The Heart Matters

31486261#31486261 - A link to the Today show report on “outdated marriage.”

Upon reading the article, On marriage: Let’s call the whole thing off, a clever play on the song by George Gershwin, I am at a loss for words. Perhaps, it is not a loss of words, rather a sense of being slapped in the face with a piece of rotting meat. I am astonished. Marriage is no longer viable. It is outdated and unrealistic, not worth the time.

This was news to me, a mother of four sons, ages 15 through 9, married now for 18 years, most of which have been amazingly fulfilling and full of love. Sweat dripped from my brow as I calculated the time left for me in antiquated marriage. Two years until I wake up and file the papers. Gulp.

Author Sandra Tsing Loh, after 20 years of hard work as mother, companion, professional writer, household manager and “go-fer,” has decided to get a divorce. She laments that she just works too hard to attempt to put the romance back into a marriage that lost the heat long ago. Her marriage is not worth her effort. She hasn’t got time for the pain.

After counseling sessions and confessing an affair, not only has Ms. Loh opted for divorce, but she is now questioning the entire institution of marriage. Marriage is not worth it. This is not a view from an embittered divorcee, but rather the insight of the enlightened. She writes :

Why do we still insist on marriage? Sure, it made sense to agrarian families before 1900, when to farm the land, one needed two spouses, grandparents, and a raft of children. But now that we have white-collar work and washing machines, and our life expectancy has shot from 47 to 77, isn’t the idea of lifelong marriage obsolete?

Well, it seems that in many Western countries the notion of marriage is becoming less popular as statistics from the World Values Survey indicate, while Americans embrace marriage as “highly valued,” even though America has the highest divorce rate of any country. Ms. Loh points out that Americans have the highest view of marriage.

“Marriage is an outdated institution” than citizens of any other Western country surveyed (compare the U.S.’s tiny 10 percent with France’s 36 percent). We are also more religious — more Americans (60 percent) say they attend religious services once a month than do the Vatican-centric Italians (54 percent) or, no surprise, the laissez-faire French (12 percent). At the same time, Americans endure the highest divorce rate in the Western world. In short, although we say we love religion and marriage, Cherlin notes, “religious Americans are more likely to divorce than secular Swedes.”

So Americans are a marriage centric nation of individuals who embrace the values of monogamy in marriage as well as the pursuit of personal happiness. Loh observes that since Americans value individualism as well as happily-ever-after-marriage, these competing values result in divorce, which explains our country’s high divorce rate as compared to other nations.

Honestly, I found this argument intriguing, for she argues that our sense of the individual over community, or even family, contradicts the substance of marriage.  Hence, Americans are doomed to the grinding cycle of marriage, divorce, remarriage, divorce and so forth. It just isn’t worth it. Interesting concept, I suppose.

Then, Ms. Loh begins to share her observations with her core group of women friends, who all have been married for many years.Soon after Ms. Loh divorced and shared her enlightened perspective, that they too were considering to make the break from the bonds that imprison them. They too just don’t have the time to make their marriages work. Marriage and love relationships take work. Effort is required.

Far better to be happy as an individual and to arrange some sort of civil agreement with the baby-daddies. So long as the children are not disturbed and they have the security of a household where mom and dad come and go, no harm done. The kids are just fine. Just follow the rules. Rules do not require love. Rules make it easier – to make excuses – or to leave.

That's right ladies - you don't need a man.

This is where my brain pops forth from my skull. So, Ms. Loh and Company, since you and your gal pals all have white collar jobs, which equals wealth, you can purchase your freedom. You will have your home – apart from your ex and your kids. Your ex will need his separate place. Your children will have their fake – fairyland home where mom and dad come and go. I count three households, unless you and your ex share a pad.

This plan is economic disaster for anyone other than the wealthy, not to mention it is peculiar. So what you are really saying is that the wealthy can have their separate lives and marriage is outdated for them. The poor and undereducated, well, they must remain in outmoded marriage, even though it is supposedly biological torture – as humans only experience the sensation of chemical induced love for the max of four years.

Geez, after reading this article, I felt like I had just finished watching the HBO series Rome. Now that was a show full of debauchery – masses of intertwined flesh - the wealthy women had all the choices – plotting for power, using their bodies for gain. For them, marriage was a power play of position and political strategy. Personally, I am having difficulty seeing the difference from what Ms. Loh is proposing and what I witnessed in that series – moral and civil decline, not to mentioned the absence of  love.

So now the women’s movement is recruiting wives of modern wealth and education to leave their husbands, or heck, never marry. You reason, children only suffer harm when a string of men are introduced to them. Those children must bond with these men and, in turn, suffer repetitive emotional loss. Children thrive in a stable home where civility and rules are followed. Under your paradigm, love is not necessary, because love takes work.

A world without genuine loving relationships is what you postulate, Ms. Loh. A world where men and women do not sacrifice and work at love – is a world not worth living in. A world lived for self only – is a world without God. It is a world of death and decay. Maybe that’s why I felt as though I was hit in the face with rotten flesh – for that is what man and women are with out love.

The apostle Paul put it best in 1Cor 13: 1-3.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Sometimes, we need to take a good look at ourselves and acknowledge that love takes work and it requires sacrifice that is other’s focused. I know that after reading this article, I am taking a good look at myself.

I use rules all the time to replace the work – the huge painful effort- that love requires. It is not easy – that is for sure, but is it genuine and it is alive. Love focused outwards is anything, but decayed. It is everything that is good.

Happy 18th anniversary, Steve. I love you more than when we first said “I do.”

Additional Information

Last week I attended a Catholic baptism for my nephew Dennison. I was really looking forward to meeting this newest addition to the Gerber clan, but I must admit I was also a bit apprehensive. My apprehension had nothing to do with potentially explosive interactions, quite familiar to the Gerbers and the Harnacks in attendance, rather what had unsettled me was knowing that soon I would be witnessing the rite of infant baptism, a practice that has confounded me since I first began actively reading the Bible for myself.

Being raised in the Lutheran church, infant baptism was a big deal for everyone in attendance. There was always the pre-ceremony build up. This small child was soon to be a member of God’s family. It was a big deal. God parents were selected and solemn vows were taken. The whole congregation would raise up their voices as one, reciting the words set before them in the service manual. I somehow believed that child would not have to burn in hell if death preceded adulthood. Adulthood somehow coincided with eighth grade confirmation. Hmm… It was not until I began to read scripture for myself that I questioned this practice.

A familiar ritual in many churches

But this day, I was attending my nephew’s baptism, not of the Lutheran Church, but of the Catholic Church. My brother’s wife is Catholic and he, I believe, still considers himself a Lutheran. I recall that he agreed to raise their children as Catholic so that he could be married in the Catholic Church. Honestly, this has always confounded me. How could someone agree to raise their kids in a faith that they themselves are not in agreement with? I never understood this.

But I have digressed from my point which is that infant baptism unsettles me as a Bible reading Christian, or at least this particular ceremony confounded me. Here are the things that really bothered me:

First, the lack of scripture used during this ritual. This bothered me the most. I mean, what or who is the authority or power behind this sacrament. The priest read from some liturgical material and talked a lot about the family of God and that this particular child was now somehow set free from being born into original sin. The priest mentioned that in some mysterious way that now this child contained “the Spirit in part” and that “upon confirmation the whole of the Spirit would either indwell or rest” upon my nephew.

This really confused me for several reasons:

One, how can one person have a part of the Spirit? Is not the Spirit, God Himself, a complete person? Can the Spirit just splinter part of Himself off to people and plant a “Spirit seed” that matures upon the rite of confirmation? Where was the scripture to support this view? Huh?

Two, is not baptism a witness of individual choice? Baptism, from what scripture shows, is a proclamation of what has already happened, meaning that the Spirit has already indwelled a believer. Baptism does not make one pure, as once was practiced in Israel through purification rites, rather a believer has already been made pure through the sacrifice that Christ made upon the cross. Baptism is a public testimony of what Christ has already done for someone who has made a choice to accept Him as Lord and Savior.

Three, how does the act of confirmation bestow the fullness of the Spirit? Again, is it not an act of faith to believe in Christ that makes one part of His family? All the reading and classes or rites can do nothing apart from faith. At least this is what I believe the scriptures to indicate.

A second thing that disturbed me about this baptism was that this particular priest did not even know my nephew. I suppose he knew my sister-in-law’s family, but she and my brother live in Colorado. Her local community or “church” did not participate in this “welcoming into the family of God.” It seemed strange to not have a ceremony in the community where you live. I guess it is like going back to your hometown to get married. I suppose the priest was welcoming my nephew into the universal body of Christ. It just seemed odd. To be fair though, they probably held the ceremony in Ohio because family could attend.

The final thing that bothered me had nothing to do with the baptism in itself. It had to do with knowing the difference between Lutherans and Catholics. Raised as a Lutheran, I know that Lutherans neither revere Saints nor do they consider Mary some sort of perpetual virgin with super intercessory powers. Yet, much to my dismay, my entire Lutheran family requested through liturgical response that Mary, St. Ambrose and a litany of other Saints “pray for them.”  (Say what!)

I thought that my eyes and ears were deceiving me. I mean – they were praying to dead people. Not to God – but to people. This was just wigging my world. I had always found some comfort that as a Lutheran, I had not prayed to people, except to Christ. I knew that Lutherans had some unfounded rituals – but LUTHERANS DO NOT PRAY TO SAINTS OR THE HOLY BLESSED MOTHER.

Why did this upset me the most? I suppose it hurt my pride. It also broke my heart. People will follow the crowd and do what everyone else is doing, even if they don’t agree. Or, maybe worse, they don’t even know why they do what they do. There is no substance to belief. It is all out of religious traditions, so respect some else’s traditions. Just do it – go along with it.

I suppose the ceremony was held in the right church after all. Not knowing anything about Saint Ambrose, I did a little reading up on his life. Here is a little quote from this venerable patron saint:

Ambrose - When in Rome...

“When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the church where you are.”

His advice has remained in the English language as the saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Following this advice, in Catholic “churches” pray to the Saints and when in a Lutheran “church,” do not pray to saints. Personally, I’d rather follow what Jesus did and pray directly to God.

^{Final thoughts on this church and its doctrine:}

• Scripture is not important – just listen to what the priest says and repeat after me.
• Listen to a watery and disconnected teaching about the family of God, making sure that Mary gets her floor time.
• Be sure to include the Lord’s Prayer – it counts as scripture and everyone knows it so no need to use the Bible.
• Ritual supercedes truth – so just follow along.
• Personal decision really don’t matter – ritual does.
• Saints have some sort of super intercessory powers, after death. You not only need the priest to intercede but also some long dead religious dudes.
• Visitors are encouraged to read along in rituals – even if they don’t believe what they are saying. Peer pressure make a nice ceremony.

To be fair to my brother and his family, I do not know what they personally believe. I am merely responding as an outside observer to what I witnessed and presenting the reasons that my family did not participate in the recitations.

Honestly, the church building was not overstated and had a subdued appearance. It did not have that high church feel. The picnic that was held afterwards was delightful and most pleasant. My only regret was that I wasn’t able to spend more time with my brother and his lovely family. I would just love to understand what they believe.

Additional Information