“Is Marriage Obsolete?” is a question being asked by many young people in their 20s and 30s. In fact, Susan Pease Gadoua (a therapist) and Vicki Larson (a journalist) have co-authored a book titled, “The New ‘I Do’: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels,” which was published on September 23, 2014 and discussed in the Orlando Sentinel on October 15th. Of course, the answer to the question is: “No.” God created mankind and knows more about what is best for us than we do. As long as He lets His world stand, marriage will be as crucial as it was when only two people inhabited the earth.
Statistics
In order to be aware of what many are currently thinking, the claims of the article will be examined. It begins with an analysis of the 2012 census data by Pew Research Center (all information from the Sentinel appeared on D1).
1960 – 1 in 10 adults (over 25) had never married.
2012 – 1 in 5 adults (over 25) had never married.
This certainly seems to be an indication of a trend. The second set of figures below may not be as significant since there is only a two-year difference.
2010 – 61% of those never married eventually want to.
2012 – 53% of those never married eventually want to.
Analysis
Gadoua estimates: “I think we’ve reached a tipping point where people are asking whether marriage works for them.” Have we? Or are more and more young people being raised without being taught the Bible? All of the factors cited for changing views certainly indicate there is a lack of respect for God. Gadoua continues:
Analysts cite such factors as the rising median age for first marriages, an increased acceptance of cohabitation, and difficult economic times for the increase in singles. But our views on marriage are changing too.
Why are young people getting married at a later age? Are they just being careful? Or is it that they are committing fornication while living together (or apart)? The increase in cohabitation explains why marriage is a later development. Many young people now consider this an intermediate step between dating and marriage. It may last as little as a few months or as long as several years so that it falls under the definition of what once was referred to as common law marriage. (In Florida, such marriages no longer exist, unless begun prior to 1968 or the couple moved here from one of three other states.) Difficult economic times have seldom kept young couples from getting married.
So the key to the situation is not the changing laws toward marriage but the changing attitudes toward fornication. Many youths have never been taught that living together is not a viable option so far as our Creator is concerned. Young couples should learn to take seriously Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” This is every bit as valid and binding under the new covenant as, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” was under the Old (Ex. 20:14). The meaning is simple: Sex outside of marriage is wrong, and God will judge people for committing this sin. No one is entitled to sexual privileges with anyone but a spouse. Perhaps some are viewing marriage differently, but they are primarily treating fornication differently. Oddly enough, the co-author never gives any indication that anything is wrong with fornication. Yet it occurs in just about every major list of sins (Matt. 15:19; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; 2 Peter 2:18; and Rev. 21:8).
Attitude Toward Sin
More statistics are presented, and then a blasé attitude is expressed toward these matters.
66% of adults (from 18 to 29) say that society is just fine prioritizing other pursuits (than intact marriages and families).
53% of adults (from 30 to 49) say that society is just fine prioritizing other pursuits.
41% of first marriages fail (60% of second marriages).
The writer of the newspaper article, which is titled, “An ‘I Do’ Do-Over for the 21st Century,” discusses the book after listing those statistics. She concludes that marriage is embattled and then comments thus:
A pessimist could read the data as proof that the whole enterprise is losing its relevance.
An optimist, though, could read it as an opening for a bold reinvention. After all, if marriage isn’t responsible for improving society, the institution is freed up to accomplish a more individual, deeply-felt goal: namely, improving the lives of the people who enter it.
What kind of gobbledegook is this? How about if we take the realist’s approach?
- Marriage is not losing its relevance among those who love God.
- People have periodically rejected God and His laws in the history of the world—always to their own harm. The time period of Noah comes to mind, as well as the era of Sodom. Even among God’s people, both the northern and southern kingdoms were taken captive due to the lack of submission to God’s commandments.
- Marriage does not need to be reinvented; it needs to be respected and honored as the special relationship into which a man and a woman enter.
- Marriage does not improve society when people enter into it lightly and unadvisedly. Many think that matrimony comes replete with loopholes that will allow a person to leave it if it doesn’t “suit” them. In other words, they do not view it as a permanent relationship, which is the way God designed it. When God’s intent is followed, it is good for society.
- Marriage isn’t “freed up” as though man had invented it and therefore could alter it. It remains God’s institution and is not subject to being re-designed.
- Those who enter into marriage should always anticipate improving a mate’s life. Most problems result from thinking about what a person can “get out” of the relationship rather than what can be contributed to it. Selfishness is recipe for failure.
Creative Marriages
The rationale for having a different goal for marriage (than what God designed) is foolish indeed. The writer of the newspaper article, Heidi, says that marriage is no longer necessary for childbearing, economic survival, or social acceptance, which is mere flummery. Yes, people can have children out of wedlock; that’s been established, but unless the mother has a comfortable salary or a wealthy family, there is a matter of having sufficient funds to raise that child. Has Heidi never looked at the statistics of the chance of success for those born out of wedlock—especially when the father refuses to take responsibility? As for social accep-tance, it is irrelevant—and it doesn’t pay bills, either.
Heidi writes that couples who marry “can approach their union as a relationship designed to, above all else, foster a happier, healthier life.” This sentiment is not based on reality; it is simply hifalutin codswollop.
Gadoua, one of the book’s co-authors, shows how lifted up with pride she is when she states:
If people can create a more personalized marriage that works for them, if they can bend some rules and make marriage more flexible, it will continue to be an appealing prospect.
What does more personalized mean? Marriage is the most personal and intimate relationship there is. How can it be more so? Bending rules? Whose rules? God’s, who gave marriage to us in the first place? How does one make marriage more flexible? Fortunately (or unfortunately), the reader does not have to wonder about ways to individualize their marriage contracts. According to the authors, people are already doing so by engaging in the following types of marriages, with a brief description of each:
Blended Families – These are not necessarily wrong and can actually be quite stable and nurturing—if they are formed for the proper reasons, such as the death of a spouse or one whose mate committed adultery. However, some blended families are formed with two individuals who are not authorized to be married again.
Commuter Marriages – The husband and wife may live in separate cities due to career-related opportunities. These are not inherently wrong; neither might they be ideal—especially if one or both of them are tempted by someone living in the same area and/or working in the same office.
Serial Monogamy – Most of us are familiar with this one, which has been around for decades. A person, perhaps for a Scriptural reason (or perhaps not), has several wives, although only one at a time (unlike polygamy). As indicated, however, the cause for the divorce could be for personal reasons, such as a spouse being abused or fearful of an unstable mate. Many who have one wife at a time do not have the only Scriptural reason Jesus gave for divorce—adultery. They just move on when they feel like it.
Covenant Marriages – This new term is an interesting one. It allegedly puts “extra legal hurdles in place to prevent either party from filing for divorce.” We used to call that being committed to one’s marriage. Both a husband and a wife enter into matrimony with the idea that they will honor their marriage vows—to forsake all others and be faithful to one’s spouse. If both parties have that attitude, legal hurdles are not necessary, and if one of them commits adultery, legal hurdles should not be in the way.
Open Marriages – This concept has been around at least since the 70s, and they are not actually marriages at all except in name only. They allow for “extramarital romps,” meaning that adultery on both sides is accept-able, provided that “passion, freedom, and self-expres-sion are more important…than physical exclusivity.” Could we have a translation of this eight-syllable, two word phrase? It means that a husband and wife can cheat on each other at will and as often as they want if passion means more than faithfulness. In other words, they are more fond of sex than they are each other—in which case why bother with marriage in the first place? This kind of arrangement is absurd (and geared toward failure), but it certainly could be termed flexible.
More Foolishness
Below are a few more statements that spring from a man (or a woman) who think he or she knows more than God.
Gadoua: Marriage is a living being that needs to be negotiated and renegotiated all the time.
Eli Finkel (professor of psychology at Northwestern): Marriage has always been a social construct that has changed through the course of human history, and it continues to evolve.
[We have begun to view marriage as a] voyage of self-discovery. It’s about taking the time and exerting the effort to understand and discover what your partner is trying to achieve in life—and what you’re trying to achieve in life—to help each other find the best versions of yourself. These things are a lot more difficult to achieve than what we’ve traditionally asked of marriage, but they’re exponentially more fulfilling.
Larson (co-author of the book): The message we so often get is, “Work harder, work harder, work harder.” But some couples are trying something really different, and I think that’s brave. Why not reinvent marriage?”
The reason man does not have the right to reinvent marriage is that he did not invent it in the first place. If marriage had arisen with human beings, then we could nullify it and say it just doesn’t work, or we could modify and change it into something different from the original specifications, as some are trying to do today. Over the centuries some evolved marriage into one man having several wives (polygamy). Today some have attempted to redefine marriage as between two (or more) men or women (throuples). Besides these efforts, there is a situation in which the members of a particular group (consisting of 2, 3, or 4 couples) engage in sex solely within said group. This is called polyfidelity. The term originated in the Kerista Village commune in San Francisco (where else?) back in the 70s.
All of these situations violate God’s plan for one man and one woman. They are unequivocally wrong! God never authorized mankind (whom He created in His own image) to behave in all the perverted ways described above—or in any other ways (not yet thought of) that were not mentioned above.
Finkel’s suggestions about self-discovery and helping each other are nothing new. These have been advocated as part of marriage enrichment programs and in marital counseling for decades. Marriages are not suddenly exponentially better because he thought of some of these things, also. Applying Christian principles to marriage has always improved a relationship.
The Main Problem
One underlying problem stands out in all of the comments from this column on the just-released book of Gadoua and Larson. The problem is not with marriage as defined by and designed by God. After 4,000 years of being in effect, if it needed to be improved, God would have added some new ideas when He gave us the new covenant, but He left it untouched because it works when a man and a woman make it work.
The problem is a man’s or a woman’s lust of the flesh, their lust of the eyes (covetousness), and their pride of life (I deserve this). We have seen romances and situations on television and in the movies where two people “fall in love” even though they are married to others. Occasionally, a pregnancy will result, but no one ever gets an STD—and in the end everything works out all right—BECAUSE IT’S FICTION!
In real life, friends are embarrassed and don’t know how to act when the sin becomes known. Children are harmed; mates are devastated, and family members are often asked to choose sides (either explicitly or implicitly). The root of the problem was selfishness—craving that to which one was not entitled.
It begins in the heart (Matt. 5:27-28)—a heart that chooses to be impure and corrupt. The idea comes to fruition when one heart finds another one that is equally open to the allurements the devil has to offer. “I want this for me—no matter what it costs or who it harms,” one resolves to himself. The fault lies not in marriage or in the stars, but in ourselves.