Separation Of Church And Marriage
Although some troubled couples can avoid divorce, this post is written in support of those who can’t.
Strange title, I know, especially coming from a minister but religion and marriage are just as different as church and state and shouldn’t be managed as one.
You can be religiously happy without being married. You can be married happily without being religious. You can be married on one day, with no interest in religion, and become very religious later.
But, it has proven particularly difficult for an excessively religious person to marry only within the strict guidelines of their religion and be happy for a life time. The marriage might last for a life time but the happiness fades. Sometimes the marriage falls apart.
Religion-influenced marriages are more likely to stay together but according to statistics they are also more likely to be unhappy. Religion has added layers of adhesive to the institution’s external side but not much to sustain it on the inside. So religion’s legacy might be stated as: “married unhappily ever after.”
Although religion and religious people have served many good purposes, interfering with marriage is obviously not one of them.
Admittedly, it would be illogical to suggest all non-religious couples are happy. Marriage is easily mangled, religion or not. And it is also true that happiness in any marriage will never be absolute. It isn’t easy to get it right.
The problems that cause breakups don’t mysteriously appear all of a sudden decades after the wedding. They lurk quietly in the background from the start and over time grow intolerably huge if not managed well.
Kind of like warts. Small at first, growing over time and eventually getting painfully in the way. And we all have them.
However, my focus is not the problems that cause break ups but religion because religion tends to be dismissive toward such problems which in turn adds another dimension of difficulty to married life. Instead of admitting up front that relationship problems can be deal killers the focus is limited. Only the permanence of marriage is addressed and the possibility of a break up is treated as if it could never happen. Head-in-sand stuff.
Like snake oil pedaled by traveling salesmen, marriage is presented as a fairytale elixir to all relationship dreams and wishes in this life with implications for the next.
What religion fails to acknowledge are the problems induced by marriage that arise only after the ceremony, maybe years after, and even when the problems can’t be ignored they are never allowed to trump the vows.
Psychologists tell us that divorce is one of the most traumatic human experiences. It rates right up there with the death of a loved one or the loss of a limb. And, again, religious conservatives use this information to support the theory that divorce should never happen.
But is this trauma caused only by the divorce? Shouldn’t religion be blamed for part of the problem since they historically have proven unable to accept this unhappy experience and therefore haven’t been there for people when it happens?
Shouldn’t we also attribute part of the trauma to the culturally negative attitudes, encouraged by religion, that leave divorced couples stigmatized?
Knowing that religion and culture are against you before you start makes it stressful just thinking about a divorce never mind getting one.
Society is much more accepting today and divorce numbers have increased but maybe the 1 in 2 divorce rate isn’t a sign of more marriages going wrong but an indication that people are taking advantage of a more forgiving culture to correct poor marriage choices.
In the past more people stayed in their marriages but were they happy? Were they really committed to each other or just afraid of public responses toward divorce? Maybe it was less painful to stay in a difficult marriage than to dissolve it and in that light the 1 in 2 rate may be better than we thought.
If speculations about behind the scenes morality during the Victorian Age are even partly true it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that the number of extramarital affairs were indirectly proportional to the number of divorces.
And looking around today you find that some of the strongest and happiest couples are second marriages. Go figure!
Religious leaders aren’t bad people and they aren’t saying evil things. The problem is they paint only half the picture. I think marriages would have a better chance of lasting if couples were told up front that marriage can be very hard to get right. It isn’t always easy to find the right partner in the first place and even when the partnership fits well you can’t know ahead of time how each person will react to the ups and downs of family life or to each other when things go south.
For these reasons it would do us well to consider some of the fail-points in the religious approach to marriage. And maybe consider removing all the add-ons religion has imposed on the wedding and the relationship. Read more
Contemplating Marriage? Answer These Questions!
An outline of the following post was used in a wedding ceremony I performed recently.
Unfortunately, there are no perfect couples. Some couples may be perfect for each other but because couples are only inhabited by imperfect people they can never be absolutely perfect.
What that means is…
Quietly lurking in the background at every wedding are the faults that each person brings to the union. We all have them.
Couples aren’t too bothered by them before they marry because they are too in love to notice. People attending the wedding don’t pay much attention to them because they are focused on how handsome the couple looks and all the reasons they make such a great pair.
But over time the balance changes.
Once we move away from the altar and settle into a routine the things each partner loves about the other get taken for granted and irritations are felt.
It isn’t serious initially. First offenses usually register as nothing more bothersome than a drop of rain.
But if the couple doesn’t learn to process those drops effectively they mount up.
One drop a day over two weeks isn’t serious.
One drop a day over 30 years adds up to more than 10,000 drops, approximately 500 kilograms. That is a lot of “heavy” for one relationship to bear.
Because of that, every couple contemplating marriage should ask two questions. Read more
Parental “Voice of Authority” – John Rosemond
The following links access the most competitive prices. Using them helps defray expenses for this website.
Chapter Review – “Voice of Authority”
Concerning authority John Rosemond takes a very balanced and practical approach to a sticky topic, obedience, and he says plainly:
“Be not deceived children show respect for parents by obeying them. Parents show respect for children by expecting them to obey.”
The object of parental authority, of course, is not to take control of a child’s life. The eventual aim is to enable him or her to live independently of ours but they will develop the skill to do that only if parents gently but firmly limit their choices long enough for them to develop a sense and taste for good habits.
But, you must remember that, first and foremost, children are human beings and humans are by nature:
- Rebellious and
- Flawed
The Bible actually teaches that all of us have a “sin” nature.
“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
Not some of us. Not the worst of us and not just those who reach a certain age.
Even our children, as precious, sweet and cute as they are, have a sin nature so when it comes to authority they will resist. Some quietly, some loudly but all definitely.
Probably one of the most common ways they resist is by asking “why” when we make rules or give instruction.
Disclaimer: Asking “why” isn’t always motivated by rebellion. It is natural for children to want to learn and they certainly have a lot to learn but it would be presumptuous to assume that every “why” expresses only a sincere desire to learn the subtleties of life.
John says he has a two part rule governing how he responds to “why” questions:
One: Until a child is mature enough to understand a certain explanation, no amount of words will successfully convey that understanding.
In that case, it is in the child’s best interest for the parent to say “Because I said so” or words to that same effect.
Part Two: When a child is old enough to understand the explanation, he’s old enough to figure it out on his own.”
Part two of John’s answer actually touches on a truth that is often overlooked:
Wisdom is much easier to “see” than it is to apply.
Anyone can see that a well thought-out budget is the best way to protect yourself financially but the constant stream of bankrupted lives is proof that simple wisdom is easily trumped by materialistic desires.
But, aside from that, the truth is children don’t like to obey authority and adults don’t exercise it very well because both are rebellious and flawed. One needs to be under authority and the other needs to exercise it and neither are comfortable with that.
Both tend to get a bit emotional. Children feel repressed when authority figures curb their actions. Adults waste emotional energy feeling guilty for asserting their authority. Adults know they should do something but are uncertain about what to do and feel as if they are forcing the issue in some cases.
That is one reason John says the problem with obedience has less to do with the children and more to do with parents.
Parents who don’t want their child to “feel” bad are in trouble. The “right thing” to do in any given situation is not always the thing that “feels good.”
That is why parents must learn the art of exercising authority. Obedience is to be commanded not wished for. Therefore, a good understanding of “Command Authority” is needed. Read more
The New Six Point Plan For Raising Children by John Rosemond
The following links access the most competitive prices. Using them helps defray expenses for this website.
The New Six-Point Plan for Raising Happy, Healthy Children
Although John is a qualified psychologist who specializes in working with parents, children and families, much of his insight comes from raising his own children, Eric and Amy. Though his ideas are not fashionable, they aren’t new and he argues his points powerfully and illustrates them generously with anecdotal material from his experiences as a parent and a psychologist. You won’t find a more thoughtful and clear presentation of practical ideas for raising children.
He introduces the book with strong arguments for changing the way we approach parenting and then suggests six basic ideas to relieve parenting pressure and help each of us be more effective:
- His forward Read This First argues that “the ultimate purpose of parenting is to help children out of our lives.” That idea alone is worth its weight in gold but is usually hidden behind all sorts of other sentimental child raising ideas and rarely gets a mention.
- The Parent-Centered Family in which he argues that constantly lavishing attention on our children is like giving them far too much food.
- The Voice of Authority suggests that children can and should obey their parents and he makes it clear that “asserting authority” does not qualify as “abuse.”
- The Roots of Responsibility suggests that children only learn from their failures – which are inevitable – if parents don’t protect them from the consequences.
- The Fruits of Frustration makes it clear that it is OK to say “no” to our children instead of meeting their every whim. Frustration is a normal part of every life and leads to desirable outcomes when managed well.
- Toys and Play points out that an overabundance of toys often leads to “boredom” in our young. “Play” should be the outcome of imagination. It comes from the inside and is not induced by external input.
- Television and Children argues that the amount of time a child watches TV – excessive according to surveys – is just as damaging as the themes we try to avoid.
Every chapter ends with a series of questions related to the chapter theme and answered by John. The book also has a closing and ends with Rosemond’s Bill of Rights for Children.
The book is clearly written, well argued philosophically, substantiated by science and includes plain old practical everyday wisdom which many psychologists have buried beneath new age ideas and clouded with semantics. Read more
Divorce Help For Women
Generally, people have no idea what a divorce involves.
They focus mostly on the “right and wrong” of getting a divorce and a large number opt to oppose the idea for any reason. It is generally not well accepted, especially in religious circles, so the practicalities of getting a divorce are usually ignored.
While some divorces can be avoided and we applaud couples who manage to stay together, not every marriage can be saved. And, if that is true then we should put as much time into helping people get through a divorce effectively as we do helping them to avoid it. Little, however, is offered in that regard.
Often friends, associates and even family continue to express regret over the breakup, after the fact, which only feeds the pain and does little to help the struggling party get on with life.
It is no wonder that divorce is one of the most traumatic experiences a person can go through. Not only are they dissolving one of the closest relationships in life, they are left hanging with very few understanding friends who are willing or able to meet their emotional needs or provide guidance. That is tantamount to losing support from every direction.
But that is where Tracy Scorzafava’s book comes in handy.
In DIVORCE 101: A WOMAN’S GUIDE TO DIVORCE
Tim Pepper - Beautiful Frustration