveness in our distinctly Christian witness to the modern age.

Angelina’s Jolie’s Search for Love

Angelina Jolie’s search for love is both admirable and deeply human. I don’t usually follow the personal lives of Hollywood stars, though I am a fan of many genres of film, but Jolie’s story was featured in the Sunday Parade magazine a few weeks ago and I read it. Like most Hollywood stars she has gone through several husbands and now lives with a famous actor, Brad Pitt, who is not her husband but the father of their six children.

In the story, by Dotson Rader, Jolie says, “I always wanted a great love affair, something that feels big and full, really honest and enough. No moment should feel slight, false, or a little off. For me, it had to be everything.” She admits that finding such in a relationship is tough but adds, “[That] is what we are all looking for, isn’t it? Something authentic.”

I believe she’s right about that last statement. We are all looking for something “authentic.” The problem is with how we understand authenticity. The word authentic, and I think this is the way Jolie is using the term here, means “reliable, genuine, someone who can be trusted.” At age 35, and acclaimed as the world’s most glamorous actress, Jolie seems to have found what she wants, at least so far as she can tell at this moment in her most unusual life.

First, consider her work on behalf of the world’s most needy children. She and Brad Pitt have created a foundation and they have become two of the most widely profiled and generous benefactors for stateless, homeless children in the world. After going through what was a “self-destructive period” (her words) in her life she searched for something more. Finding herself filming in Cambodia she encountered war-torn refugees and was moved by their plight. She contacted the UN and eventually began a series of missions to areas of human catastrophe to help. She says, after seeing her first camp of 400,000 suffering people, “I felt guilty for everything I had. Then I realized I wasn’t doing these people any favors by crying. I kept getting angry at injustices until I couldn’t think straight. I took a deep breath and focused on how I could help. I discovered that I was useful as a person.”

That is a mature response to anger and guilt. I wish more people, of whatever persuasion, would take the same approach. She and Pitt adopted three refugees as children giving them their six kids, three naturally born and three adopted. She seems, from all one can tell, to be a genuinely devoted mother to them all. And she also seems quite satisfied in this role, even more than in her acting roles.

Sadly, she and Pitt remain unmarried but she says they stay together not because of the children or their work but because of their deep love. Jolie, by the way, has a Catholic background and confesses that she went to church recently to light a candle for her mother. She and Pitt are never apart for more than three days and alternate their movies so their lives are not buried in a film at the same time.

When the interviewer/writer suggested that she and Pitt are truly in love she replied, “I feel sad for someone who has never known love. Brad knows me completely, exactly as I am, every part of me. He loves me. The kids love me. They know all my flaws and all my oddities. And they accept them. And so I can feel complete.”

Jolie concludes: “Love? It’s such a funny word. Brad can find certain phrases of poetry for it. I’m terrible at it. But I know it means wanting the best for the people you love, putting their interests above your own, always. Love does that. Love is what you live for.” (You can contrast and compare this with 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and find that her expression actually gets pretty close to Paul’s understanding of love.)

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie seem like credible, wonderful and loving people. I hope their relationship continues for decades to come. I would truly love to see them get married, if nothing else for the statement that their action would make to their children about the permanence and place that marriage has within a loving and devoted family. I would deeply love to see Jolie return to whatever exposure to Christian faith that she once had and come to embrace it with all her heart. I say that not in a condescending way but rather because her story rings with truth. The only thing missing here is being loved by the ultimate lover, the only one lover who will never let her down or ever leave her, the God of covenant love and grace. Her beautiful and searching soul would find real love here, and abiding peace. May Angelina Jolie come to know the Savior who loves her who and then she will fully understand what she deeply longs for in her life.

Before you condemn people like Angelina Jolie, along with all the less compassionate egoists in Hollywood, why not see what makes her such an interesting person for a moment. Then pray for God to show her grace and peace in Christ, the one lover who will love her eternally.

How Does Changing the Law Impact Marriage?

Does changing the law about marriage, to include gay marriage as a legal norm, have any bearing on the culture in general, and one man/one woman marriage in particular? I argued yesterday that it does and I believe many of the advocates of gay marriage admit the same if we bother to listen to them. I gave evidence of these opinions yesterday. Today I want to explore this question with an actual historical illustration that provides clear evidence that changing how the law deals with marriage will have a decided consequence on the strength and longevity of both marriage and the well-being of families.

Consider the changes in divorce laws that allowed for what we call “no fault divorce.” This change did not begin to gather support and then become law until the 1970s. This time period gives us one generation to study what has actually happened. This change not only made it easier, and less costly, to get a divorce but it changed people’s ideas about marriage as an institution. With it came a change in how parents viewed responsibility for their children. These are all what we sometimes call the “unintended consequences” of such a shift.

It is interesting to note where we first saw this major change in divorce. I frequently ask political conservatives if they know which state led the way in giving us no fault divorce? When I tell them it was California they often say, “Well, of course, everything bad begins there.” But when I tell them who promoted it and signed it into law they are stunned to silence. The answer is Governor Ronald W. Reagan!

Make no mistake about this one conclusion: no fault divorce radically altered marriage in America. I will grant that messy divorces and legal battles are gut wrenching and painful but I will not grant that the only way to bring about meaningful reform in divorce law was to pass no fault divorce. There are clear studies showing that spouses tend to invest less in their marriages after we passed no fault divorce. Economists found that spouses in no fault divorce states were 10 percent less likely to put a spouse through college or graduate school and 6 percent less likely to have children together.

And marriage rates and cohabitation rates increased as men and women lost confidence in marriage as an institution over the last thirty-five years. Some 20 percent of children are now born to cohabiting couples. Over 50 percent of these children will see their parents split before they reach adolescence. This is obviously another unintended consequence that has led to major social change with massive implications for our health and economy.

And legal changes do have consequences. If this was not so then why would gay activists want legal marriage when they could simply seek changes in the law that would provide them with equality?

If you read the literature of the gay activists it soon becomes clear that what they want is to radically alter the entire culture, not simply get marriage for gays. When they speak of what Scott James calls  “open relationships” that would “point the way for the survival of the institution” they are talking about redefining marriage in the culture. We have already seen what these legal changes have done to the institution of marriage. If we hope to protect the central legal understanding of monogamy and marriage we had better be wise now. The unintended consequences may be unintended to many of those who advocate this change but any serious reading of the literature reveals that these are consequences whether we like them or not. Studies in European countries that already have same-sex marriage make the same point.

I will say it again. You do not have to argue from a Christian understanding of marriage and family to defend the institution (as we know it) in the wider culture. In fact, appeals to legal norms and cultural benefits should make anyone pause before they add one more measure to a raging fire that will destroy marriage as we’ve known it for centuries. Just read what the advocates are saying and you will see my point is not without support, rooted both in evidence and in the rhetorical debate itself.

Will Same-Sex Marriage Undermine Your Marriage and Family?

Would the legalization of gay marriage affect traditional marriage in America? Note carefully the question I’ve actually posed here. Mine is not a moral question, in and of itself, but a pragmatic and philosophical question. “What would happen to the institution of marriage in our society if we embrace gay marriage?”

It might surprise you to find out that changing the law to place gay marriage on par with heterosexual marriage would actually have a decidedly negative impact on marriage. On what basis do I make this sweeping statement? Well, on the basis that many advocates of gay marriage admit this point openly.

Earlier this year the New York Times ran a piece by reporter Scott James, himself gay, saying that new studies of gay couples in San Francisco show that half of gay partners consent to each other having sex with other people. The Times article went on to say that the prevalence of such relationships could “rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony” by showing straight couples that monogamy does not need to be the “central feature” of marriage. James added that sexually open relationships might “point the way for the survival of the institution.”

I couldn’t make this up even if I wanted to. But this is not all. New York University professor Judith Stacey, testifying before Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act (approved and signed during the Clinton administration), said changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry would help to “supplant the destructive sanctity of the family” and help it assume “varied, creative, and adaptive contours, including small group marriages.” Read that last part again.

Gay activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that homosexuals should “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes bur rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” The truth is out in the open but many are not paying attention from what I can see. Most gay leaders do not want you to raise the question I am asking because the truth will harm their political cause in the wider culture.

To be fair commentator Andrew Sullivan, another gay activist, argues against the conclusion of Times reporter Scott James but admits freely then says gay unions could “help to strengthen and inform” traditional marriages. Some gay advocates want legal marriage because they believe granting it will allow traditional martial norms to impact the gay community to actually embrace fidelity. But such norms are based on an ideal―namely the bonding of a man and a woman who make a commitment to bear and rear children. Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, writing online for Christianity Today (May 10, 2010) adds that “it would be irrational to expect same-sex partners―whose sexual relations bear no risk of procreation―to share the same norms.” Hemingway later concludes: “Whether or not marriage law should change, the fact is that changing it to include same-sex partnerships would teach people that marriage is fundamentally about the emotional union of adults and not primarily about the bodily union of man and wife (let alone children who result from such a union). The norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity would make less sense under such a change.”

So I ask the question again? Does changing the law make a difference about what marriage will actually look like in our society thirty years from now and will this change have real bearing on traditional marriage between one man and one woman? You bet it does and I will show more reasons why tomorrow.

No Greater Love: A Christian Film With a Compelling Story

I am generally more than a little critical of modern Christian films. I have felt the same way about Christian contemporary music for a long time and my basis for this response is not about the rhythm, the beat or the sound. I like almost all kinds of music, much as I like almost all kinds of film. My response has more to do with the inferior quality of much that is presented as “Christian.”

When it comes to film some of this can be directly traced to small budgets and a myriad of other limitations that flow from having a small budget. But this is not entirely true either since a large number of foreign films reveal that a creative (independent) artist can do good film without huge budgets or blockbuster, well-known actors. The major problem, at least for most Christian films, relates to the inferior story lines presented in a sappy, romantic and sentimental form. The second problem is generally seen in the very predictable, formulaic way the Scripture is used to give simplistic answers to life’s truly hard questions. Christian filmmakers have a difficult time using real art, good story-telling and subversive plot to make a truly great film.

When I picked up No Greater Love I was not prepared to resonate with the story as much as I did. Focus on the Family called it, “Inspiring and encouraging.” And Moody Radio said, “Amazing . . . a great film.” While I would not call this “a great film” it is far better than many similar Christian films, some with much bigger budgets and well-known actors. I would call this a film worth seeing and one that will do several valuable things for Christians. First, it will present, in an unusually strong way, a powerful portrayal of divine sovereignty. The story, without giving away anything, begins with a couple in a brutal argument. You soon realize that about ten years have passed and the husband is rearing his son on his own and doing an excellent job of it. As he sorts through some photos in a keepsake box there is a newspaper headline that says: “Local Man’s Wife Still Missing.” Enter the really interesting twist, one rarely seen in a Christian film. The husband/father has a good friendship with a Christian man/friend who is truly interested in him as a person but does not recruit him for Jesus in a typically pressured way. As a result of this bond of real friendship the father allows his son to attend “Kid’s Fest” (VBS) at a local evangelical church. The surprise turn is that he discovers, on graduation night, that his wife is working in this church. She has recovered from a long battle with alcohol and drugs and is now a Christian. I will not give away more of the story here but the point is that divine sovereignty is wonderfully presented in the script. Certain lines in the script underscore this in a wonderful way.

Second, this film will engage you thoughtfully and emotionally about the issue of divorce. More importantly it engages the oft unaddressed issue of what a believer should do in a marriage with an unbeliever. Overall this is handled well though the pastor in the film comes across as “just too happy” and filled with too many simple answers. When he does counsel the wife about what she should do with regard to a legal marriage to her husband (an unbeliever), he has her read 1 Corinthians 7:13 aloud. He then asks her: “What do you think that means?” This was the high point in terms of how he handled her difficulty in personal counsel. (One scene in this sequence was taken out and taking it out shows the producer was working to get this right and thus did improve the end result a great deal.) But there still remains far too much romantic Christianity for my taste. While love is always the right choice, and No Greater Love says this pretty effectively, it still says it in ways that many struggling people I know could not easily relate to as nuanced and human. In the end it feels too much like a “happily ever after” story to be really true. (Of course it could be true but the point is that the story has to convince you better than it does.)

I recognize that films cannot resolve all the tensions of a basic story in 109 minutes (the actual length of No Greater Love) but script writers and producers must allow for more ambiguity and tension in order to tell a moving and powerful story. I think a film like Gran Torino, directed by lead actor Clint Eastwood, is a powerful example. This was not only a great story, filled with biblical and Christian reality throughout, but a far more subversive story in the way the message gets across. This is precisely why non-Christians will watch it and engage with the lead character powerfully, especially if the Christian is there to raise the right, and appropriate, questions. Films like No Greater Love work for conservative Christian audiences, and will likely help some couples make a right choice to save their marriage. But in the end this is a “Christian” film and thus it will not work widely with a broader audience. After watching the features on this DVD I sense that the producer/director understood all of this better than most and thus he aimed at his audience very specifically. In this case he did a far better job of reaching that target than 9 of 10 such Christian films that I’ve seen in the last five years. I would recommend this film to any age group. There is nothing offensive in nature to be questioned.

Your Family and the Greatest Commandment

I recently read a book sent to me by a pastor who serves on the staff of Wheaton Bible Church, which is very near my home. The book, written by Dr. Rob Rienow, is titled Visionary Parenting: Capture a God-sized Vision for Your Family (Nashville: Randall House, 2009). It is a sober and extremely helpful call to parents to make their priorities line up with God’s Word. One of the simplest and most revealing discoveries I made in reading the early pages of Reinow’s fine book is in the words God gave to his covenant people regarding his desire for their allegiance and love.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep the words I am commanding you today in your heart (Deuteronomy 6:4-5).

Everyone who is familiar with this context knows that when Jesus was asked what was the greatest commandment of all he quoted from this part of the law and said the greatest commandment was to love God and the second, which is like it, is to love your neighbor as yourself. But what I had forgotten (we do forget or miss the obvious if we are honest) was the very next verses in Deuteronomy 6. Here is what verse 6-9 say:

Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Reinow rightly says that we are clearly told to teach these commandments to our children in everything we say and do in our families and at all times. His entire book is a simple and helpful handbook on how he has personally sought to put this into practice. It is a practical read and every parent and grandparent could benefit from his insights. He wonders if most of what we do in youth ministry (as an example), and in the institutional church in general, works against this command. So do I. I am quite sure that much of what we do needs to be focused on this very idea we find in Moses. The church does not exist to remove the duty of Christian parents but to help them carry out their responsibilities to the covenant.

At the same time I wonder what part the local church has in actually helping this happen in a positive way. Given my desire for the unity of the church I cannot help but believe that the enemy of Christian unity not only divides families but churches and that these two are intimately related to each other. This is likely why Paul talks about the (so-called nuclear) family in only two places (Ephesians 5:21-6:4 and Colossians 3:18-21) in the New Testament. Jesus generally talks about the family as a hindrance to coming into his kingdom. This might amaze some readers who have taken a different track and turned the family in a way that is opposed to the church and thus made it idolatrous. (I saw this more clearly in India where following Christ often divides families!) Only when the church and the home are truly one (i.e. joined in common purpose and intent) will we overcome this dangerous dichotomy that is actually encouraged by most American churches.