The decline of the institution of marriage and divorce

Decline of the Institution of Marriage

Anti-Divorce Roots and Rationale

The family revolution in the last half-century has been characterized by a decline in social power, functions and moral authority within the family (Wilcox 2007). It has been followed by pre-marital and extramarital child-bearing, divorce and single parenthood. Conservatives see these phenomena as a big drain the United States and its citizens and cause of family breakdown. The family revolution, which has led to family breakdown, in the last 50 years appears as a sharp deviation from the wisdom and intention of American Founders, such as John Witherspoon and John Adams. They saw and envisioned the family as the foundation of social virtue as far back as the colonial times. It was indispensable to the existence, functioning and survival of the new nation being founded by the colonists. Even contemporary liberal political theorists like William Galston and social scientists like Linta Waite contended that the family revolution was a threat to the people. They held that liberal values, such as equality, reason, respect for persons and self-governance should be preserved (Wilcox).

Despite the strong tide of family revolution, especially in the late 60s and 70s, conservative Protestant leaders and their institutions stuck hard to the institution of marriage and family (Wilcox 2007). They promoted a familistic ideology, which endowed the family with transcendent social, emotional and moral significance. They introduced a familistic viewpoint, aimed at preserving the marital status as the only acceptable condition for sexual activity, child-bearing and raising children. They complemented this hand-line policy by openly targeting and attacking non-marital sex, homosexuality, abortion, parenting and divorce. They rejected divorce because it directly opposes the imperative of the home as the basis of faith and morality for God and country. They urged the nation to make sure their homes are Christ-centered. Husbands and wives should behave as responsible Christians. James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, for example, described healthy parenthood. It would consist in "love and control," which should operate in a family "system of checks and balances (Wilcox)."

A 2004 study showed that born-again Christians were as likely to get divorced as non-Christians at 35% (Dean 2006). About a quarter of surveyed Christians had a divorce twice or thrice. Christian respondents saw divorce as a sin at only 25%. Professor Andreas Kostenberger of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminar deplored how Christian marriages end up in divorce. He pointed to the sole root of divorce as sin and a low view and appreciation of marriage. He also explained the rise in church divorce rate as growing out of "a secular mindset," which offers only "superficial remedies that do not deal with the deeper problems." He argued that Christians need a deeper understanding of biblical marriage. It comes within the broader context of the Bible and not only from tips of better communication between husband and wife (Dean).

Divorce and the Media

The media have depicted and played up pathological occurrences within many married two-parent families (Whitehead 2003). Movies, programs and interviews of celebrities dramatize disturbing secrets of family abuse, violence, alcoholism and incest. A pop therapist reported that 96% of families in this generation are dysfunctional largely because of the addictions of society. Although confli8ct, violence and abuse are found in families, the attack on established families is seen as part of a massive campaign to promote large-scale social deviance. Former U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan deplored how deviant behavior had increased "beyond affordable recognition" by the community. In an interview, the former senator said deviant behavior or values had been normalized. There has been a replacement. What was once deviant has become the social norm. A typical example is the married-couple family. These complementary responses not only reduced the reality of the deviance. It also erased the distinction between what was normal and what was deviant (Whitehead).