Marriage :: The Covenant Sustains the Love

Today I'm reading Scripture in my sister's wedding.  I am glad to welcome Byron Dunn, Jr. to my family, and I wish he and my sister Nellie long life, God's blessing, and great happiness.

The video below is a brief conversation between Tim Keller, John Piper, and D.A. Carson regarding the nature of covenant marriage.  I found it encouraging.  Take a look.

Piper, Carson, and Keller on Sustaining the Covenant of Marital Love from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

What is Marriage?

New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

I've been tracking the news surrounding the California debate of Proposition 8 all along, and Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that the measure is unconstitutional has led observers to declare that this one is likely headed for the United States Supreme Court.  An immediate stay was ordered on the ruling, and in the days and weeks to come it will be decided if that decision will hold until an appeal is heard by the 9th Circuit Court.  Following this case has taught me a bit about due process, though I do not claim by any measure to have legal expertise, and I have also learned about the nature of public political discourse.

I am not as much concerned about whether or not gay and lesbian couples should be legally allowed to wed.  I believe the law does enshrine a "morality," my theological position on homosexuality would likely be categorized by my conversation partners as "conservative," and I do believe that there is value in the idea that the voter's should have a voice and a vote in what constitutes law.  I'm deeply disturbed, however, that one thing that appears to be missing in this debate is a sound definition of "marriage."  Marriage is more than "Man + Woman," as the popular protest placard claims.  It is also more than "a union between two people who love each other," as The Onion lampoons so well.  Marriage is a civil institution that the state has an incentive to uphold and preserve.  This does not put aside the question of whether or not the state's interest in marriage is equivalent to the church's interest in marriage.  In fact, it intensifies the question.  Does the church have a vested interest in defining and preserving marriage beyond the prohibition of certain bodily acts between same gendered persons or the fulfillment of a "love" relationship between two persons who have chosen one another in the "marketplace" of long term commitment?  And does what the church has to offer conflict or challenge the interests of the state?

My answer, of course, is firstly, yes, and secondly, it should.  The church has a calling to offer a robust understanding of what it means to be married that reaches beyond allowed or prohibited sexual acts.  The church also has a calling to produce people who challenge the practices of the state where they need to be challenged--such as in the consumer marketplace of love, which mirrors closely our world of commerce.  The case could be made that our cultural narratives (including our ecclesial life) are driven more so by the narratives of consumerism and capitalism than by the Story of God.  But like the fish, who in the environment of water does not notice its presence until it becomes polluted or withdrawn, we swim in waters of which we rarely carefully take an account.  The movement to enshrine "gay marriage" as a civil right didn't begin a few days or weeks ago.  We've been swimming in that water for some time.  And if there is going to be a change in tide, it won't happen overnight.

I don't have all the answers on the question of "gay marriage."  I also do not have all the answers as to how the church should define "love" and "marriage" moving forward, aside from saying that we need to take a long look backward.  But I am convinced that the public debate of this issue is driven in many instances by surface analysis and sentimentalities.  The church, if it is to leave any significant mark on the public debate of this issue, will have to offer a stronger intellectual and moral case (not to mention theological) for the preservation of the "traditional" understanding of what constitutes marriage.  And the making of this case begins within its own ecclesial life, and the formation of a people who offer a robust social alternative that isn't afraid to engage the world and place that alternative on offer.

Regnerus & "The Case for Early Marriage" :: Read it!

They've done it.  Christianity Today has opened a compelling discussion with their August cover story.  When you pick up the magazine, you see a young, married couple riding down the road on their bicycle, accompanied by the headline, "The Case for Early Marriage: Settling Down Sooner Than Later Has Never Made More Sense. Here's Why."  That is what I call a hook.

The title alone is enough to draw the reader's attention.  The man fueling the conversation is Dr. Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas, who published his book, Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, back in 2007.  His CT article has been much discussed, and it is a worthwhile read.  Regnerus was published on the same topic back in April in the Washington Post (an op-ed which Regnerus reports was negatively received).  Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote about the CT article here.  The AP's Eric Gorski has written a recap that has been picked up by a number of major media outlets, including The Chicago Tribune.

Regnerus begins by recounting the problem with current evangelical and Christian discourse on marriage.  There is none.  We do not explain our theology of marriage.  We do not encourage marriage.  In fact, we delay marriage.  We put it off.  And therein he finds the problem.  Any discourse we have had on marriage, according to Regnerus, has been far overshadowed by our obsession with proclaiming abstinence.  Regnerus believes that the abstinence message is important and critical for Christian proclamation.  But as a sociologist, Regnerus has found that over 90 percent of American adults experience sexual intercourse before marrying, and 80 percent of unmarried, churchgoing, conservative Protestants who are currently dating are having sex of some sort.  He believes intensifying the abstinence message won't work.  Instead, we need to encourage people to get married.

From here, Regnerus reviews the standard sociological data.  Marriage is being delayed, despite its benefits for child rearing, wage-earning, and longevity of relationships.  Marriage is under extreme duress, noting that fewer than half of American households today are made up of married couples.  Average age at which people are married is up, even among evangelicals.  And all of this waiting creates a sexually stressed environment for adolescents and young adults.   Regnerus has reviewed that data and finds it undeniable that we are "battling our Creator's reproductive designs."  He wants people to get hitched.  And he knows that the current demographics in the evangelical world make this tough, as there are far more women committed to the faith than there are young men.  This leads Regnerus to observe that men, therefore, can be more patient in marrying.  If they are Christian, they can take their pick of leading ladies.  The ideal woman will come along, and while these men wait around, they delay growing up.  Regnerus notes that sociological data reflects that workplace performance for men 25-34 years-old has fallen 20 percent since 1971, partly as a reflection of prolonging adolescence.  I know enough guys addicted to video games to intuitively know this is right.

Regnerus confronts objections to early marriage head on, including: (1) economic insecurity; (2) immaturity; (3) a poor match; (4) marrying for sex; and (5) unrealistic expectations.  You'll have to read his argument to find out how he responds to these challenges. Regnerus believes each of these objections can be met, and that marriage itself can be reclaimed by Christian people as a formative institution, rather than as an institution one enters when they are already fully formed.  Regnerus believes that marriage itself has important theological significance for Christian witness, and thus is a place wherein men and women can tell of the depth of God's covenantal faithfulness to his people.  This theological witness has important significance in a culture where the meaning of marriage is being lost.

With Regnerus, I have had suspicions that marriage has somehow been lost within Christian discourse.  When I do hear it spoken of, it is often captured in terms of the myths of romanticism that dominate our culture.  We speak of "falling in love," and that is followed by a quick movement toward tying the knot.  Marriage is then affirmed as an agreement between two autonomous individuals to support one another while remaining autonomous individuals.  Even when we speak of covenant and lifelong commitment, it seems that the type of commitment that is being made has more to do with the two individuals than the witness and life of the church.  In other words, our discourse on marriage has little to do with our unique politics as the church.  And it is that type of discourse that I believe Regnerus hints toward, but does not explore fully.  And it is that type of discourse, how marriage fits into our polity as God's people that I believe must be addressed.

Read the article.  Reflect on it.  And if you see people who are committed, moral, mature, and who display faith and fidelity, encourage them to get hitched.