Thread: Evangelical marriage Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025977
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on
:
Forgive me if this is the wrong Board. Also, forgive me if this is theologically illiterate or just immature.
I have for a long time envied those who enjoy a Christian marriage in its envangelical format (the only type which I have heard enough about).
I know envy is a sin. Its not envying any particular marriage or spouse, just the concept.
But what I'd like to know is: is it just a concept or does it really exist in more than a tiny minority of evangelical couples?
What I mean is that you marry young to a like-minded evangelical believer. Both parties are virgins on marriage but nevertheless develop a wholly satisfying physical relationship. Both demonstrate humility and Christian self-sacrificial love towards the other as they grow in Christian discipleship. There is no I fidelity or lack of trust. In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly. Health and financial and other challenges are overcome by spousal praying together. The marriage endures until death does them part.
That is wonderful but does it exist today, or has it ever existed? Life is messy and always has been. Wars, famines, child deaths, illness, early death, infidelity, selfishness, financial hardships, want, ignorance etc etc. Even if a young evangelical sets out to "make the choice" of a godly marriage, there is no certainty of achieving it. Everything depends on finding a suitable partner of steadfast faith who won't stray and is in it for the long haul.
I wonder if those Christians who are married are prone to comparing their own relationships against this ideal, and finding them wanting. Is this a discouragement from making the best of what you have?
Apologies if this has all been discussed before.
[ 06. August 2013, 11:12: Message edited by: would love to belong ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
It's bollocks IME but YMMV...
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
In my opinion two broken humans who love God may join together to become one, and have a beautiful marriage, but it will be a broken marriage too, because nothing besides God is perfect. They may be very happy, of course. (And some people with perfect-seeming lives also are just uncomplaining.)
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I think it's incredibly rare. And of course the reason many young evangelicals struggle in marriage is that they've been sold this ideal version, so when they have marital problems, they feel like failures.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
It's one thing to have an ideal.
Living up to that ideal is quite another thing.
We don't don't lower the bar because the standard is high.
But we shouldn't pretend things are better than they really are, or that we have achieved a degree of sanctification that we haven't.
Oh, and finally. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that aiming for such a high standard will lead to instant happiness and an easy life. It won't and it doesn't.
Posted by Ged (# 16049) on
:
Please forgive any "ooh look at me" that might inadvertently come across in what I've said below - I'm just giving you a straight answer.
I think most of your "What I mean..." paragraph describes my marriage, as well as the marriages of my parents, uncle and aunt, and several friends. Caveats, in our case:
1. Children happy etc. but too young to fully satisfy your description.
2. Health and financial challenges mercifully limited so far (8 years).
3. I don't think either of us would claim to be doing very well at the growing together in Christian discipleship. We are too knackered all the time (kids are 5, 2 and 7 weeks). But we are faithful members of a living low Anglican congregation.
4. I don't know if we were young within your meaning, but at 23 and 25 we were the youngest among our peers.
This was what I was drawn to (after some low-level teenage messing about) following the example and encouragement of my parents.
I acknowledge that many strong Christian marriages (in our own church and more generally) are second marriages, and many Christian first marriages break down. Still, I think that the proportion of couples satisfying most of your criteria would be much higher than a tiny minority.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
would live to belong posted
quote:
What I mean is that you marry young to a like-minded evangelical believer. Both parties are virgins on marriage but nevertheless develop a wholly satisfying physical relationship. Both demonstrate humility and Christian self-sacrificial love towards the other as they grow in Christian discipleship. There is no I fidelity or lack of trust. In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly. Health and financial and other challenges are overcome by spousal praying together. The marriage endures until death does them part.
I think this is almost entirely a myth. The big danger i see here and i think i experienced it in part, with that kind of model you carry around a VERY unrealistic expectation of what being married is going to be like - and those false expectations can bring a lot of pain to the relationship later on.
The 'health,financial and other challenges' - particularly if you have been primed to not expect them, can make or break the relationship. So the more grounded you are the better.
Having said that - no Marriage Preparation Course in this country would tell you its going to be like that. However i imagine in the States it could be different.
quote:
In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly.
What planet are you on?
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
For richer or poorer
In sickness and in health
And as for Christian self-sacrificial love: That only really comes into play when the other half is being an inconsiderate, selfish git and does not respond likewise.
So to paraphrase what you said "life is totally FUBAR." Things go wrong but God redeems.
Good marriages require more grace than sex.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
I've a classic "evangelical marriage" - my wife and I met through the Christian Union at university, got married shortly after, both saved sex for marriage. Four years in, it's been good but far from problem-free.
I don't know where the expectation of a problem-free evangelical marriage is coming from - it's certainly not one an expectation that we had or were given. We knew going in that we live in a fallen, broken world, and that affects everything, including marriage. We knew we'd need to work at it. We didn't expect to have a perfectly satisfying physical relationship straight off - it would take time.
That said, married life has been a lot tougher than we expected in many ways. I don't think our churches and fellow evangelical Christians idealise marriage, but I don't think that we were as well prepared or supported in the challenges of marrying young as we could have been.
But for all its problems, there are lots of blessings. We are completely committed to each other and trust each other, so that's made facing the difficulties we've had that much more bearable without having any insecurity about whether the marriage will last to worry about.
We pray together, and that's really good - that doesn't result in God removing all our problems, but does help us to stay close to each other and to God through our problems.
We each have our ups and downs in our Christian life and discipleship, but we do support one another and marriage has certainly been a big training programme in unselfishness for each of us.
All marriages have their problems and difficulties. But I believe that marriage "till death us do part", with sex kept for the marriage relationship, and with both partners following God, is the best context for facing life's problems within a relationship. "Evangelical" marriages have some problems and difficulties that other marriages don't have, of course, but I'd rather have these problems than the problems that come from doing it other ways.
In short, in my experience, "evangelical" marriage is good but no fairy-tale. No-one has the fairy-tale, but I think there are lots of solid evangelical marriages with their normal share of difficulties and joys.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
What I mean is that you marry young to a like-minded evangelical believer. Both parties are virgins on marriage but nevertheless develop a wholly satisfying physical relationship. Both demonstrate humility and Christian self-sacrificial love towards the other as they grow in Christian discipleship. There is no I fidelity or lack of trust. In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly. Health and financial and other challenges are overcome by spousal praying together. The marriage endures until death does them part.
When me and Mrs Hawk were doing our marraige prep we did it with a lovely evangelical couple who seemed to exhibit such wonderful traits as you describe. There are others in my church as well we have got to know who also exhibit this. Yet what we discovered on speaking to our marriage-prep friends was that this didn't just happen automatically. And it isn't always the case every day. When they first got married there were some significant problems that needed to be worked through that drove one or the other of them to tears. And these were just the ones they chose to share with us. I am sure their marriage isn't always 100% bliss even now, with other issues arising that need to be worked through, both with their own relationship, and with that of their two lovely young children.
I don't accept that your description is an unatainable myth, or an impossibly high ideal. Of course maintaining such an ideal at full throttle 24/7 is impossible, but in general it should be true of every marraige IMO. But it is one that only comes through hard work, humility, good communication, and putting God at the centre of your life. And even then not every day matches the ideal. Somedays one spouse gets tired and ratty and doesn't display due Christian self-sacrifical love and they get on their spouse's nerves. Another day their child may bully their younger sibling. A good marriage is built day by day, it doesn't appear on one's wedding day already complete.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Of Ronald Reagan it was said:" Born again, and married again."
" Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
As a Roman Catholic, my understanding is that the model for marriage is the marriage between Christ and his Church. That marriage has been flawed - marked by betrayal and constant need for reconciliation - throughout the ages, right from the start. It is, therefore, a very good model for a Catholic Christian marriage.
The interesting thing about the OP-er's model for marriage is that it *doesn't* seem to feature betrayal, and therefore doesn't seem to feature mercy and reconciliation either. That wouldn't work for me. But each to their own.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
I get a little bit annoyed by this idealization of marriage that I see in (primarily) evangelical circles. Particularly the part where it's expected that every single person will find their partner and live happily ever after.
Because I've seen people fall in love with this ideal and berate themselves for not being able to follow the "heavenly guideline" and jump into relationships and fall apart when it turns out this person isn't "the one", and get desperate because they're getting old (they're be 25 in TWO YEARS!)
And then a week later they're in love again and it's the one this time, I promise, Mary Sue! And they've got a sibling who is just perfect for you because of course a single person can never be happy, even after being single for pretty darn close to a decade. Cue the crazy cat lady jokes.
It's really hard to be a good supportive friend when all you want to do is grab them by the shoulders and shaaaaaaaake them and scream, "Being single is not a death sentence! Now go get a new hobby, like gardening or miniature painting or something!"
And I know, I just know, when these friends do finally get married, the falling out and crying and screaming on my couch won't end. Because they've idealized the concept of a perfect marriage and don't realize there's nothing perfect this side of Heaven, no matter how much you pray for rightness.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
As a Roman Catholic, my understanding is that the model for marriage is the marriage between Christ and his Church.
If I read it right, marriage is the model of the relationship between Christ and his Church. It gives an earthly metaphor for something ineffable, to help us understand how Christ and the Church interact, and not a heavenly metaphor as to how husband and wife are supposed to interact.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Ref the OP, I would say that's at best the Hallmark version, not the real version. Hopefully one doesn't go into marriage thinking "Well this will be shit", but equally one should be going in eyes open that there will be problems, there will be hardships, and there will be times when you seriously wonder whether it was a smart move. And all of that in a healthy marriage that from the outside might superficially look like the one described in the OP.
So yes, it sort of exists, but only as the edited highlights version. The twee Facebook status update version. The one with all the references to hard graft, swallowing pride, eating shit, and just plain knuckling down and exercising your will to honour the vows and build the thing that is stronger. And that only when it goes well and both partners are "on message" about what's involved in making it work.
And as Spiffy says, it's not the only Good Option out there.
Disclaimer: I'm notionally an evangelical, and my marriage kind of fits, minus the kids. We were married in our mid-twenties, were "virgins but not naïve" (cough), had a strong realisation that it takes effort to make it work and both committed to putting the effort it.
If I look at my life/marriage I don't think we've had much hardship - we have been hugely blessed. But if I was writing the book, I could spin it a bit differently (infertility, good friend/business partner killed soon after new venture started, financial uncertainty etc.). What's made it work isn't the ideal, or the fact that the faeries take Mrs Snags farts away.
What makes it work is we were on the same page when we got engaged, and we've worked hard to keep ourselves on the same page all the way through. But that can feel like flowers and sunshine too. Go figure ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
As a Roman Catholic, my understanding is that the model for marriage is the marriage between Christ and his Church.
If I read it right, marriage is the model of the relationship between Christ and his Church. It gives an earthly metaphor for something ineffable, to help us understand how Christ and the Church interact, and not a heavenly metaphor as to how husband and wife are supposed to interact.
You have it precisely reversed.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
As a Roman Catholic, my understanding is that the model for marriage is the marriage between Christ and his Church.
If I read it right, marriage is the model of the relationship between Christ and his Church. It gives an earthly metaphor for something ineffable, to help us understand how Christ and the Church interact, and not a heavenly metaphor as to how husband and wife are supposed to interact.
You have it precisely reversed.
Just had a look at the Ephesians passage and while most of the time Paul does seem to be using the relationship between Christ and Church as the model for human marriages, as daronmedway and others suggest, suddenly by v32 he's saying that he's applying the earthly model to the "mystery" of the Church-Christ relationship. Which suggests a) it's intended to be understood both ways or b) Paul got hopelessly confused halfway through that passage and forgot the point he was trying to make. I couldn't possibly comment.
(Though I do think v33 should begin "What was I saying? Oh yeah, er... you should love your wives. Yeah, that was it!" But that may just be me...).
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Just had a look at the Ephesians passage and while most of the time Paul does seem to be using the relationship between Christ and Church as the model for human marriages, as daronmedway and others suggest, suddenly by v32 he's saying that he's applying the earthly model to the "mystery" of the Church-Christ relationship. Which suggests a) it's intended to be understood both ways or b) Paul got hopelessly confused halfway through that passage and forgot the point he was trying to make. I couldn't possibly comment.
(Though I do think v33 should begin "What was I saying? Oh yeah, er... you should love your wives. Yeah, that was it!" But that may just be me...).
It probably took him about 15 minutes to write which probably meant that he (being male) started to think about sex, because it is at least an urban myth that men think about sex every 15 minutes. IME that may be more true below a certain age.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
As a Roman Catholic, my understanding is that the model for marriage is the marriage between Christ and his Church.
If I read it right, marriage is the model of the relationship between Christ and his Church. It gives an earthly metaphor for something ineffable, to help us understand how Christ and the Church interact, and not a heavenly metaphor as to how husband and wife are supposed to interact.
You have it precisely reversed.
No, you do. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
IME that may be more true below a certain age.
No. Desire is constant while it's just capacity that diminishes.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
IME that may be more true below a certain age.
No. Desire is constant while it's just capacity that diminishes.
Oh Shit.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think the premise in the OP and especially in the subsequent ones, is actually an insult to non-evangelicals. What are you suggesting by calling your description of the blueprint marriage an 'evangelical' marriage? Are you not suggesting that non-evangelicals are making do with lower expectations or have fewer morals?
My mother attends an Anglican church, has deep but not extensive beliefs, is far from evangelical but when my sister got pregnant and then married, told her it was 'the wrong way round.' I think most people have this idealised view but are probably aware that it won't happen.
It's like our hopes for the family holiday or the perfect Christmas; we all know what the blueprint is but we quickly excuse ourselves from living up to it - but even those who were active sexually before marriage still have their hopes for the 'perfect' marriage subsequently.
It was more common in our grandparents' day to be virgins when people married - and we might sneer at that and say, 'Oh it's a myth' but for a short time it was possibly expected and maybe we in the church should encourage that. Fornication seems to be in fashion and maybe we've given up on teaching Biblical morality with the defeatist and false attitude of 'oh well why bother it'll only happen anyway?'
Should the church not offer a better morality rather than just following public opinion? Should we not encourage our young people to wait?
[ 07. August 2013, 07:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Even if a young evangelical sets out to "make the choice" of a godly marriage, there is no certainty of achieving it. Everything depends on finding a suitable partner of steadfast faith who won't stray and is in it for the long haul.
No, not really. Having a 'suitable partner of steadfast faith' etc etc doesn't guarantee a good sex life, healthy children, any children at all, the overcoming of health challenges, or anything that isn't within human control.
It's all part of the 'god as vending machine' thinking that pervades some parts of the church - put 'two virgins on their wedding night' in the machine, and out comes 'wild and fulfilling sex life' as a reward. Luckily, even though we did get told this sort of stuff, mr b and I were well aware it was bollocks and ignored it.
Good job really, as when our two children, both with health problems and disabilities, came along, we had enough to deal with without feeling that we somehow 'deserved' healthy children because we'd done everything 'right'.
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.
As opposed to the traditions of the upper classes to have sex with the servants then throw them out if they got pregnant?
I suspect that many of those 'marry when pregnancy occurred' examples of yours didn't start with lifelong intentions but the pregnancy pushed them into it.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
Yes, I too am a bit confused about why the OP is just talking about "evangelical" marriage.
Isn't any Christian marriage--Roman Catholic, Orthodox, whatever--and Jewish as well for that matter--ideally meant to be living in the eyes of God, both partners seeing God as hugely important to them individually and also to the marriage, demonstrating humility and self-sacrificing love, etc etc?
And ideally both partners are virgin on marriage--but this ideal of course is rarely held to any more--personally I feel if a couple is committed, it's fine to make love before marriage--it's promiscuity that's disturbing and an abuse of the gift of sexuality--but anyway.
This Christian ideal of marriage is just that, an ideal. As we are all human, and as marriage is often very very difficult, even those most committed to the ideal fall short of it sometimes.
The contemporary culture's idea of marriage is also an ideal--that one's spouse can be everything, and fulfil every emotional and intellectual need.
It's easy, yes, to compare one's marriage to either of these ideals and find it wanting--and end up not making the best of what one has. I agree this is a trap all too easy to fall into.
Re children, if any evangelical church or leader is implying that healthy, happy, well-adjusted children will naturally follow as a matter of course, this is a misleading and evil message!
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
Mudfrog, I thought your post was interesting, and perhaps I don't, in general, disagree with it, but I really think your analogy needs unpacking...
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's like our hopes for the family holiday or the perfect Christmas; we all know what the blueprint is but we quickly excuse ourselves from living up to it - but even those who were active sexually before marriage still have their hopes for the 'perfect' marriage subsequently.
The first thing that occurred to me when reading that is that the common things that mar family holidays or Christmases are totally outside of our control (poor weather, illness, etc.), so 'blaming' or 'excusing' ourselves is relatively pointless exercise, and secondly, that what constitutes a perfect holiday or a perfect Christmas is going to be different from one person to the next - including, based on my experience, the two people in a marriage - so, sure, we all think we know what the blueprint is, based on our life experiences up to that date, our temperament, etc., but if I as an individual insist on living up to some perceived standard of 'what a marriage should be', that I am enforcing on my partner by suggesting that he shouldn't be 'excusing' himself like this, how does that make things any better?
It's not some ideal you 'live up to', it's a state you 'live in'. A continuous process of adaptation so that you can get as near as realistically possible, for each person, in that particular relationship, to the perfect holiday, or the perfect Sunday afternoon, or whatever, whatever. It's no use looking at someone else's marriage and saying, 'well, we are failing because we don't do it like that'.
Now I should really go and apply some of shite I am spouting to my own life, I suppose.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the premise in the OP and especially in the subsequent ones, is actually an insult to non-evangelicals. What are you suggesting by calling your description of the blueprint marriage an 'evangelical' marriage? Are you not suggesting that non-evangelicals are making do with lower expectations or have fewer morals?
My mother attends an Anglican church, has deep but not extensive beliefs, is far from evangelical but when my sister got pregnant and then married, told her it was 'the wrong way round.' I think most people have this idealised view but are probably aware that it won't happen.
It's like our hopes for the family holiday or the perfect Christmas; we all know what the blueprint is but we quickly excuse ourselves from living up to it - but even those who were active sexually before marriage still have their hopes for the 'perfect' marriage subsequently.
It was more common in our grandparents' day to be virgins when people married - and we might sneer at that and say, 'Oh it's a myth' but for a short time it was possibly expected and maybe we in the church should encourage that. Fornication seems to be in fashion and maybe we've given up on teaching Biblical morality with the defeatist and false attitude of 'oh well why bother it'll only happen anyway?'
Should the church not offer a better morality rather than just following public opinion? Should we not encourage our young people to wait?
Christian attitudes to sex (and marriage and childrearing) have varied a lot over the centuries and there has never been one single idealised form of sex/marriage/childrearing.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Fornication seems to be in fashion and maybe we've given up on teaching Biblical morality with the defeatist and false attitude of 'oh well why bother it'll only happen anyway?'
Should the church not offer a better morality rather than just following public opinion? Should we not encourage our young people to wait?
A good number of Christians are unconvinced that fornication describes sex between committed partners who are not yet legally married.
The church should teach Biblical morality. What it should not do is approach those who fail to live up to those standards with judgment. Many people come to Christ as adults or older teens and have already been sexually active. Many people come to Christ while in a cohabiting sexual relationship.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's like our hopes for the family holiday or the perfect Christmas; we all know what the blueprint is but we quickly excuse ourselves from living up to it - but even those who were active sexually before marriage still have their hopes for the 'perfect' marriage subsequently.
I'm unaware that the blueprint for a "perfect marriage" is based primarily on pre-marital virginity. Anyone who believes so is setting themselves up for some major disappointment.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Christian attitudes to sex (and marriage and childrearing) have varied a lot over the centuries and there has never been one single idealised form of sex/marriage/childrearing.
The same could be said to Israel's attitudes to the worship of God/ gods in the old testament. There are deliberate parallels drawn between fornication and idolatry. The thing is that their unfaithfulness to God wasn't right. Hosea's marriage to an adulterous wife (Gomer)at God's command being the most extreme example.
I think their is a difference between pragmatic expression and ideal. The former is how we live as a broken people in a broken world and the latter being God's design or intention. Season to taste with cultural preferences which don't matter all that much.
I hasten to add that God's design is not that we all become evangelical husband and wife. Other lifestyles are available, each with limitations and boundaries. Biblical examples (such as polygamous marriages) also have a huge health warning. Just look at Solomon and Jacob etc.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
personally I feel if a couple is committed, it's fine to make love before marriage
If the couple is that commited to each other why aren't they married already?
Its a nice idea that sex is fine if you're commited to marriage but very easily abused. Throughout history there has been so many cases of women believing the man when he professed undying love and promised marriage, but after he had his fun he was off, leaving the woman heartbroken and sometimes pregnant as well, just to add injury to insult.
To prevent this a couple who is committed enough to marry should prove it to each other by actually marrying, before having sex. Before the ring is on the finger either one of them can change their mind and run off. (Nowadays of course even marraige isn't a secure promise but it is still more secure than mere promises of 'commitment').
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.
Which previous age was this? Speaking to my Grandma, it was very much the norm for her generation in the 40's and 50's to not have sex before marraige. And she was certainly not upper class. I think this was the expected and practiced norm for the majority of people of all classes for quite a large proportion of western Christian history.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
personally I feel if a couple is committed, it's fine to make love before marriage
If the couple is that commited to each other why aren't they married already?
Its a nice idea that sex is fine if you're commited to marriage but very easily abused. Throughout history there has been so many cases of women believing the man when he professed undying love and promised marriage, but after he had his fun he was off, leaving the woman heartbroken and sometimes pregnant as well, just to add injury to insult.
To prevent this a couple who is committed enough to marry should prove it to each other by actually marrying, before having sex. Before the ring is on the finger either one of them can change their mind and run off. (Nowadays of course even marraige isn't a secure promise but it is still more secure than mere promises of 'commitment').
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.
Which previous age was this? Speaking to my Grandma, it was very much the norm for her generation in the 40's and 50's to not have sex before marraige. And she was certainly not upper class. I think this was the expected and practiced norm for the majority of people of all classes for quite a large proportion of western Christian history.
I was thinking much further back than that - pre industrial revolution. I'm afraid I can't support it, it was an off-hand comment from one of my history lecturers 12 years ago.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, I think you're right, arethosemyfeet. Before the evangelical revivals of the mid C19 it was I think in many places the norm, among the working classes, to take pregnancy as the cue for marriage- often between people who had intended to marry each other anyway.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, I think you're right, arethosemyfeet. Before the evangelical revivals of the mid C19 it was I think in many places the norm, among the working classes, to take pregnancy as the cue for marriage- often between people who had intended to marry each other anyway.
The vast majority of my friend's young adults and my sons friends live together first, then get married when they intend to have children. (In fact, I can't think of any who didn't)
Seems like an excellent plan to me.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I've often heard the argument from people who were young in the 1940s-50s that nobody 'did it' then. However, if you look at the statistics for the number of children who were adopted during that time (often tidied away so that it was kept hushed up) it is obvious that rather a lot of people 'did it' then. I used to buy a magazine where, every month, there was a whole long list of people trying to find their birth parents, who had to give them away. And that's only the ones who wanted to know, and only the ones who bothered to write in to the magazine.
I guess there were those who lived a very sheltered life who thought that everyone was the same as them, and those who lived in a much less cocooned world.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
personally I feel if a couple is committed, it's fine to make love before marriage
If the couple is that commited to each other why aren't they married already?
They are.
At least according to St Paul, and local custom.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I get a little bit annoyed by this idealization of marriage that I see in (primarily) evangelical circles. Particularly the part where it's expected that every single person will find their partner and live happily ever after.
Because I've seen people fall in love with this ideal and berate themselves for not being able to follow the "heavenly guideline" and jump into relationships and fall apart when it turns out this person isn't "the one", and get desperate because they're getting old (they're be 25 in TWO YEARS!)
And then a week later they're in love again and it's the one this time, I promise, Mary Sue!
I don't know much about these things, but this approach sounds very superficial to me. I thought evangelicals were supposed to be serious-minded people when it came to serious things like marriage. Do the churches really encourage this kind of carry-on?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Explicitly no, implicitly yes. When you add together the following common themes:
1. No tab A into slot B until you're married, you horny teens and twenty somethings;
2. If you obey 1. above then your sex when you do get to it will be brilliant (actually, given 1., it's got a good chance of being a cross between a Comedy of Errors and Love's Labours Lost, but I digress);
3. God has the right person for you and you just have to find them;
the end result isn't hard to predict.
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The vast majority of my friend's young adults and my sons friends live together first, then get married when they intend to have children. (In fact, I can't think of any who didn't)
Seems like an excellent plan to me.
Really? I used to think this, but after observing others, it looks far more like like a mini-divorce each time one of these 'long-term relationships' dissolves?
x
AV
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The first ever homegroup I went to as an adult (ConEvo church) consisted of four couples and a few singles. Three of those four couples - all mid-thirties or younger - were divorced within ten years.
Each divorce had its different reasons, but collectively makes a bloody depressing statistic.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Explicitly no, implicitly yes. When you add together the following common themes:
1. No tab A into slot B until you're married, you horny teens and twenty somethings;
2. If you obey 1. above then your sex when you do get to it will be brilliant (actually, given 1., it's got a good chance of being a cross between a Comedy of Errors and Love's Labours Lost, but I digress);
3. God has the right person for you and you just have to find them;
the end result isn't hard to predict.
Or to put it more pragmatically.
1) If you do put tab A into slot B before you are married it could cause problems further down the line. Do your best to lay the foundations for a committed long term relationship before you do. Guard yourself against feckless individuals who will take you for granted. This is called self control. It is a desirable character trait.
2) 1 is a skill that you will need to learn just like any other. The chances are that it will be a lot better and more frequent if you get other expressions of love and affection right too.
3)If there is a perfect partner for you the chances are that you have not found them and if you are so lucky your are not their perfect partner. Love takes a lot of hard work, determination and forgiveness. Concentrate on being the best partner you can.
4) Even if you do 1 to 3 there is still a chance of your beloved being a complete bastard. Sorry about that, but some times life is shit. We promise to support you through all life trials regardless.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The vast majority of my friend's young adults and my sons friends live together first, then get married when they intend to have children. (In fact, I can't think of any who didn't)
Seems like an excellent plan to me.
Really? I used to think this, but after observing others, it looks far more like like a mini-divorce each time one of these 'long-term relationships' dissolves?
They didn't dissolve, they got married when they decided they wanted to 'try for a family'. All, so far, are still married. I have been counting the couples and it is 20. Not a big survey, but IME that's what seems to happen.
I lived with my husband for two years before we were married, but that was reasonably unusual back in the mid-70s.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
We promise to support you through all life trials regardless.
And who might this 'we' be?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
If the couple is that commited to each other why aren't they married already?
In my case, we wanted to meet each others' families (who live in all sorts of different countries) before he proposed, and then we were engaged for a year due to the logistics of planning a wedding accommodating so many geographies.
My hard-core evangelical mother said she was unhappy we were living together, and I asked her if she'd be OK with us getting a registry marriage without her in attendance. And she said no! I was pretty surprised by that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Cohabitation can lead to different outcomes. What I've read is that in the UK it's increasingly less likely to lead to marriage, which is understandable, because the social pressure to marry is declining. Middle class people in general are more likely to end up married than people lower down the social scale.
Re the American evangelical divorce rate, one explanation I came across was to do with class; low income and education levels tend to lead to more divorce, and American evangelicals suffer from these social problems more than other American Christians. Some commentators blame the excessive individualism in American evangelical theology.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
We promise to support you through all life trials regardless.
And who might this 'we' be?
In the evangelical context? I would say the church. A marriage is a communal sacrament is it not?
Though being pragmatic I would have to admit that a cold shoulder might be more likely to one or both parts of a failing partnership.
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on
:
Lots of interesting comments and experiences.
My OP wasn't to suggest that only evangelical marriages aspire to high ideals. My parents were happily married for 59 years (father died in February) and only had a nominal church connection to sustain them, yet somehow managed to get along and survive the inevitable downs (of which there were many). So it can be done, evangelical or not.
My experience of evangelicalism is that marriages are expected to last (even if they don't in reality) and that the scenario in my OP is the aim (sorry, the bit about kids was poorly expressed; the evangelical view is that having kids is a blessing, you may not be blessed with them even though you do everything marriage and sex-wise within your own power "right", and if you are blessed with kids they may not be healthy etc but you should seek to raise them in a godly way).
The replies have convinced me that the ideal is definitely worth seeking, but you can never say that you have reached it (or at least not until the moment of death of the first partner to die). It requires hard work, perseverance, fidelity etc on the part of BOTH parties over the long term.
What I was most interested in, however, was perhaps the demoralising effect of the ideal on all people ie singles, divorced, widowed after a less than happy marriage, those struggling in marriage (ie everyone currently married). I think only one poster addressed tghis directly. Life is never as good as it could be. We make the best of it. My old granny had a set of bridge cards on which was printed "Life ain't about holding the good cards, it's playing a bad hand well".
[ 07. August 2013, 13:26: Message edited by: would love to belong ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
My parents were happily married for 59 years (father died in February) and only had a nominal church connection to sustain them, yet somehow managed to get along and survive the inevitable downs (of which there were many). So it can be done, evangelical or not.
This is a rhetorical question rather than a challenge to your relationship with your parents but how do you know they were happily married?
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on
:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
I'm in the raising kids phase, which I expect to take another 15 years (which will take me up to a grand total of 30 years of marriage, God willing). But I already wrestle with the question of whether it is an unarguable good, and if so, why, to remain married thereafter, if that isn't bringing me happiness.
The Church teaches that it *is* an unarguable good, and I assent to that. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe something that flies in the face of logic, reason and, possibly, my own well-being.
I am no longer sure I know what a long marriage "proves".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
I'm in the raising kids phase, which I expect to take another 15 years (which will take me up to a grand total of 30 years of marriage, God willing). But I already wrestle with the question of whether it is an unarguable good, and if so, why, to remain married thereafter, if that isn't bringing me happiness.
What about bringing happiness to someone else?
I can understand that personal happiness is the priority in secular society. But as Christians, we supposedly have to consider other people - possibly even put them first!
It's none of my business, but maybe there's a way of making what you have into something better, if you get the right advice and make the right changes. Above all, aren't Christians supposed to turn to God for strength and guidance in difficult times?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
I'm in the raising kids phase, which I expect to take another 15 years (which will take me up to a grand total of 30 years of marriage, God willing). But I already wrestle with the question of whether it is an unarguable good, and if so, why, to remain married thereafter, if that isn't bringing me happiness.
What about bringing happiness to someone else?
How could my being unhappy make someone who loved me happy? As I said, it defies logic and reason.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Erroneous Monk,
Well, you might be happier with a prettier, livelier, more intelligent wife (or with no wife at all) but do you think that that situation coming to pass would make your current wife happier?
Everyone's different of course, but a person usually feels happy when the person they love loves them back; they don't feel quite so happy at the idea of releasing that person to feel happy without them. Maybe this isn't logical, but it's human.
[ 07. August 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on
:
Forgive me, Erroneous Monk, I have no right to be commenting on this. God has never blessed me with a spouse. I just know, from observation and discussion, how difficult marriage is.
In a way, you may be answering my question. Because (I'm guessing?) your marriage doesn't live up to the ideal (no marriage does, it's "just" a matter of degree), you have become demoralised and are questioning the concept of Christian marriage ie a lifelong union, for better or for worse. You may be in the "worse" part at the moment, but chances are you will get out of it, only to face "even worser" times further ahead, with maybe some better (or even great) times in between. You need to dig your heels in and refuse to bail out.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Lots of interesting comments and experiences.
What I was most interested in, however, was perhaps the demoralising effect of the ideal on all people ie singles, divorced, widowed after a less than happy marriage, those struggling in marriage (ie everyone currently married). I think only one poster addressed tghis directly. Life is never as good as it could be. We make the best of it. My old granny had a set of bridge cards on which was printed "Life ain't about holding the good cards, it's playing a bad hand well".
There are evangelical/ Christian expectations of marriage. Then there are the Disney fairy tale expectations of marriage expressed through those reality TV programmes such as "Don't Tell The Bride" and "Four Weddings". The focus isn't on the special day but on a special life together. That last s a hell of a lot longer than the excess wedding cake.
There may be struggles but I have to say those are worth the effort. Eventually. I hope.
If I may just remind you that Paul said "Marry if you must, but I wish you were single like I am" or words to that effect.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My own experience of evangelicalism has been fairly mixed - good, bad and indifferent - probably the same as any of the other traditions in that respect, only over different issues.
I have to say, though, that I've never come across anything other than a realistic approach to these issues - no-one ever led my wife and I to believe that it would be a bed of roses, nor that - given our previous lack of sexual experience - we were suddenly going to get those aspects 'right' from the word 'go'.
I could comment on other aspects of how relationships were handled within some circles - often involving heavy-handed interventions by the leadership and so on - but that's a different issue.
But, by and large, I don't think evangelicals are any more starry-eyed and unrealistic about these issues than anyone else.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Forgive me, Erroneous Monk, I have no right to be commenting on this. God has never blessed me with a spouse. I just know, from observation and discussion, how difficult marriage is.
In a way, you may be answering my question. Because (I'm guessing?) your marriage doesn't live up to the ideal (no marriage does, it's "just" a matter of degree), you have become demoralised and are questioning the concept of Christian marriage ie a lifelong union, for better or for worse. You may be in the "worse" part at the moment, but chances are you will get out of it, only to face "even worser" times further ahead, with maybe some better (or even great) times in between. You need to dig your heels in and refuse to bail out.
You're lovely and you're quite right.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I get a little bit annoyed by this idealization of marriage that I see in (primarily) evangelical circles. Particularly the part where it's expected that every single person will find their partner and live happily ever after.
Because I've seen people fall in love with this ideal and berate themselves for not being able to follow the "heavenly guideline" and jump into relationships and fall apart when it turns out this person isn't "the one", and get desperate because they're getting old (they're be 25 in TWO YEARS!)
And then a week later they're in love again and it's the one this time, I promise, Mary Sue!
I don't know much about these things, but this approach sounds very superficial to me. I thought evangelicals were supposed to be serious-minded people when it came to serious things like marriage. Do the churches really encourage this kind of carry-on?
I've seen it encouraged. Of course, this may be a subset of evangelical Christianity specific to the Pacific Northwest, but yeah, there's a very heavy duty seeking-a-partner culture in a lot of the young, hip church plants and a lot of passing around books and pamphlets about how to pray (and dress, and groom, and act) until you find your perfect spouse.
Although it's mostly aimed at the young women, particularly in churches that don't let women take roles in leadership. Funny, that.
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I get a little bit annoyed by this idealization of marriage that I see in (primarily) evangelical circles. Particularly the part where it's expected that every single person will find their partner and live happily ever after.
Because I've seen people fall in love with this ideal and berate themselves for not being able to follow the "heavenly guideline" and jump into relationships and fall apart when it turns out this person isn't "the one", and get desperate because they're getting old (they're be 25 in TWO YEARS!)
And then a week later they're in love again and it's the one this time, I promise, Mary Sue!
I don't know much about these things, but this approach sounds very superficial to me. I thought evangelicals were supposed to be serious-minded people when it came to serious things like marriage. Do the churches really encourage this kind of carry-on?
I've seen it encouraged. Of course, this may be a subset of evangelical Christianity specific to the Pacific Northwest, but yeah, there's a very heavy duty seeking-a-partner culture in a lot of the young, hip church plants and a lot of passing around books and pamphlets about how to pray (and dress, and groom, and act) until you find your perfect spouse.
Although it's mostly aimed at the young women, particularly in churches that don't let women take roles in leadership. Funny, that.
Spiffy, you mention the Pacific North West. Is this a sort of Mark Driscoll effect? I have seen some of his stuff about Christian marriage and found it nauseating. He is very hard on stay-at-home dads, while being equally dismissive of dead-beat dads who abandon their kids and take no part. Seems a dad has to steer somewhere down the middle to be acceptable to Driscoll's version of Christian fatherhood.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Driscoll can stick his opinions up his arse. They're not based on anything but his own prejudices.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
This may be a subset of evangelical Christianity specific to the Pacific Northwest, but yeah, there's a very heavy duty seeking-a-partner culture in a lot of the young, hip church plants and a lot of passing around books and pamphlets about how to pray (and dress, and groom, and act) until you find your perfect spouse.
Although it's mostly aimed at the young women, particularly in churches that don't let women take roles in leadership. Funny, that.
I don't see a problem with Christian women being proactive about finding a suitable husband, but I don't understand falling in love every five minutes and getting hysterical about it!
It's unsurprising that the leaflets should be aimed at women because in most churches women are more numerous than the men, and therefore they have a harder time finding a spouse.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Although I attended a MOTR CofE church, where relationships were never talked about (the choir and bellringers just seemed to pair up and marry each other), I also belonged to a more evangelical youth group. We occasionally had talks on tape and also had marriage and relationship books recommended to us to read. My main recollection of both was that they were rather unrealistic and so felt rather cynical of their advice. It seemed to make more sense to talk things through with your partner and do what you both thought best, which might be very different from the conclusions another couple might come to.
We had several cases where people who were previously ardent Christians walked away from the faith round about the time of forming serious relationships, as they found the strictness of evangelical requirements didn't sit well with their wish to sleep / live together before marriage.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.
Which previous age was this? Speaking to my Grandma, it was very much the norm for her generation in the 40's and 50's to not have sex before marraige. And she was certainly not upper class. I think this was the expected and practiced norm for the majority of people of all classes for quite a large proportion of western Christian history.
Not so much. I'm evidently older than you -- my grandparents were born in the 1880s. Three of them were second or subsequent children, and as they all came from working class families with strong religious beliefs, I'm reasonably sure there was very little or no sex before marriage. The fourth, though, was born 6 months after her parents married -- and historians will tell you that the norm then among the lower classes, expecially in rural areas, was that marriage only happened when a baby was on the way -- because the man's mother and the woman's mother needed the cash from their wages until a new household was set up.
Take into account, as well, that for many centuries until the mid-1800s, there were many large areas in England where (where people could only travel by foot or horse) there were no clergy, and no provision for marriages to be performed.
John
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
What I mean is that you marry young to a like-minded evangelical believer. Both parties are virgins on marriage but nevertheless develop a wholly satisfying physical relationship. Both demonstrate humility and Christian self-sacrificial love towards the other as they grow in Christian discipleship. There is no I fidelity or lack of trust. In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly. Health and financial and other challenges are overcome by spousal praying together. The marriage endures until death does them part.
That's a mix of a variety of things - some moral choices, some reasonable good luck, some completely unrealistic good luck. The idea that by making a particular religious choice you can get the lot as a package is pure fantasy.
Some of it is achievable - you never have to be unfaithful to your spouse unless you choose to be, for example. Some you can influence (good parenting doesn't guarantee well-adjusted children, but it does shift the odds). Some is a matter of pure chance. If your local evangelicals think that godliness and prayer insulates you from bad luck, then you have been unlucky in your selection of evangelicals - the majority have a rather more sensible take on Christianity than that.
What I don't like about the picture is that it links the idea of 'a good marriage' with being lucky in other areas of life. And that, for me, devalues marriage. Marriage is about making a commitment to a flawed, imperfect person, in a flawed, imperfect world, and then learning how to love in that situation. It's about a love that tries to cope with adversity, that needs understanding and forgiveness, that might actually cost something to exercise. That means that I can still have 'a good marriage' if my life is a bit of a mess. That seems to me a more inspiring, more realistic, more Christian, and more romantic, conception of marriage than the model you describe.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Although I attended a MOTR CofE church, where relationships were never talked about (the choir and bellringers just seemed to pair up and marry each other), I also belonged to a more evangelical youth group. We occasionally had talks on tape and also had marriage and relationship books recommended to us to read. My main recollection of both was that they were rather unrealistic and so felt rather cynical of their advice. It seemed to make more sense to talk things through with your partner and do what you both thought best, which might be very different from the conclusions another couple might come to.
We had several cases where people who were previously ardent Christians walked away from the faith round about the time of forming serious relationships, as they found the strictness of evangelical requirements didn't sit well with their wish to sleep / live together before marriage.
The problem is that the more tolerant churches tend not to be the ones with the youth groups. MOTR churches should have their own youth groups (or create them with other local MOTR churches), where young people can experience a laid-back, hush-hush approach on these matters.
I don't think chastity is unrealistic, but it clearly goes quite heavily against the wider culture as well as personal inclination, and many people will eventually find that chasm too wide to deal with. But if people dropped their 'ardent' faith like a hot stone over this single issue, then perhaps it was only a matter of time before they left anyway. Some young people seem to go through a 'Christian phase' before choosing a different identity and I suppose this is one of the several things that might take them in another direction.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
My sons were obviously very fortunate, then, being able to join a very active youth group in our church - strangely for 10 years ago, it was mostly made up of teenage boys, with only a few girls. One of my sons married a girl from the group, so the old traditions carry on.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
What I mean is that you marry young to a like-minded evangelical believer. Both parties are virgins on marriage but nevertheless develop a wholly satisfying physical relationship. Both demonstrate humility and Christian self-sacrificial love towards the other as they grow in Christian discipleship. There is no I fidelity or lack of trust. In due course, children appear who are healthy, well adjusted, unselfish, loving and godly. Health and financial and other challenges are overcome by spousal praying together. The marriage endures until death does them part.
That's a mix of a variety of things - some moral choices, some reasonable good luck, some completely unrealistic good luck. The idea that by making a particular religious choice you can get the lot as a package is pure fantasy.
Some of it is achievable - you never have to be unfaithful to your spouse unless you choose to be, for example. Some you can influence (good parenting doesn't guarantee well-adjusted children, but it does shift the odds). Some is a matter of pure chance. If your local evangelicals think that godliness and prayer insulates you from bad luck, then you have been unlucky in your selection of evangelicals - the majority have a rather more sensible take on Christianity than that.
What I don't like about the picture is that it links the idea of 'a good marriage' with being lucky in other areas of life. And that, for me, devalues marriage. Marriage is about making a commitment to a flawed, imperfect person, in a flawed, imperfect world, and then learning how to love in that situation. It's about a love that tries to cope with adversity, that needs understanding and forgiveness, that might actually cost something to exercise. That means that I can still have 'a good marriage' if my life is a bit of a mess. That seems to me a more inspiring, more realistic, more Christian, and more romantic, conception of marriage than the model you describe.
I second what Eliab says here.
Thirty-three years of marriage and counting! To refer to the title of another thread, it sometimes feels like heaven, sometimes like the other place. A strong, enduring relationship between two flawed people (of course I always think his flaws are worse than my own!!!). An ongoing learning process. Not easy at all. And a great blessing.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
...(the choir and bellringers just seemed to pair up and marry each other)...
Well, that's bellringers for you, isn't it? When my brother got engaged, his Tower Captain's first question was 'Does she ring?'
It was only later that I thought of what he should have replied: 'Yes- like a steeple bell in a gale...' ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I have seen the kind of thing Spiffy mentions in hip student-heavy churches (in the UK so no direct Driscoll effect but I fear the leaders are probably influenced by him). Less so in a former evangelical Anglican church of mine - there was a lot of pairing up but it was handled pretty sensibly.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would suggest that there is a difference between the pre-marital sex of a previous age (where, I understand, it was common outside of the upper class to start having sex with your intended and then marry when pregnancy occurred) and today's promiscuity with no intention of a lifelong relationship.
Which previous age was this? Speaking to my Grandma, it was very much the norm for her generation in the 40's and 50's to not have sex before marraige. And she was certainly not upper class. I think this was the expected and practiced norm for the majority of people of all classes for quite a large proportion of western Christian history. [/QB]
Both my sets of grandparents married in the 1930s. One of my grandmothers was 5 months pregnant when she married. The other grandmother wasn't pregnant, but two of her sisters had babies prior to marriage.
Of my 8 gt gt grandmothers, who married c 1880s, only two were married when they had their first child; one of whom had been married for only 6 weeks. Of the other six, two subsequently married the father of their first child, two married someone other than the father of their first child, and two remained unmarried. One of the unmarried gt gt grandmothers had three children by three fathers and lived into her eighties.
The Church of Scotland had something called pauns, or consignation money. In order to get married, a couple had to put down a deposit of a week's wages, which was returned 8 months later if no baby had been born. This has been hugely helpful in my family tree as the date my assorted ancestors forfeited pauns appear in the church accounts gives me a date for their marriage and the birth of a child!
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
This may be a subset of evangelical Christianity specific to the Pacific Northwest, but yeah, there's a very heavy duty seeking-a-partner culture in a lot of the young, hip church plants and a lot of passing around books and pamphlets about how to pray (and dress, and groom, and act) until you find your perfect spouse.
Although it's mostly aimed at the young women, particularly in churches that don't let women take roles in leadership. Funny, that.
I don't see a problem with Christian women being proactive about finding a suitable husband, but I don't understand falling in love every five minutes and getting hysterical about it!
It's unsurprising that the leaflets should be aimed at women because in most churches women are more numerous than the men, and therefore they have a harder time finding a spouse.
They're being proactive because they're being told implicitly and explicitly they're a failure at Christianity without a man.
I totally see a problem with Christian women being proactive about seeking husbands because, hey, some of them might like wives. Or not to get married ever. Put me in the latter boat, actually. It may be great for other people but I don't see the need for a spouse in my life.
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Spiffy, you mention the Pacific North West. Is this a sort of Mark Driscoll effect?
I don't think so because my friends of this type are horrified by the thought that someone might actually enjoy performing oral sex on a man, which is one of those things I'm told Driscoll encourages (but he says it's to show your man that you're submissive or something? Instead of because, you know, it's fun!)
I put in the PNW disclaimer because I've learned sometimes what I think is bog standard normal from my life experiences up here, isn't really normal anywhere else. No, I don't watch Portlandia, I live it.
[ 08. August 2013, 19:32: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I totally see a problem with Christian women being proactive about seeking husbands because, hey, some of them might like wives. Or not to get married ever. Put me in the latter boat, actually. It may be great for other people but I don't see the need for a spouse in my life.
If Christian women don't want husbands then they don't need to be proactive about finding husbands, obviously! I don't think women should be pressured into getting married, but I don't have a problem with a church offering advice on these matters; that's what some people want from a church.
Speaking personally, if I'd been meant to marry I would have had to be much, much more proactive about it. It's different for other people in other places, but to find a Christian husband I would have had to switch to a different denomination at a younger age, and/or live in a different town.
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on
:
The problem I have with the ideal of marriage is that - like all sorts of gender stereotypes that seem to go with the same mindset from what I have experienced - there is a simplistic division of the 'right' life and 'everything else'. If you don't fit the ideal (or manage to appear to fit the ideal, whatever you do in secret) then you are second best and a failure.
If you are not married by your mid-20s, and a virgin on your wedding day, and produce a suitable number of nicely behaved children by the age of 30, with a stay at home wife and the breadwinner husband who is head of the household... then you have Failed At Life.
Feel free to have a secret pornography/ drinking/ whatever habit though - we're all sinners, so as long as it is between you, God and a few select 'accountability' partners it's OK. As long as you keep up appearances, then you're in the first rank of Christians with a few inner battles to strengthen your faith.
I am sure there are plenty of down to earth evangelicals who don't have this attitude. Unfortunately I haven't come across any as yet... apart from the Ship of course... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have seen the kind of thing Spiffy mentions in hip student-heavy churches (in the UK so no direct Driscoll effect but I fear the leaders are probably influenced by him).
Really? I have spent quite a lot of time in that type of church and never once seen pamphlets circulating on the topic of how to find a partner.
Maybe people thought I was a lost cause.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If Christian women don't want husbands then they don't need to be proactive about finding husbands, obviously! I don't think women should be pressured into getting married, but I don't have a problem with a church offering advice on these matters; that's what some people want from a church.
And what if the church isn't offering any other guidance to young women except "Get married you loser"?
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have seen the kind of thing Spiffy mentions in hip student-heavy churches (in the UK so no direct Driscoll effect but I fear the leaders are probably influenced by him).
Really? I have spent quite a lot of time in that type of church and never once seen pamphlets circulating on the topic of how to find a partner.
Maybe people thought I was a lost cause.
Also, Leprechaun, we've got almost a whole planet in between us, so it's not surprising our cultures are different.
[ 09. August 2013, 22:50: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And what if the church isn't offering any other guidance to young women except "Get married you loser"?
As I said above, I thought evangelicals were supposed to serious people when it came to marriage. What you're describing to me doesn't sound serious, but superficial and obsessive. It sounds like fetishisation.
If I found myself in a church like that, I'd have to leave. It's not as if I'd be greatly missed. Don't these churches have a high turnover? Isn't there a friendly Episcopalian church down the road? I'm not sure what you want me to say, to be honest. How would YOU deal with this situation?
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
Am I to understand that you consider that looking for happiness or considering happiness is a secondary concern as it pertains to marriage?
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Thirty-three years of marriage and counting! To refer to the title of another thread, it sometimes feels like heaven, sometimes like the other place. A strong, enduring relationship between two flawed people (of course I always think his flaws are worse than my own!!!). An ongoing learning process. Not easy at all. And a great blessing.
Right on , sister! My experience also (as a husband).
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
Am I to understand that you consider that looking for happiness or considering happiness is a secondary concern as it pertains to marriage?
It looks like it. And the idea does have mileage, as it happens...
First, It was ordained for the blessing of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. (BCP 1689)
Oh well. No happiness necessary, then. What a relief, let's all rejoice - no, wait...
*may contain sarcasm*
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
...mutual society, help, and comfort...
Looks like a recipe for happiness to me.
[ 10. August 2013, 07:56: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
Am I to understand that you consider that looking for happiness or considering happiness is a secondary concern as it pertains to marriage?
I dont think in my parents' generation it was sought or expected, although obviously desirable. If it came along, good; if not, you accepted it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
historians will tell you that the norm then among the lower classes, expecially in rural areas, was that marriage only happened when a baby was on the way -- because the man's mother and the woman's mother needed the cash from their wages until a new household was set up.
Take into account, as well, that for many centuries until the mid-1800s, there were many large areas in England where (where people could only travel by foot or horse) there were no clergy, and no provision for marriages to be performed.
John
Not sure about the second point - there was a church even in areas where there were 6 houses!
As for the first point, from my study of genealogy you are quite right, people did seem to get married after the child was on its way; this may have been because they needed to know that a wife could produce children. But there was also a highly organised system of 'Bastardy' as well where a girl was forced to name the father of her illegitimate child. He would then be served with a bastardy bond' so that the child could be supported and the unmarried mother not have to rely on the parish to keep her.
Sex before marriage may well have occurred but the sanctions against illegitimacy were strong - and I guess a great deterrent.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I've often heard the argument from people who were young in the 1940s-50s that nobody 'did it' then. However, if you look at the statistics for the number of children who were adopted during that time (often tidied away so that it was kept hushed up) it is obvious that rather a lot of people 'did it' then. I used to buy a magazine where, every month, there was a whole long list of people trying to find their birth parents, who had to give them away. And that's only the ones who wanted to know, and only the ones who bothered to write in to the magazine.
I guess there were those who lived a very sheltered life who thought that everyone was the same as them, and those who lived in a much less cocooned world.
I've being doing research for some years now on the lives of farm labourers in Cambridgeshire from the early 19th century to the present day. Most couples had a child within 5 months or so of their wedding day until the 1930's: 80% or more. One of them happened to be my own mother.
In the 1960's it wasn't exactly uncommon, more like 50%. Unlike posh girls, such women were more likely to keep their children rather than have them adopted. Families tended to look after their own in that culture.
That excludes those who were sexually active but where the girl didn't get pregnant. We have therefore to assume that, within this sample, pre marital sex was universal. Wider reading and research suggest that "bundling" (pre marital sex), was also the norm in the Fens.
In one village, the saying was that you weren't a man until you "had shot a dog, drunk a noggin and dipped your wick."
I'm sure that there were bastions of moral rectitude but these were perhaps more down to lack of opportunity (too much supervision), than lack of physical desire. The advent of contraception surely did little to help/hinder the prevalence of such activity, other than to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, okay, they sustained a marriage for 59 years in the sense of living together, sharing a household and being friends. And raising 2 kids, but that was all over after the first 20 years. I dont think either of them looked for or considered happiness.
Am I to understand that you consider that looking for happiness or considering happiness is a secondary concern as it pertains to marriage?
I dont think in my parents' generation it was sought or expected, although obviously desirable. If it came along, good; if not, you accepted it.
Not so in my family tree. And I don't think your thought holds up generally in the wider world either.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Also, Leprechaun, we've got almost a whole planet in between us, so it's not surprising our cultures are different.
As you'll see, I was replying to Jade who I would guess lives a couple of hours away from me. I mean, geez, you even included the quote I was replying to in your reply.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Speaking personally, Leprechaun, the churches in question have given information to both men and women on finding a partner, but there's been a lot more pressure on women to find a partner - perhaps because of the fertility aspect.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I have seen the kind of thing Spiffy mentions in hip student-heavy churches (in the UK so no direct Driscoll effect but I fear the leaders are probably influenced by him).
Really? I have spent quite a lot of time in that type of church and never once seen pamphlets circulating on the topic of how to find a partner.
Maybe people thought I was a lost cause.
I'm a bit mystified too. I'm not in one now but I've been in a couple of hip student-heavy churches over the course of a couple of degrees, and the closest I've seen to what Jade describes is this.
Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on
:
What a fasinating discussion. I think there is definately an element of 'shop front' in a lot of these evengelical marriages with the perfect marital harmony, the perfect kids, the perfect commicaition etc. I may be a bitter twisted and rather unpleasant person myself, but I can't honestly see the facade continuing behind closed doors. It kind of reminds me of that brilliant series 'The Americans' where they are to all intents and purposes a normal all-American couple with an apple-pie relationship, but in actual fact are a couple of KGB spies. I bet the reality of these evengelical marriages is a secret porn addiction, mild domestic violence and a reliance on anti-depressants to cope with the self doubt. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Do evangelicals, or evangelical leaders, really present their families as 'perfect'??
I'm a bit put off by the glossy image of some American evangelical TV couples. All shiny white teeth and skinny bodies. But that just seems to be the usual look for the high-achieving American public figure - it's not specific to TV evangelists.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do evangelicals, or evangelical leaders, really present their families as 'perfect'??
I wouldn't necessarily say 'perfect', but certainly 'normal', in the sense that it's the normal state for a leader to be in: married with children. All the children will come to church, and the wife will be involved in either childrens' work or the women's groups.
To be honest, from what I've seen and people I've talked to, it's hardest on the kids - the expectations on them are simply extraordinary, and if they slip up, the punishment and guilt is disproportionate.
Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on
:
Then again, when you combine this comment...
quote:
the glossy image of some American evangelical TV couples. All shiny white teeth and skinny bodies
With the assumption that evengelical adherents of this Driscol fellow would sign up to the implications of this comment....
quote:
my friends of this type are horrified by the thought that someone might actually enjoy performing oral sex on a man, which is one of those things I'm told Driscoll encourages (but he says it's to show your man that you're submissive or something? Instead of because, you know, it's fun!)
...then the attractions of an evangelical marriage become evident. Who wouldn't want a submissive wife that looks like a porn star!
(Stand by for incoming!) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
And best of all - it's a relationship 'approved' by God.
Where do I sign up? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, you're right. Fantastic for blokes- and then presumably when you get tired of her you can point to some supposed female weakness or wickedness in her that gives you the excuse to 'put her away' and get a younger model...which is another reason why it stinks!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's all a delusion. A lie. The divorce rate for evangelicals is higher than for atheists and the national average.
Anyone surprised? Considering all the other denial, deceit, dishonesty.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all a delusion. A lie. The divorce rate for evangelicals is higher than for atheists and the national average.
Anyone surprised? Considering all the other denial, deceit, dishonesty.
One explanation given for the divorce rate is that American evangelicals tend to be of a lower social status than other Americans, and especially atheist Americans. People with low levels of education and poor employment prospects are known to be more likely to divorce and to suffer from various domestic and other problems.
It's probably unsurprising if a bit paradoxical that people with high levels of family dysfunction are attracted to a faith that emphasises an ideal of family life. They want to believe that something better is possible, even though they find it very hard to achieve in their own lives. People whose circumstances make it easier to achieve a decent family life don't have to fantasise about it so much.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
SvitlanaV2, any authority for the rather startling claims you make in the first paragraph? In particular, the claim about divorce rates runs counter to anecdotes suggesting that the rate across society is much the same.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all a delusion. A lie. The divorce rate for evangelicals is higher than for atheists and the national average.
Anyone surprised? Considering all the other denial, deceit, dishonesty.
Are there actual statistics to back up this claim? Specifically pertaining to the UK in particular. I have heard this is true of USA evangelicals and no, it would not surprise me, for all sorts of reasons. But I would be interested to know if it also applies to UK evangelicals.
To paint evangelicals as any MORE prone to denial, deceit and dishonesty than Christians of other traditions (as if fundamentalists in some of those other traditions didn't also exist) is ... well, I'm not convinced. And I'm an open evangelical who is highly critical of fluffy charismania. There's a lot of cynicism on the Ship sometimes. Unrest is one thing, but I'm an optimistic kind of person who tends to believe the best of people and cynicism is not my default position.
Have I encountered denial, deceit and dishonesty within the evangelical community? Yes, I have. "There's nobody meaner than a mean Christian." Yes, that is horribly true. But do I think these unlovely traits characterise the entire sum total of evangelicalism? No, I don't. Any more than I judge all Catholics - let alone their religious - by the miserable people who abused children in Catholic institutions.
Many of my fellow evangelicals are married. Some of those marriages have not survived. Same as with my non-Christian friends. But many of those marriages HAVE survived. I haven't noticed much unreality and pretence in those partnerships. If any of my friends were in an abusive relationship, I'd tell them to get the hell out.
I totally reject the misogyny of Driscoll and his ilk.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I see two main problems with what is described in the OP.
One is that the stereotype of evangelical marriage can be a symptom of a broader tendency I see within evangelicalism to reduce spiritual success to a series of recipes, as illustrated by the idea that following the four spiritual laws, or Alpha, or similar, pretty much guarantees a specific spiritual result.
The other is that living up to this ideal can be far more achievable by those from a certain upringing and background than others (and as others have pointed out, social norms can easily be mistaken for biblical ones). If this results in a two-speed church in which only a certain class of individual is able, for instance, to adopt a leadership position, over time it may cut the church off from the realities of the vast majority around it.
I think that upholding christian morality (whatever we take that to mean) at the same time as genuinely including those that for one reason or another do not fulfil all the "ideal" criteria is a huge challenge for any church.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Gee D
The stats about evangelical divorce in America (mentioned by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard as well as myself) come from a poll carried out by George Barna in 1999. Some of the figures and analysis are available here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
As the article says, the high rate may be partly due to social factors. The article also briefly hints at the way in which some people may claim to be 'born again' without having made a serious commitment. ISTM that in some environments evangelicalism has become a kind of high visibility brand whose popularity means it now makes fewer and fewer demands upon its adherents. (For example, how devout are these self-proclaimed born-again Christians?) If so, it's hardly surprising that the divorce rates should be quite high.
There are other surveys that show high rates of religious observance correlating with lower levels of divorce.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's all a delusion. A lie. The divorce rate for evangelicals is higher than for atheists and the national average.
Anyone surprised? Considering all the other denial, deceit, dishonesty.
That's not really true. Studies that rely on religious self-identification have produced stats like that, but more detailed studies looking at actual religious commitment and practice give a different picture.
Basically, committed Christians are less likely to divorce than the national average or non-believers, but nominal Christians are more likely to divorce (possibly because they're more likely to get married in the first place than non-believers).
According to one study, "active conservative Protestants" who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation (from a "fact checker" article on the "Christians divorce more" factoid)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Thank you The Revolutionist. I sit corrected. We are 35% more righteous. Excluding me big time.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
In my Lutheran tradition, we tend to have a fairly practical, non-idealistic concept of marriage as a public affirmation of the mutual commitment we already have toward one another. In other words, we don't really buy into the idea that the marriage ceremony itself, or the particulars of the partners involved (age, courtship practices, etc.), endow the couple with some special "something" that doesn't already exist between the couple. In Luther's writings, he tends to view Christian marriage as both a partnership and a process -- a process of two persons being priests to one another and discipling one another; a school for character; and with God's help a place of peace and mutual love and service in a hard world. But the operative word in our idea of marriage is commitment, not "love" in the popular, romantic understanding. Because how we experience love changes in the course of a relationship.
This is maybe my prejudice or the influence of American "pop" Christianity talking, but my impression of conservative Evangelicalism is that there's far more emphasis on the supposed preferred prerequisites for marriage, the ceremony itself and the romantic/sexual aspects of marriage than in our little corner of Christendom.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0