Story:Pretty interesting
cover story over at Time today on the recent high-profile marriage failures (think Gosslin's and Sanford's) and what they say more generally about the state of marriage in America. Though the answers are few and far between, at least some in the mainstream are coming to the realization that 'traditional family values' (used in the best sense of the phrase) actually make societies stronger.
Caitlin Flanagan, the author of the piece, has one main point: kids suffer tremendously in single-parent homes. She writes:
A lasting covenant between a man and a woman can be a vehicle for the nurture and protection of each other, the one reliable shelter in an uncaring world — or it can be a matchless tool for the infliction of suffering on the people you supposedly love above all others, most of all on your children.
She goes on to detail sociologists and researchers who have discovered that kids without two parent households tend to do far worse than those who have married parents. "There is no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage. It hurts children, it reduces mothers' financial security, and it has landed with particular devastation on those who can bear it least: the nation's underclass." Some 39% of babies are born outside of wedlock, so reports the CDC. That, Flanagan, asserts, is tragic.
On every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration — if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.
Adults today, she says, "are increasingly less willing to put in the hard work and personal sacrifice to get" to lasting, meaningful marriage. They are painfully narcissistic to the point that they will sacrifice career and family to get what they want. And because they see the institution only as a way to increase pleasure, they will of course avoid it altogether or at least abandon it when the going gets tough.
We might as well hold the wake now: there probably aren't many people whose idea of 24-hour-a-day good times consists of being yoked to the same romantic partner, through bouts of stomach flu and depression, financial setbacks and emotional upsets, until after many a long decade, one or the other eventually dies in harness.
Flanagan ultimately says that the answer has to do with the kids.
Or is marriage an institution that still hews to its old intention and function — to raise the next generation, to protect and teach it, to instill in it the habits of conduct and character that will ensure the generation's own safe passage into adulthood? Think of it this way: the current generation of children, the one watching commitments between adults snap like dry twigs and observing parents who simply can't be bothered to marry each other and who hence drift in and out of their children's lives — that's the generation who will be taking care of us when we are old.
Who is left to ensure that these kids grow up into estimable people once the Mark Sanfords and other marital frauds and casual sadists have jumped ship? The good among us, the ones who are willing to sacrifice the thrill of a love letter for the betterment of their children. "His career is not a concern of mine," says Jenny Sanford. "He'll be worrying about that, and I'll be worrying about my family and the character of my children." What we teach about the true meaning of marriage will determine a great deal about our fate.
Reflection:Now it must be said that Flanagan really has no way of answering this question with any depth. She is given a few pages to write something expansive and comprehensive when really only a million pages would have sufficed. Still, you can't help but find her final answer deflating. She has clearly given up the idea that two people could actually stay married because they love each other. "Sacrifice for the sake of the kids." Altruistic, yes. The right answer, no. She has promulgated an old idea, one born out of a culture in the 1950's that prided itself on duty and sacrifice and good morals. Yes, in ages past we have been more moral. But we were moral because we were more moralistic. And you can keep that sort of thing up for quite along time. But, as you can see now in 2009, not for long.
Flanagan unwittingly reinforces the idea that what marriage needs is more hard work. What is needed, she has said, is a stronger work ethic, what is needed is more devotion to the kids (as if our love for them will be purer than love for our spouses). If all we have is "work harder" and "love your kids more," we will lose. As long as it is about our own ability to do things, as long as it is about our own ability to love and not be narcissistic, we will fail. Yes, we will keep up the charade for a while. But only for a while.
This idea of self-sacrifice is, in truth, self-righteousness. Or, it is the belief that you are capable of doing what is needed to in order to be good, in order to get right with God. But self-righteousness is self-defeating. It is dishonoring to God (it is sin), and it is really unhelpful to live a good life. When you try and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, it's not just that you won't be able to. You'll eventually quit trying and pursue some other, more insidious boot. Thus it is the case with marriage and raising kids. As long as the only impetus to do good is your own effort, or even pretty little children, you will constantly fail and be drawn away to other areas where you
can't fail. Relying on your ability to love your spouse and your kids will never be enough. What one needs is the gospel.
Paul gave us the real reason for marriage in Ephesians: "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'" This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church," (5:31-32). Paul is letting us off the hook. He is saying that the impetus for love is not some self-wrought endeavor conceived of and accomplished on our own. Rather, we must look to the only person who has actually accomplished pure love: Jesus. What did Jesus do for the church? He died for her. And that is not just our example. It is our power. It is only in the strength supplied through the redeeming and transforming work of Christ that we could ever say no to a mistress or a mailman. It is in the finished work of Christ, the one who gave us his perfect righteousness, that we will win. When we regularly dwell on--no, when we continually demand and devour--the gospel, only then will we begin to do what is right.
Now this is not to say that you shouldn't use everything at your disposal to fight temptation. Yes, be like Ward and June Cleaver. Discipline is surely lacking in our culture (or as C.S. Lewis wrote, we are people without chests). But know that if you don't find a way to slip a foundation of gospel underneath your works, you'll go right back to doing things your way. And your way will get you nowhere (or, shall we call it hell?).
Posts
