Divorce, Baptists and the Real Issues We Face as a Society

While the Episcopal Church and the misleadingly named Evangelical Lutheran Church in America press ahead with the pansexualist agenda of the sexual revolution by approving of homosexuality as holy, the Southern Baptist Convention is wrestling this summer with a different issue: divorce. In the liberal denominations the issue of divorce has been practically de-ethicized: it is just accepted as a fact of life to which no moral judgments should be attached. But the Baptists still think the Bible is true and the Bible takes a severe view of covenant-breaking.

At this year's convention, the following resolution was passed. The resolution articulated the conviction that the SBC must:

1. Realize "how damaging Southern Baptist accommodation to the divorce culture is to our global witness for Christ."

2. Confront "the spiritual wreckage left in our Southern Baptist churches by our own divorce rates and our silence about the same."

3. Acknowledge that "areas where Southern Baptist churches predominate in number often have higher divorce rates than areas we would define as 'unchurched' and in need of evangelical witness." (This is correct. Mississippi's divorce rate is 82 percent (13,000 divorces vs. only 15,900 marriages). Arkansas' rate is 63 percent; Kentucky, 59 percent.)

4. Confess that "Even the most expansive view of the biblical exceptions allowing for divorce and remarriage would rule out many, if not most, of the divorces in our churches."

5. Admit that "The acceleration in rates of divorce in Southern Baptist churches has not come through a shift in theological conviction about Scriptural teaching on divorce but rather through cultural accommodation."

Dr. Richard Land, President of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and the church's most prominent spokesman for two decades, told me that this astonishing resolution emerged from "a growing revulsion by conservative Christians that too many Southern Baptists and other Christians are quoting the Bible by the yard, and practicing it by the inch."

"We have thoroughly conservative leadership in our denomination, and yet the numbers getting divorced are getting worse, and people are just appalled. We clearly believe that the churches have failed to teach and uphold a standard of a biblical concept of marriage. It is harming our witness terribly."

Therefore, the Southern Baptist resolution urged its churches to:

"Address the spiritual wreckage in our Southern Baptist churches by our own divorce rates and our silence about the same."

Proclaim the word of God on the permanence of marriage, and provide on-going enrichment opportunities.

Marry only those who are "biblically qualified" and understand the meaning of lifelong love and fidelity, a covenant "until death do them part."

Urge those "in troubled or faltering marriages to seek godly assistance and where possible, reconciliation."

Divorce is one of the greatest social problems of our time; it is a key factor is related social issues like poverty, mental health, promiscuity, inadequate parenting, depression, etc. If we could lower the divorce rate by 10% we would literally save lives, pull children out of poverty and help children succeed in school.

We Evangelicals are far from perfect and divorce is a tremendous problem in our churches. But the necessary first step is to confess and repent of our sin and to resolve to turn from it. There is no other starting point if we wish to confront one of the greatest social problems of our time. If we want to be relevant to our contemporary situation, we cannot do so without taking the issue of divorce with full seriousness.

Divorce is Bad for Your Health: Who Knew?

A new study finds that people who divorce, or who are widowed, are adversely affected health-wise, even if they re-marry.

"Waite, the Lucy Flower Professor in Sociology and Director of the Center on Aging at the National Opinion Research Center at the University, conducted the study with Mary Elizabeth Hughes, Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. Their research, which was based on a study of 8,652 people aged 51 to 61, will be published in the September issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior in the article, "Marital Biography and Health Midlife."

The findings are consistent with previous studies, said Dr. Mark Hayward, Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas and an expert in the field of health and marriage, in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). In his own work, he said, for example, "We actually found a very, very similar pattern to the findings that were in this study.""

. . . .

The study found that divorced or widowed people have 20 percent more chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, or cancer, than married people. They also have 23 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble climbing stairs or walking a block. Further, people who remarried have 12 percent more chronic conditions and 19 percent more mobility limitations, but no more depressive symptoms, than those who are continuously married.

It should come as no surprise that something as unnatural as divorce should cause health problems, especially given the reality that the body and the soul are so intertwined that what happens to the person as a whole affects the person as a whole.

But what I found interesting was the knee-jerk reaction from the University of Texas sociologist who commented on the study. He argued that this is no reason to try to discourage people from getting divorced because "the health benefits of marriage may decline due to people staying in "bad" marriages." Now, I call this a knee-jerk liberal reaction for two reasons.

First, it is based entirely on speculation. The study didn't address that question and he did not cite any studies that did.

Second, the definition of a "bad" marriage is irresponsibly vague; it could mean anything from "He never picked up his stinky socks" to "He threatened me at gunpoint while the children watched." In any discussion of divorce a basic prerequisite for getting anywhere is to distinguishing between the reasons for divorce, which range from trivial reasons, "We just grew apart," to sinful reasons, "I got bored and wanted different lovers," to heart-breakingly lesser-of-two-evils reasons, "the alcoholism was out of control and the children were going to school with bruises and black eyes." To just have one big category called "bad" marriages is not helpful.

All too often, the rationalizing of currently ridiculously high divorce rates starts with extreme cases that constitute maybe 1% of the total number of divorces and quickly justifies all divorce on the basis that some are "necessary." The proper adjective to describe this procedure is perhaps "stupid" or maybe "devious." But it is definitely not "reasonable;" nor is it "healthy."

The Children of Divorce and Same-sex "Marriage"

I'm reading the NY Times bestseller from 2000, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25 Year Landmark Study by Judith S. Wallerstein (with Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee) (Hperion, 2000) and a thought just occurred to me.

I've puzzled often over why same-sex "marriage" (SSM) seems to be sweeping through the Western world and gaining support especially from young people. Why now? Why such apathy about defending something as fundamental to civilization as marriage? I understand the energy and anger of the homosexual activists who seek validation as persons for their "life styles." I understand the motivation of adults who wish to put their own gratification above family respsponsibility and so endorse a general permissiveness. But why do others so readily acquiesce in the demands of the extremists? Why has the response of so many been basically a shrug? And, in particular, why are younger Evangelicals more open to SSM than say abortion, an issue on which the Christian view is equally counter-cultural?

Here is the link that just occurred to me. A full 25% of people in the US (I assume as similar rate for Canada) under the age of 44 are children of divorce. The Wallerstein book is a longitudinal study of about 130 families over a 25 year period. The youngest at the time writing (late 90's) was 28 and the oldest was 44. This is the first study to look at the effects of divorce on children as they grow up (they were interviewed every 5 years) and in particular on their adult lives.

What the book found is that the point of greatest impact on the children of divorce is their early adulthood - the period in which they are seeking a marriage partner and marrying. Two myths challenged by Wallerstein are: 1) that children are happier if the divorce makes their parents happier and 2) that the point of greatest impact on children is at the time of the breakup.

With regard to the first myth:

"Children in postdivorce families do not, on the whole, look happier. National studies show that children from divorced and remarried families are two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help at school than their peers from intact families. More of them end up in mental health clinics and hospital settings. There is earlier sexual activity, more children born out of wedlock, less marriage, and more divorce. Numerous studies show that adult children of divorce have more psychological problems than those raised in intact homes." (p. xxix)

With regard to the second myth:

"Contrary to what we have long thought, the major impact of divorce does not occur during childhood or adolescence. Rather, it rises in adulthood as serious romantic relationships move to center stage. When it comes time to choose a life mate and build a new family, the effects of divorce crescendo. A central finding to my research is that children identify not only with their mother and father as separate individuals but with the relationship between them. They carry the template of this relationship into adulthood and use it to seek the image of their new family. The absence of a good image negatively influences their search for love, intimacy, and commitment. Anxiety leads many into making bad choices in relationships, giving up hastily when problems arise, or avoiding relationships altogether." (p. xxv)

If Wallerstein's research is right, would it not make sense if the ambivalence that so many younger Evangelicals feel toward the defense of traditional marriage as a social issue is rooted in their general ambivalence toward marriage in general caused by their own personal life histories? If so, what are the implications of this fact for the future of marriage? Would not the issue perhaps better be framed as a loss of hope, than as rebelliousness?

I certainly do not sense a spirit of 60's rebelliousness in the students I teach. There is an almost pathetic longing for happiness - in whatever way people can find it. They are the opposite of utopians. They tend to be subdued emotionally, cautious in love, and strikingly lacking in conviction that people can change for the better. I see a streak of conservativism in these students, but not much optimism, self-confidence, or trust. These are just my observations.

I'd appreciate feedback, especially from those in their late teens to early thirties, about the possible link between a generation shaped by the experience of divorce and a tentativeness about defending traditional marriage as a social issue.