On The Theological Response to the Crisis of Divorce
By Bobby Rohde
December 14, 2000
In the last half century, the divorce rate in
America has sky-rocketed to a frightening 40% of all marriages, which puts the
US well ahead in divorces when compared to nearly any other nation on
Earth. Marriage is an ancient
institution and has acquired ritual / sacramental status in many of the
religions of the world, thus it is fair to ask how theologians respond to the
high failure rates in modern marriages.
Due to the large numbers of religions and only limited space I will
present the views of only a handful of theologians from major world religions
and thus provide a cross section on what they feel makes a strong lasting
marriage. There is no panacea to the
problem of divorce, but if it is not brought under control it will continue to
undermine the family unit upon which our society is based. Religion, by sanctifying and providing
structure to marriage may be able to offer insights into how to build a more
lasting commitment.
There are far too many religions to consult here in
this paper, however I feel it would be useful to say something about a couple
of these in order to demonstrate the range of views. At one extreme there exists Buddhism where people are even
encouraged to abandon their families to attain the higher goal of spiritual
enlightenment. Somewhere in the middle,
Confucianism believes that one of the cardinal virtues for maintaining order in
society is a proper relationship between husband and wife. In particular they oppose change when there
already exists stability and presuppose an inferior yet respectable position to
the wife. Thus these two see the
institution of marriage as unimportant and primarily pragmatic, respectively. The last possible position is assigning to marriage
an inherent spiritual worth and religious significance outside the affairs of
this world, and this is the most common position.
In representing the
affairs of Judaism with respect to marriage and their answer to the question of
a high divorce rate, I have chosen to focus on the writings of Lisa Aiken, a
noted Jewish scholar and author of many books on the applications of Jewish law
to daily life. The Torah according to
Aiken, spells out in great detail the relationship between husband and wife. She maintains that it is the continuance of
these proper relationships that make marriages successful. Within Jewish thought, marriage is primarily
meant to be spiritual. Furthermore only
through the perfection of the bond between man and woman can one come to
understand the love God has for every individual. While these high ideals are not uncommon among religions, Judaism
also imposes very strict guidelines as to what is expected of each person in
the marriage. To briefly summarize, a
husband is required to provide financial support, including food, clothing,
shelter, attractive clothing. Around
his wife he should be sensitive, always kind and aware of the fact that she may
be easily upset. A promise made to a
wife is a holy bond and must not be broken.
A wife similarly is responsible for the care and maintenance of the home
and family (using the shared financial resources), in addition she is required
to demonstrate works of love for her husband and guarantee that neither herself
nor him becomes often bored at home.
This author also emphasizes good deal of effort should be spent in the
selection of an appropriate partner.
She makes the point that one must evaluate a potential mate carefully
and not neglect warning signs during dating that might lead to troubles in
marriage. In particular it is said to
be very difficult to change others, and not to get into relationships with
people with undesirable qualities. In summary,
the Jewish response to divorce might be characterized as the result of a
failure to follow appropriate social roles and overlooking obvious problems to
the relationship prior to marriage.
While Jews see marriage as a movement towards God’s love, this requires
the appropriate actions and character from both parties involved.
While the mainline view of marriage among
Christians, as represented by the Papacy, emphasizes one of permanence and the
absence of sex outside of marriage, many Christian theologians are coming to
take a more pragmatic and open-minded view.
One such theologian is Professor of Applied Theology Adrian
Thatcher. In his book Marriage After
Modernity, he deals with the conflict between the idealized Christian dogma
surrounding marriage and the reality of marriage as experienced by many
people. The Christian ideal is
represented with marriage being the center of one’s life with the purpose to
have children and fulfill traditional marital roles. In one chapter he addresses divorce in particular. According to traditionalist Bible scholars,
marriage bonds can never be broken except by death, and sexual relations in any
other context is sinful. However by
Thatcher’s interpretation, the scripture was never meant to preclude the
possibility of divorce or to stigmatize women against remarriage, but only that
a true bond formed by God could not be broken by the acts of men. Of course he chooses to believe that failed
marriages are not the results of divinely blessed unions. It is the opinion of the author that one
answer to the problem of divorce is to give greater permissibility to “living
together” and other “trial” marriage relationships particularly in light of the
growing numbers of couple doing so against religious opinion. He feels that just as the issue of open
sexuality challenged religion earlier in this century and became commonplace,
religious views need to shift with the times to deal with the new social
patterns. In particular it is his view
that in all ways couples need to be made better aware of the needs and
difficulties involved in marriage and how they might be dealt with. One such solution is the embracing of gender
typical roles demonstrated in the Bible, but in light of the woman’s equality
movement, it is admitted that other possibilities may also be likely. To conclude, this author feels that marriage
is a sacred bond that God endows two appropriate people with and that
Christians should not enter into marriage lightly but be permitted and
encouraged to do all that is necessary to ensure its success.
Islamic nations are an
interesting contrast to America, since most Islamic countries have far more
liberal laws when it comes to marriage and the husband’s obligations to his
wife. To represent the opinions of the
Muslim world I chose Dr. Jamal J. Nasir’s text The Status of Women Under
Islamic Law. Two particular
characteristics of Islamic Law are especially noteworthy. First of all in most Muslim nations the man
retains the ability to unilaterally and of his own accord dissolve the
marriage. Secondly in many places a man
is allowed up to four wives, though in no case may a woman have multiple
husbands. While the Koran affords man
and woman the same status before God, it also dictates that each shall have a
distinct role in the order of family life.
The wife is subservient to the man and is responsible for the affairs of
the family, while the husband must earn the income. It should be noted that under the political implementations of
Islam, many places deem women inherently inferior to men and require that the
hide their face (i.e. Burka), show deference to men, and not be in the company
of men with whom they are not related.
Given the freedom to take multiple wives and divorce unilaterally, it is
not surprising that marriage and divorce do not seem to have to the same character
as they do in the US. For this reason
it is hard to say how Islam might answer the crisis of divorce in America. Though clearly they too have set
expectations about gender roles and would interpret the collapse of a marriage
as quite likely resulting from inappropriate conduct between each party. Certainly though they take a wildly
different philosophy than the Christian scholar proposed, in that they consider
any infidelity or lack of purity (most especially by women) to be grievously
sinful. In some sense it should be
noted that a whole different cultural mindset plays a role in dictating the
place of marriage within Muslim culture.
When all the women are trained to be subservient and the force of law
supports men, the likelihood that a woman would seek to escape a marriage is
substantially decreased. In summation,
the Muslim outlook on divorce gives it less stigma caused in part by large
differences in the institution of marriage and the cultural mindset.
Hinduism also provides an important contrast to
more traditional thoughts on the issue of marriage and divorce. In most Hindu cultures, the ceremony of
marriage is a major event and from a religious sense meant to be the permanent
spiritual binding between a man and woman.
Divorce takes on an entirely different flavor in this context. In order to discuss the issue of divorce
among Hindu cultures I have as my primary source, the writings of
anthropologist Ralph W. Nicholas (see Harlan in Bibliography). Among Hindus, marriages are a deeply
religious experience and often arranged my parties other than the two being
joined. The caste system imposes a
large degree of limitation of who is available to marry whom and further
control is often exercised by the parents of the people involved, in the form
of arranged marriages. By our standards
the women marry young, not often later than 21 years of age, and must separate
themselves from their family and come into the family and clan of their
husband. The ritual of marriage itself
is often complex and involving ceremonies spanning 5 or more days. The religious purpose being to bring the man
and woman into union with each other and thus becoming aspects of one
body. There exist no religious grounds
for undoing marriage, however in a few cases “divorces” do occur and they are
regarded as a failure of the rites performed to accomplish the union
intended. In this sense such failures
represent more of an annulment than a divorce, in that the marriage is not
considered to have actually been accomplished.
The fact that most marriages are arranged does not in itself justify the
low incidence of divorce; however, the culture is such that children are raised
with the expectation of marriage to a person not of their choosing and are thus
more prepared to accept the reality of it.
Additionally Hindu theology is specific about the mode of dress, family
roles and appropriate behavior for each member of a marriage and thus they
become acquainted with these positions early in life. In summary of the Hindu position, marriage is permanent and
irrevocable sacrament that once achieved cannot fail, however it is possible in
some cases that the marriage should not succeed if the parties are not properly
prepared through the appropriate rites.
With the current high rates of divorce in this
country, a relationship built on faith and structured expectations does seem
more likely to be stable than the alternative.
In many other countries the divorce rate is much lower than the nearly
40% of all marriages being experienced in America today, so it is not
unreasonable that we should look to these cultures for possible solutions. The institution of marriage in intimately
connected with religion, however as shown above, the various religions differ
significantly in their consideration of the institution of marriage and what
brings about its success. Several
themes are evident however. The first
is the notion of individual roles in a marriage. Within the religious context this takes the form of the
stereotypical gender roles such as a “woman’s place is hearth and home”,
whereas a man is the “breadwinner of the family”. It seems clear that these roles succeed in establishing the
structure of marriage not just because they provide a guideline for a
successful marriage but also because they establish a basis for mutual
obligation and expectations so that each party knows in advance of the union
what will be required of him or her.
Additionally there is the theme of preparedness. Americans in general rarely emphasize the
goal of building a good marriage to their children. Many people, myself included, think about marriage only remotely
while growing up and aren’t really trying to prepare themselves to be an
effective spouse. From this one might
infer that many marriages are failing for a combination of two reasons. Firstly, Americans in their strive for
equality and liberalization have cast off many of the old notions of how a
marriage should be defined, and thus no longer have well-defined expectations
about roles as they enter into marriage.
Secondly, in the capitalistic system emphasizing wealthy and knowledge,
the development of skills and traits beneficial to a marriage has been
neglected. In the religions discussed
herein marriage is an important and expected part of life, yet in American
culture marriage has come to play only a minor role in the aspirations of many
people. In this age of divorce it is
perhaps necessary that we look to the established institutions responsible for
marriage for the answers of how to rid ourselves of this crisis.
The theological perspectives on marriage and
divorce allow us a chance to plot superior courses of action whereby we might
shore up the institution of marriage in America. I shall suppose that most Americans are not willing abandon the
gains made in gender equality and thus the strict interpretations of the
religious positions are not going to be palatable to the majority. These religious views might however suggest
how we can find a new course that maintains a similar structure. For the religious members of society,
marriage is still very much a ritual and often an extremely expensive one at
that. From this we may infer that it is
not primarily the complexity of the ritual, such as the case in Hinduism, that
ensures the success of a marriage. One
theme from above that will presumably impact the success rate of marriages is
the level at which each member of the union has made himself or herself prepared
to be a good spouse and person. As was
suggested by the Christian theologian Thatcher we may have to accept that
preparing oneself for marriage will come to include experimental relationships
and other alternative scenarios not historically approved. This of course arises from the fact that
there is no defined concept of what marriage should be and how one should act
in a long-term committed relationship.
Hence families are no longer able to prepare their children (even if
they should want to try), for the new kind of environment in which the family
of the future is being raised. In all
cases people would do well to realize that true marriage is a bond that God
creates between two people, and should not be sought on the basis of sexual
desires alone. Secondly the importance
of marriage needs to return to the family life that kids experience today. Not in the sense that marriage is merely a
milestone to accomplish but rather demonstrating that the physical, emotional,
and spiritual repercussions of sharing one’s life with another human being can
make such a state highly desirable.
Within the religious communities themselves effort needs to be made to
bring dogma into step with modern worldviews, thus ensuring that the holy
nature of marriage maintains it relevance to the next generation. Hence religious cues have much to offer in
forming a plan to combat the tide of divorce in this nation.
In summation, there is no question that divorce
rates have become a wide spread problem in America, but looking at religious
views on the institutions of marriage and divorce can offer us some insights
into how this might be corrected.
Judaism has a deeply codified list of responsibilities of each spouse
and well-defined objectives for a marriage in the form spiritual growth and
experiencing love on Earth like unto the divine love for each individual. Christianity has been forced to address many
of these problems directly and some scholars have concluded that the most
likely way is with acceptance and liberality, allowing people greater chance to
learn whom it is they want to be with and what the nature of marriage will be
like. Islam, in turn, offers one of the
freest policies on divorce yet they have fewer divorces than Americans, this
suggests that the expectations of the culture and the roles given by the Koran
have served to reduce the desire to end marital relations. Finally the views of Hinduism in which
marriages, when they preformed successfully, are irrevocable, serves to give
additional contrast on other successful patterns that have been used. From this information we arrive at two
general conclusions about the problem with marriage today. First, that Americans need to have a greater
definiteness of what to expect when entering into marriage, and secondly that
more emphasis should be placed on preparing one’s self to be a good
spouse. These issues must be addressed
if the problems with divorce are to be countered in the years to come.
|
1. Aiken, Lisa. Beyond
Bashert. North Vale, New Jersey:
Jason Aronson, 1996.
|
|
2.
Harlan, Lindsey and Paul B. Courtright, eds. From The Margins of Hindu Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
|
|
3.
Nasir, Jamal J. The
Status of Women Under Islamic Law and Under Modern Islamic Legislation. 2nd Ed. Boston: Graham & Trotman, 1994.
|
|
4.
Rao, V.V. Prakasa and V. Nandini Rao. Marriage, The Family and Women in India. New Delhi, India: South Asia Books, 1982.
|
|
5.
Robinson, B.A. “U.S.
Divorce Rates: For Various Faith Groups, Age Groups and Geographical
Areas.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
|
|
6.
Sharma, Arvind, ed. Today’s
Woman in World Religions. New
York: State University of New York Press, 1994.
|
|
7.
Thatcher, Adrian. Marriage
After Modernity. New York: New
York University Press, 1999.
|
|
8.
US Department of Education (ED). “Indicator 5: Marriage and Divorce Rates”. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/YouthIndicators/indtab05.html
|
