When I was growing up, Christian parents engrained in their children the general principle that “We do not believe in divorce!” Today, it seems, Christian parents also need to engrain in our children “We ALSO believe in marriage!”

Jesus said “What God has joined together, let man not separate.” Yet, this week both a woman and a man took steps to do just that. First, celebrity actress Cameron Diaz was quoted as declaring “Marriage is a dying institution” in an interview for the June issue of Maxim magazine.

Two days later Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team, published an opinion piece stating “Cameron Diaz is Right” wherein he provides four reasons he believes marriage is a dying institution.

While these are but just two voices, given today’s cultural climate and where these statements are published, it merits asking whether these are but lone attacks on the institution of marriage or whether a major cultural shift against the biblical and historical view and practice of marriage is starting afoot.

This is seen in that while Diaz’s argument is a rather historically common one (she thinks “… we have to make our own rules” and we shouldn’t have to “live our lives in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer”), Dr. Ablow’s concluding proposition displays a radical call for something significantly different when he states, “It’s only a matter of time now. Marriage will fade away. We should be thinking what might replace it. We should come up with something that improves the quality of our lives and those of our children.”

This is not the first issue where a person opposing biblical practice has suggested change without presenting a solution, nor is it surprising that in a day like ours when religion itself has been taunted as an enemy of truth, and claims made that training up children according to the teaching of creationism or intelligent design is akin to child abuse, that an attack would come even upon the institution of marriage. It seems nothing is sacred anymore! Indeed as the Apostle Paul once said, “To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe nothing is pure” (Titus 1:15).

It’s important we look to their arguments before quickly dismissing their claims. As found with other attacks on biblical positions, there are some evidences or elements of truth worth gleaning, though we may not find agreement with the basic premise or foundational arguments. There is also need to understand these arguments if they are to be refuted.

Dr. Ablow certainly reminds us of problems encountered today in regard to the rate of divorce and highlights some either real or misguided issues related to experiences in marriages.

The full statements by Cameron Diaz, in addition to using profanity, revealing an overall unwholesomeness about the relationships she has with men, and conveying a stark individualist attitude, posits the reason for marriage becoming a dying institution in the appeal to personal freedom and outdated practice. Diaz doesn’t specifically identify which “old” traditions marriage she associates marriage with. Even so, it’s clear her reasoning falls short of acknowledging that the origins of marriage extend beyond the traditions of men to the purpose of God in the beginning.

God created man both male and female and brought the man to the woman to be joined in marriage wherein they became one flesh. Jesus spoke concerning this saying “Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.” From the context in Matthew 19, it is clear that Jesus by this statement refers to marriage as an institution and not just individual marriages which are not to be tinkered with, interfered with, or done away with. Indeed, for man to replace marriage would be to oppose nature as God has deemed it to be.

Dr. Ablow’s arguments deal more directly with difficulties identified with the current practice and participants within marriage.

Dr. Ablow first argues the involvement of the state in marriages has been a colossal mistake. He declares state regulation of marriage is debasing to the institution of government, disempowering to marriage participants, and the proper business of other entities focused on “God and Spirit.”

While it’s broadly recognized that various perspectives are held on the relationship between the state and marriage, and while, without speaking to specifics on how the role of government in this area should be defined, it is noteworthy to recognize that it’s in the state’s best interest to protect and encourage those things vital to it’s well being. Certainly, marriage is among the top items on this list. Additionally, Dr. Ablow’s position doesn’t address the provision of marriage for the irreligious, an issue that would radically change relationships and society as we know it.

Dr. Ablow next argues the invention of oral contraception is leading marriage to becoming a dying institution. In his view, not only do such contraceptives provide alternatives for people to express their passions and relieve psychological pain, but they provide a better alternative since in his view people are “not built to desire one another” once becoming more familiar with them. This view not only fails to recognize fornication as sin with harmful consequences but fails to recognize love is greatest when true intimacy is experienced.

Dr. Ablow’s third argument centers on the deprivation of the husband’s and wife’s joy that results when, due to being married spouses, miss out on the experience of being “chosen” daily. This reasoning fails to take into account that God’s purpose and institution takes precedence over our desires. It also fails to recognize the choice within committed marriage is deeper and purer than that of a person who sets aside God’s purpose in marriage and lives for self fulfillment.

Dr. Ablow’s final argument is based on “our collective experience of failing marriages in such great numbers.” However, one must discern whether the problem lies with marriage itself or with the fallen aspects of those within marriages, for whom both solution and strength is found in Christ!

The fact that some “cannot” and perhaps “will not” accept the biblical position and grounds for marriage is not surprising. Jesus himself said, “Not everyone can accept this word.” However, just as with rearing children, while there may even be the expectation and experiences of trouble, this doesn’t mean the practice will die out, nor should it. As Jesus says, the one who can accept this “should” accept this.

Times are changing and on one level things being taught may need to change. When I was growing up, Christian parents engrained in their children the general principle that “We do not believe in divorce!” Today, it seems, Christian parents also need to engrain in our children “We ALSO believe in marriage!”
________________
Tim Muse is Pastor of Brandon Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Brandon, Miss.