The Current State of Marriage in the United States

My assessment of the institution of marriage is buttressed on the foundation of my Christian faith. As such, my assessment of the institution of marriage is integrated, multidimensional, multilayered and interwoven with my marital philosophy and core values. These nuances are further ingrained within my belief systems and theology. The foregoing elements ultimately shape my biblical worldview of marriage. A biblical worldview is essential for followers of Jesus Christ to effectively live out their Christian faith (Dockery, 2007; Sire, 2009). My biblical worldview of marriage was framed from the construct that marriage is a covenant relationship established with God as opposed to the commonly held secular worldview that marriage is simply a contractual relational agreement entered into by two persons. According to Hill (2015), secularism is “a state of affairs and a state of mind in which the realities of life are considered to be without spiritual significance” (p. 311).

Theologically, the doctrines of Creation and the Trinity (Genesis 1:26- 30), the Fall of Humanity (Genesis 3:5-7), the Redemption of Humankind through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:15; Titus 2: 14; Revelation 1:5-6), the establishment of a New Heaven and Earth (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22; Revelation 21:1) are foundational to my personal assessment of the institution of marriage. In addition, my biblical worldview supports the biblical view that the family was indeed the first institution created by God when He took one of Adam’s ribs and made Eve is wife (Genesis 2:21-23). I believe that a husband first responsibility is to his wife, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, King James Version) and a wife’s first responsibility is to her husband: “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:20b).

My biblical worldview of marriage is not contingent of macroenvironmental factors such as: (a) secular legislative adaptations, (b) widely held secular view that cohabitation is a viable alternative to marriage for economic reasons or (c) cultural compromises that require Christians to “blend in” with contemporary culture.

What threats or risks do marriages face today that may undermine the stability of the relationship or increase stress for a couple?

Contemporary marriages face a plethora of stressors and risks that daily threaten the stability of marital relationships. I posit that threats or risks associated with marriages can be either (a) internal to the marital relationship and as such are contingent on how individual parties function within the marriage or (b) external to the marriage when, in many instances, the factors are not created by the couple. As it relates to individualistic marital influences, I posit that the character and virtues held by both husband and wife are pivotal to marital health and positive outcomes. According to Goddard, Olson, Galovan, Schramm, and Marshall (2016), “Marital virtues and character strengths suggest that personal characteristics such as generosity, gratitude, positivity, forgiveness, and other-centeredness are related to positive relationship outcomes” (p. 425). When husbands and wives display such virtues, it is believed that the “self” becomes decentered and paves the way to more effectively overcome inherent attribution biases, achieved compromise in better understanding each other’s points of view to arrive at common ground (Goodard et al., 2016). Goodard et al., (2016)’s study, which focused on examining 1,513 respondents in three states and their effects of humility, positivity and compassion, revealed that “spousal reports of humility and compassion were positively associated with self-reported marital satisfaction among both husbands and wives” (p.433). In other words, one can reasonably conclude that some level of emphasis should be given to character development and formation during premarital and remarital counseling.

In another study conducted by Ledermann, Bodenmann, Rudaz, and Bradbury (2010), 345 couples were examined using the Action Partner Interdependence and Common Fate Model. The authors hypothesized that “relationship stress mediates the association between external stress and marital functioning at the individual level, and that the association between relationship stress and marital quality is partially mediated by communication at the dyadic level” (p. 195). A key finding of the study was that both husbands and wives’ marital communication in conflict and wives’ marital quality “seem to be affected to the same degree by one’s own relationship stress and the partner’s relationship stress”(p.203).

Based on this key finding, one could make a strong argument that counselors and marital therapist should devote some critical attention to: (a) psychoeducation during premarital and remarital counseling and (b) developing strategic therapeutic intervention approaches to help married couples cope with individual stress as well as external stressors. The findings of this study also may a good argument to support the view that interpersonal communication skill development could potentially be a pivotal factor aimed at improving marital satisfaction outcomes.

Within the culture?

Between 1980 and 2008 statistical data indicate that multicultural marriages are significantly on the rise. Given this reality, traditional approaches to premarital and remarital counseling may not be the most optimum therapeutic approach to achieve optimal couple satisfaction (Qian & Lichter, 2011). Arguably, one of the greatest influences on contemporary life shaping worldviews is the postmodern culture in which we live. Bond (2014), a social psychologist by profession, renders an in-depth description of a construct premise first elucidated by Cole (1996) referred to as “cultural-inclusive psychology” (p. 7). Bond (2014) provides the following comprehensive definition of this all-embracing cultural concept here:

I think of culture on both its senses – the repository of humankind’s fascinating output of cuisine, music, art, architecture, literature, philosophy and science on the life that teems around us, but also in the more esoteric sense of the residue from this legacy in the life-as-lived by each of us – our beliefs, our values, our worldviews, our talents, our vocations ad our relationships, their style and content, that structure of living from the cradle to the grave. (p. 27).

In other words, several of today’s marriages are exposed to the fault lines created by today’s postmodern culture. As such, if they are not built on a solid foundation, they become extremely susceptible to suffering from the devastating effects caused from marital earthquakes. The influences of postmodern culture of today’s society including the church are staggering. Rosenbaum and Weathersbee (2013), in a study conducted among 151 newly married couples at nine Texas Southern Baptist churches, reported that, “More than 70% of the respondents reported having had premarital vaginal or oral sex, but more than 80% regretted premarital sex” (p. 263). I would argue that similar statistics may also be unveiled if other denominations were investigated, thus illustrating the intensive impact that postmodernism is having on the Church in general, and more specifically, on the institution of marriage.

Through legislative or other initiatives?

Perhaps the most important legislative impact that has impacted both marriages and the Church is same-sex marriages. Again, postmodernism has played, and continues to play, a significant role in the significant rise in public support for what is termed marriage equality. This nomenclature which was birthed in the Western hemisphere and has since expanded at the global level. According to Kirby, Mckenzie-green, Mcara-couper, & Nayar (2017) a growing sub-section of the Church has been advocating support for same-sex marriages. Kirby et al., (2017) point out another pivotal initiative emanating from the therapeutic field:

Originally listed as a “sociopathic personality disturbance,” homosexuality was “upgraded” to a mere “sexual deviation” in 1968, and finally in 1973 delisted altogether from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-II) of the American Psychiatric Association; a decision followed by the American Psychoanalytic Association in 1975. (p.907)

Given the pivotal therapeutic postures adopted by some segments of the Church coupled with those elucidated by leading and respected mental health authorities in the United States, it is not difficult to comprehend why the battle against same-sex marriages remains as fierce as it is.

From economic pressures?

The are several factors that impinge economic pressures associated with couples considering marriage. Arguably one of the most common factors that arise for couples contemplating marriage is that of cohabitation. As it relates to cohabitation the question therefore arises, should Christians decisions be influenced by the culture in which we live to justify cohabitation, or should the Word of God take precedence? Should consideration be given where extenuating circumstances arise? According to Hohmann-Marriott (2006), “Cohabiting couples and couples who cohabit prior to marriage have less stable relationships than married couples who did not cohabit, and these differences may be linked to processes within the relationships” (p. 1015). In addition, nontraditional beliefs held by cohabiting partners appear to make the less committed and more susceptible to divorce should they eventually decide to get married (Hohmann-Marriott, 2006).

I happen to know of a situation with a godly couple who were engaged when the husband moved from Canada to Florida to take up a youth pastor’s position at his mentor’s church. He did not have the financial resources at the time to buy a home for his family. Based on the Senior pastor’s knowledge of his youth pastor’s character he allowed his youth pastor and his fiancée to live with them for a short time before they got married and the shortly after purchased their own home. In my view, these were extenuating circumstances and a judgement call was made based of knowing both individuals’ characters. I posit that while this is not a situation that would normally be encouraged, it had economic implications and required much payer before making a decision based on the character of the individuals involved.

Of course, the couple were not allowed to sleep together while making the life transition. Was there sin involved because of temporarily living under his mentor roof? In my view, steps were taken to avoid obvious temptation and sin. Based on the character of the Senior Pastor, whom I personally know to be a very godly man, I feel he made a decision based on the character of someone he has known for several years and knew that trusted him to not violate God’s standard of holiness.

What resources and/or support systems are available to couples today? And what role, if any, should the Church play?

In my view, the Church has a pivotal role to play as a major support system to couples considering both first time marriages as well as remarriage. I posit that pastoral counselors, Christian counselors, professional counselors and licensed marriage and family therapists also should be used as resource mechanisms to assist in bringing stability, transformation and restoration to marriages. I hasten to add that this issue is not a simplistic as it may appear on the surface. Roskit, Griffith and Cruz (2007) posit that religious conservative communities may be the only identifiable group still advocating coherent beliefs regarding the same-sex marriage agenda. In other words, the evidence strongly supports a continued rising tide that favors the same-sex marriage agenda. In my view, there is also a major role that can be played by the nuclear family as a support system. Specifically, behavior modification, as a therapeutic intervention, I posit could be synergistic.

According to Besharat (2003) behavioral therapists focus more directly on behavioral alterations primarily in couples that are moderately distressed. Arguably one of today’s most used therapeutic intervention modalities is Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). Systems therapists, on the other hand, would perceive the marital dyad as a system or sub-system of the larger family system. As such, the systems approach lends a sense of homeostatic underpinning (Besharat, 2003). Lastly, in my view, the church leaders need to conceptualize initiatives that promote unity on this life-changing issue by becoming much more vociferous on every conceivable front. I contend that such advocacy is urgently needed to oppose the ungodly initiatives unleashed in our postmodern culture and to defend traditional marriage as created and instituted by God. 

References

Besharat, M. A. (2003). What are the main difference between behavioral and systems therapy with couples? A critical account. Journal of Contemporary Psychology, 33(2), 109-127. Retrieved from htpps://doi.org/0022-11603/0600-0109/0

Bond, M. H. (2014). How I am constructing culture-inclusive theories of social-psychological process in our age of globalization. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 45(1), 26-36. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12053

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.

Dockery, D. S. (2007). Renewing minds: Serving church and society through Christian higher education. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic

Goddard, H. W., Olson, J. R., Galovan, A. M., Schramm, D. G. & Marshall, J. P. (2016). Qualities of character that predict marital well-being. Family Relations, 65(3), 424-438. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1111/fare.12195

Hill, J. L. (2015). Secularization: A New Testament Perspective. Evangelical Review of Theology, 39(4), 311-323. Retrieved from Ebsco.

Hohmann-Marriott, B. E. (2006). Shared beliefs and union stability of married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1015-1028. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00310.x

Kirby, A., Mckenzie-green, B., Mcara-couper, J., & Nayar, S. (2017). Same-sex marriage: A dilemma for parish clergy. Sexuality & Culture, 21(3), 901-918. Retrieved from https://doi:10.1007/s12119-017-9414-1

Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Rudaz, M., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations, 59(2), 195-206. Retrieved from htpps://doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00595.x

Lorber, M. F. (2004). Psychophysiology of Aggression, Psychopathy, and Conduct Problems: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4):531-52. Retrieved from https://doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.531

Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. T. (2011). Changing patterns in interracial marriage in a multicultural society. Journal of Family and Marriage,73(5), 1065-1084. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00866.x

Rosenbaum, J. E. & Weathersbee, B. (2013). True love waits: Do Southern Baptist? Premarital sexual behavior among newly married Southern Baptist school students. Journal of Religion and Health; New York, 52(1), 263-275. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-010-9445-5

Roskit, C., Griffith, L., & Cruz, Z. (2007). Homophobia and conservative religion: Towards a more nuanced understanding. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(1), 10-19. Retrieved from https://doi.10/1037/0002-9432.77.1.10.

Sire, J. W. (2009). The universe next door: A Basic worldview catalog (4th ed.). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.