Americans are a bunch of sick puppies.
Here’s why I say that: a recently released LifeWay Research survey on divorce found that 37% of all Americans consider it to be a sin to leave your spouse because of abuse within the relationship. That’s two points higher than those who think it’s a sin to ditch a spouse addicted to pornography.
Thankfully, only 28% of pastors surveyed agreed, which is still too high for comfort. Still: Christians are much more likely to say divorce as a result of abuse is a sin than non-Christians (43% to 22%); within Christians, Evangelicals say it’s wrong more than others (46% to 34%). Dear Christ, what is wrong with us?
Well, here’s one idea: David Gushee, looking at the same poll, apparently zeroes in on the 37% of lay people who think it’s not a sin to get divorced at all. Gushee denounces what he calls “routine divorce”:
In western culture today, individuals almost always are free to marry, or not marry, if and when they wish. They are free to choose their partner on the basis of their own entirely self-selected reasons. They are free to conduct themselves in marriage precisely as they choose to do. They are free to initiate divorce if and when they choose and for whatever reason might seem compelling to them.
In other words, a spouse has become a consumer product, to be bought, abandoned, or traded in for a new model at the will of the customer.
I dunno. Like Gushee, I’ve married dozens of couples. Maybe one of those couples wasn’t living together when they got married, probably the majority of them were on their first or second kid together, and right around half of them have gotten divorced. But none of them, as far as I can tell, has simply thrown their partner away in favor of something shinier and newer.
The social science I’ve read says that infidelity is a major factor. So are children, finances, and interpersonal issues. I guess if you wanted to say that coming to understand yourself as incompatible with your spouse is trading him or her in, sure, that’s something of a problem.
But it isn’t a new one. Divorce rates have been going up since 1860, with a brief, stiff, drop between the end of World War II and about 1960. Since 1980, they’ve been declining again, in part because fewer people are getting married at all.
And even the scriptures Gushee builds his argument around demonstrate that divorce isn’t any kind of newfangled invention. That Jesus has to remind his listeners that Mosaic law allowed divorce for “hardness of heart” indicates that even in his day, some people saw marriage as disposable.
In any case, Gushee calls the church to
attempt to create and sustain a counterculture in which we still believe in binding covenantal marriage—and attempt to nurture the character traits and skills that might make such marriages succeed.
Counterculture is good, counterculture is fine; Christianity is often at its best when it’s swimming against the current. And it’s commendable that Gushee wants to equip people for successful marriages, rather than just scold them when they fail.
But even though this is no doubt meant to be a positive, I can’t help thinking it’s a terrible idea. For one thing, it sets successfully navigating an extraordinarily complex social arrangement as the gold standard of faith. And what happens when they fail, as they inevitably will? People leaving the faith because they feel judged or shamed for being divorced is already a problem; I don’t see how making covenantal marriage a super-priority would help matters at all.
In addition, Gushee’s proposal doesn’t address the issue of abuse at all, unless it’s somehow vaguely swept up in “the character traits and skills” that make marriages succeed. I have a hard time thinking that Jesus would want people to stay in marriages where they were being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, yet that’s the message Christians broadcast all too often: you get married, you forgive, and you stay married no matter what. Otherwise, it’s a sin.
Gushee might say that’s not what he’s arguing, that of course spouses can leave abusers, but his rhetorical strategy is exactly how battered women get the idea that the church wants them to stay in violent relationships. When the emphasis is all on the sin of divorce without an explicit proclamation that abuse is not acceptable, that IT breaks the covenant of marriage, what do you expect them to conclude? That they’re “trading in” their husband for a “new model,” of course.
One last thing: Gushee also neglects an economic analysis of marriage. People get divorced more often these days because they can afford to. Essentially, they can buy their way out of a bad relationship and survive. That’s true of men, but particularly of women, who tend to have fewer financial resources than their male partners. Don’t think that there aren’t men who will use that to their advantage.
Part of Jesus’ concern with divorce stemmed from the plight of abandoned women in his day, who were often reduced to begging or prostitution to make ends meet. It was not acceptable, according to the rabbi, to simply walk away from one’s financial obligations to another person in favor of a better arrangement. Today we can say in the same way that it’s not morally acceptable to divorce because you don’t want to support your partner. Or, having been divorced, it’s not acceptable to neglect spousal and particularly child support. Unfortunately, that’s still all too common these days.
Along the same lines, it’s well-established that divorce decreases with education and income level. If churches really want to promote long-lasting marriages, they might want to advocate for economic justice for working families.
But, you know, it’s simpler just to make staying married a moral issue. I’m all for churches supporting and promoting stable marriages, but let’s be clear about the problem. It’s not that we’re sinful puppies in need of exhortation, it’s that we’re sick puppies in need of some healing. That starts with understanding and accepting the root causes of our broken relationships, rather than judging people for their brokenness. Jesus, I think, would have gotten that.
