As I've written about many times before, love is more than an emotion, and marriage is more than just living together. Marriage is a business and economic arrangement, as well as a spiritual arrangement. In it's Godly form, marriage may be absolutely perfect and without any need for external strengthening, but since we're all sinful people and we live in a sinful world it shouldn't be a surprise that the institution of marriage has been adversely affected to such a point where it makes sense to me for Christians to enter "prenuptual contracts" -- despite their supposed intention of never ever divorcing under any circumstance.
That's the attitude I intend to bring to my marriage as well, and yet statistcs show that Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians. It seems foolish to be unprepared for such an eventuality, no matter how remote you may judge it to be. Even aside from any monetary matters, what about the children? If, for example, my (hypothetical) wife were to cheat on me and run off to Bermuda, I wouldn't want her to come back and use the court system to then steal my kids away to raise them in a hedonistic lifestyle.
The argument that "planning for failure makes it more likely to occur" may be of some influence, but divorce is already so prevalent that it seems like a moot point.
So then, what kinds of provisions make sense for a Christian prenupt? My main concern would be that in the event of a divorce, Christian principles should govern the proceedings rather than the civil court system. To that end, the major stipulation I would advance would be that both people agree that any and all disputes are to be resolved by some third-party Christian leader (such as their pastor) or group of leaders, and that both resolve to be bound by such arbitration. The trick is in finding someone you both trust, of course, but that shouldn't be too difficult for a couple planning on getting married.
With this one simple protection, the vast majority of my anxiety would be relieved, and it's hard to contemplate anyone seriously objecting to such an agreement (since it seems to fall in line with the principles Jesus laid out for conflict resolution).
I'd really like to know what Donald Sensing thinks on the matter.
I recently got married in December 2003. I waited until the ripe old age of 36, and she is 10 years my junior. It was the first time for both of us. We are both Christians and sought a great deal of premarital counseling (1 full year) before we got married; but in all that preparation, we still were not prepared to live together. In fact, we both felt like we had made a mistake during the first seven months of this marriage. Now mind you, we thought we had done everything right: No sex before the wedding night, Christian premarital classes and counseling, no living together, etc... In preparation for our lives together, we overlooked if we were really right for one another. It's is only now that we are truly loving one another. This has take a great deal of faith to act (verb)on loving each other. The feeling naturally follows. I'm kind of understanding what Jesus meant when he said to "love your neighbor", " love the Lord your God", and "love your wife". He meant not only in your heart but in your actions. Acting on something takes faith, and the feelings will follow accordingly.
Marriage is a business and economic arrangement
I can not disagree more... This is the secular view of marriage that is driving this country over a cliff. The secular "economic" view of the institution of marriage actually is a strong argument for those that seek to claim homosexual relationships are equivalent to marriage. It's analogous (sp?) to saying "marriage is a last-name arrangement" or "marriage is a income tax personal exemtion arrangement." If you are a secular person, seeking a secular relationship with another like-minded person, then so be it. If you are a Christian seeking to glorify God in every aspect of your life, the economic results of holy matrimony are secondary outcomes, not primary forces.
statistcs show that Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians
And I'm sure that statistics show that Christians do a lot of other things in a similar proportion to the secular culture at large... drink, dance, vote democratic, etc. I believe that is because most christians are such in name only, not in actually servanthood to Christ. They are a part of a Sunday morning club where everyone puts on nice clothes and pretends to be better than the neighbors they are supossed to love, but they have not surrendered every part of their existance to the lordship of Jesus. "Be not conformed, but be transformed." I haven't studied the statistics myself enough to say with certainty, but I do believe that you will find that the divorce rate goes way dawn for those that are truly trusting and obeying God at every level of their life.
Instead of statistics to validate that contention, I offer this hypothetical... Two couples are married on the same week in the same church. Both have abstained, been counseled, etc. One couple did this all "so the preacher would do the service." The other couple truly seeks to serve each other, and to put the needs of their spouse ahead of themselves. When difficulty arrives, they seek God's guidance in prayer and scripture. The wife submits graciously to her husband's leadership, and he sacrifices his everything to love, protect, and care for her. Ten years and 2.2 kids later, which couple are you more likely to find still worshipping together? Once again, I can not statistically support this hypothetical situation, but suffice it to say that much of the wisdom of scripture has not been statistically quantified.
Christian principles should govern the proceedings rather than the civil court system
I'm not sure why this would be neccessary. If there is a divorce, then obviously christian principles had not been governing the individuals to begin with. As for the third party mediator, what better mediator is there than Christ himself?
Finally let me leave you with my personal observations on three marriages...
1] My grandparents are both dead now. they were married in the 1940's. They had four children, and were faithful to God and each other unto death.
2] My parents were married in the sixties. They had three children. They were divorced in the sixties. Dad went on to have three more wives, and I don't know how many more kids.
3] I have been with my wife for eight years, our son is seven. We have had arguments and everyday I hack my wife off (and she gets under my skin too), but we choose to love each other and serve each other and neither one of us entertains the thought of ever not being together.
Don't let the popular secular culture guide your marriage... 1 john 5:12.
Chance: It sounds like a tough road, but honestly to me it's a beautiful story.
gaw: I'm not saying that we should get married for economic purposes; I'm saying that when you get married, your finances are entertwined and you have to deal with economic issues together (in contrast with people who "live together" and otherwise maintain generally seperate lives).
I'm not saying it's inevitable that marriages will be corrupted, and I have every intention of being with my hypothetical wife no matter what -- but what if she doesn't? I'm just voicing my fears, that's all. I don't think it's unreasonable to be scared a little at the prospect.
I lived through my parents' divorce, and (more statistics) children of divorced parents are much more likely to get divorced themselves. I've tried to make myself (and God has tried to make me) the opposite of my parents in a lot of ways, for the better, and I think their divorce has made me take marriage even more seriously than I might have otherwise. But it's still a little scary to me. Not that I'm not eager to get married, because I am, but still.
Michael-
I was not trying to downplay the reality of the economic factor of marriage, but rather trying to put it into it's proper perspective with regard to a christian view of marriage, as opposed to the secular view of marriage. Secularly, issue related to marriage include economics, compatibility, conveniance, physical attraction, property ownership, legal liability/obligation, taxes, etc. All these issues are relevant to the subject of marriage, but not to its definition. Now the definition you hold for marriage will determine how these subjects are viewed in relation to marriage.
A secular mind may well view marriage as;
"a legal and financial union, recognized by the governement and society, of two people, for so long as they agree to remain united." (I base this definition on my own observation of culture, it is not in webster's)
A person with a truly Christian view of the world sees marriage differently;
"The most basic family element, consisting of a man and woman joined for life, in a holy union, for the glory and pleasure of God."
So you see, the main reason I see for divorce in the church is that many christians have accepted the secular understanding of marriage. The heart of this disparity is the untransformed minds of many christians (which by definition is conformed to this world)... they continue to think with the same secular worldview they have lived their whole life with. (OT- I'd recommend Harry Blamires "The Christian Mind" for more in depth reading on thinking christianly vs secularly.)
As for fears, only the perfect love of Christ can cast those out... I'm afraid no text in the comments section of a blog can help there. I'd venture to say a written agreement hashed out in a romantic prelude to marriage is no real security either.
Seek first the kingdom, and He will provide the right woman at the right time... It may not be in the time that you would like, but patience has great rewards.
Philippians 4:6-7
- No Worries
- Pray, Pray, Pray
- God's Peace Guards
Sorry, I get long-winded sometimes (or all the time, depending on who you ask). I also apologize if you've already touched on these points elswhere in your blog. I've only recently come across your site, but I find it is a very refreshing change from many of the other sites I've been blogged down by.
Michael- Don't downplay the economic issues pertaining to any part of life. But the Phillipians 4:6 line above puts this into perspective. We are called, first and foremost, to be righteous in the present. See Luke 12:15-29.
CS Lewis had a marvellous analysis of human decision making in Screwtape Letters, where Wormwood is instructed by Screwtape to keep his clients always preoccupied with the future, "about which they know nothing and about which they can do nothing". We can see the past, we can act in the present, but in the future we hold no sway or see no light. Consequently, the only value of a prenuptual agreement is to further your role as a steward of God's world. If your wife is better at running a hypothetical newspaper, and needs voting control over its shares, then community property state laws might harm her ability to retain such control and exercise her calling, and a prenupt would solve this issue. But planning for disaster, as Luke would imply, is God's perview.
Jesus was as clear on the topic of divorce as anything else he addressed, and more clear than on many things: "No."
I reject the idea of any kind of prenupt and will not marry couples whom I know have one.
Sorry, Michael, what you propose is surrender.
I blogged about marriage as follows:
Gay marriages? Look at divorce laws first.
Men and commitment, or not
the sad state of marriage in America today, and the psychobiological origins of marriage
Other thoughts about marriage and divorce.
Maybe you're all right. I don't think I have a good handle on it, never having been in a position to directly deal with the issue.
Jews have been writing individual marriage contracts for at least a thousand years.
The word is Ktuba.
It might be useful to look into what a culture known for it's strong families does. And why.
Every one could get a contract suited to their circumstances. No need for the one size fits all socialist model.
Of course the Jewish model of marriage is different. A woman who is married to a husband who does not do heavy labor is supposed to be sexually accomodated any time she desires (except during her period). Scholars were supposed to be especially accomodating to their wives.
Despite what Donald says the pre-nup is not anti-marriage.
Other cultures do things differently and have been quite successful. Family wise. It is actually possible to learn from other people, places, and times.
It always amazed me that modern Christians especially of the Protestant variety have no sense of their own history let alone the history of the wider world. Because Protestantism is individual not corporate, doctrines can undergo radical shifts in as little as one hundred years.
Other traditions with more of a historical attitude Catholicism, Orthodox Jews, are not so easily moved. For good and ill.
What was once the devil's own music (rock) now supports God (in part). Some people even dance the polka despite it's once supposed decadence.
The Jews love sex, drinking (Passover is especially good),dancing, gambling (Hannaka dreydel), and many other things some Christians are sure is sin. In fact on Purim (the feast of Esther) we are commanded to get so drunk that we cannot tell the difference between Hamman and Mordecai. Why? Because Hamman's oppression may have done as much to unite the Jews as a community as Mordecai's efforts.
Despite all this alcoholism is less prevalent in Jewish communities than in general. Perhaps familiarity breeds knowing acceptance instead of the forbidden fruit syndrome.
The evils of acceptace and regulation of vice are often much less than the evils of prohibition of vice. Of course that reduces the great feelings of moral superiority and self satisfaction that come from battling vice. It seems Jesus once had a thing or two to say on the subject. Or so I'm told. In time I'm sure Christians will eventually catch on.
The funny thing is that in these days the Jews seem so Christian in may way (turning the other cheek to the Palestinians? Again? ugh) and the Christians seem avid for punishing every thing that doesn't meet their approval.
I'd like to see a middle ground.
If I find it I'll let you know.
Did I mention that there is a Jewish court system in America whose rulings are accepted by the American court system when both parties in a dispute agree to adjudication in that court?
I know it covers business disputes. I'm not sure it covers marriage. It definitely doesn't cover criminal law.
Except for the laws in the Torah the system is mostly a common law system. That is the laws are mostly judge made. The "whose ox is gored" question is a classic of Judaic law. The discussions and opinions handed down are fascinating and worthy of study for an insight into some of the greatest legal minds and questions of not just decades or centuries but millenia.
Jewish law is one of the oldest continuing legal systems on the planet. Perhaps the oldest.
M. Simon: You've got a lot of interesting things to say, it's a shame you can't seem to say them in a less annoying fashion.
Sorry you were annoyed.
What exactly pushed your button?