Death of Marriage?

On June 23 my wife and I celebrated 43 years of marriage. Our celebrations included a 1200-mile road trip from Missouri to Florida. On the actual day of our anniversary, we awoke to a Jamaican breakfast, prepared by the woman who catered for our wedding in 1973 – how nostalgic!

However, much of that nostalgia fades in light of the growing decline of traditional marriage in America. A recent study from the Pew Research Center found a number of interesting trends in their most recent look at marriage in America. For one, the study found that after years of declining marriage rates, the percentage of Americans who have never been married has reached a historic high point.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, within the last ten years, homes headed by married couples increased by 7%. Within the same period, homes headed by unmarried couples increased by 72%.

According to Sam Sturgeon, president of Demographic Intelligence, “the United States has been experiencing a “cultural retreat from marriage”. Factors like economics, education, careers and decline in religious interest contribute significantly to the decline in traditional marriage.

However, we need to ask ourselves, is traditional marriage significant enough to warrant defending? Some in human potential movements view marriage as a potential threat to individual fulfillment. Proponents of the new psychologies contend that marriage thwarts the highest forms of human needs – autonomy, independence, growth and creativity.

According to Waite and Gallagher, in their volume, The Case for Marriage, “the search for autonomy and independence as the highest good blossomed with the women’s movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as ‘slavery and legalized rape, tied up with a sense of dependency.’”

That assessment does not describe what my wife and I have experienced in marriage. Our advanced studies and experience have given us reason to believe that our marriage has been good for our children, their children and the wider community.

Valuable research confirms that by a broad range of indices, marriage is actually better for you. Married people live longer, are healthier, accumulate more wealth, feel more fulfillment in their lives, enjoy more satisfying sexual relationships, and have happier and more successful children, than persons who remain single, cohabit, or get divorced.

Civil society benefits from stable marriages. Marriage, and by extension, families, are themselves small societies. These societies establish the network of relatives and in-laws and sustain a key ingredient of the “social capital” that facilitates many kinds of beneficial civic associations and private groups.

The virtues acquired within the family – generosity, self-sacrifice, trust, self-discipline – are crucial in every domain of social life. Children who grow up in broken families often fail to acquire these elemental habits of character.

Children, whose parents fail to get and stay married are at an increased risk of poverty, dependency, substance abuse, educational failure, juvenile delinquency, early unwed pregnancy, and a host of other destructive behaviors. When whole families and neighborhoods become dominated by fatherless homes, these risks increase even further.

Strong, intact families stabilize the state and decrease the need for costly and intrusive bureaucratic social agencies. Families provide for their vulnerable members, produce new citizens with virtues such as loyalty and generosity and engender concern for the common good.

Given the clear benefits of marriage, I believe the state should defend traditional marriage against the intrusion of alternative family structures that are incapable of producing comparable social outcomes. The public goods uniquely provided by traditional marriage are recognizable by reasonable persons, regardless of religious or secular worldviews.

The Witherspoon Institute, in its publication, Marriage and the Public Good, accurately states that “in virtually every known human society, the institution of marriage has served and continues to serve three important public purposes. First, marriage is the institution through which societies seek to organize the bearing and rearing of children.

Secondly, marriage provides direction, order and stability to adult sexual unions. Lastly, marriage civilizes men, furnishing them with a sense of purpose, norms and social status that orient their lives away from vice and toward virtue.”

Long before these studies, the Bible referred to marriage as honorable (Hebrews 13:4). In its original form, “honorable” implies, valuable, priceless, worthy of respect and deserving of esteem. For the last 43 years, I have found that to be true.

Steph Curry’s Jesus

Steph Curry and I have a few things in common. Apart from gender, we both love basketball, family and Jesus. In receiving the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award last year, Curry unapologetically said, “First and foremost I have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the talents to play this game, with the family to support me, day in, day out. I’m his humble servant right now and I can’t say enough how important my faith is to who I am and how I play the game.”

In responding to Curry’s faith, some bloggers expressed the view that the Jesus in whom he trusts, is more hype than history. In other words, Curry’s faith is based on a mythical figure, and not a real person. One blogger went as far as to suggest that other than the antique New Testament, no other ancient literature acknowledged the existence of Jesus.

Really? Let us first examine the kind of evidence we will need to verify the existence of Jesus apart from what is cited in the New Testament. Unlike some items in science, historical data cannot be repeated. Historians must appeal to different kinds of evidence to be able to validate historical data. Agreed, we do not have anything Jesus wrote, neither do we have any photographs others took.

In other words, physical evidence appears to be very rare. Actually, for almost 2,000 years we’ve gone without archaeological evidence of Jesus. Then we came across the first-century ossuary (bone box) of Jesus’ brother, James, the head of the Jerusalem church. The fragile limestone burial box bears the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

According to the publishers of The Brother of Jesus by Shanks and Witherington, “the ossuary and its inscription are now regarded as authentic by top scholars in the field; they represent the first visual, tangible, scientific evidence of Jesus’ existence.” Another useful resource on the physical evidence of Jesus is in New York Times Bestseller, Bart Ehrman’s volume, Did Jesus Exist?

Like in the case of most ancient persons, historians look for information about the person and not from the person. Historians look for written sources, preferably sources that are relatively near the date of the person or event that they are describing.

It is important that the various sources corroborate with what each of the other sources has to say. In addition, it is important to know that the various sources are independent of one another and do not rely on each other for all of their information.

Unlike today, record keeping was rare when Jesus was around. Scholars believe the vast majority of people in the ancient world could not write. This explains why the Bible so often states, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Writing was done by hand and writing materials were very expensive.  

However, it is important to understand that the absence of much written stuff and physical evidence, do not necessarily mean the non-existence of personalities like Jesus. Agreed, the situation becomes a bit more complicated when our modern-day understanding of a journalist was not imbedded among the disciples of Jesus.

However, Luke makes it clear in his opening verses that “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from first were eyewitnesses...” (Luke 1:1-2). We do not know if those earlier writings to which Luke referred, were ever included in the New Testament canon.

What we do know, is that a number of non-Christian writers wrote about persons who knew and were greatly influenced by the life of Jesus. The first surviving reference to Jesus by a non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind appears in the writings of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE/AD).

Tacitus (55-117), another Roman historian is even more explicit in his Annals. A third Roman writer who referred briefly to Jesus and Christians is Seutonius (70-160). According to the late Professor Bruce Metzer, “the early non-Christian testimonies concerning Jesus, though scanty, are altogether sufficient to prove that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in Palestine during the early years of the first century. Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus.”

The earliest non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He was personally involved with some of the most important events that he narrated, especially in his eight-volume work, The Jewish Wars.

Interestingly, none of the non-Christian sources cited here is as reliable as the New Testament. There is more than enough evidence to believe that the Jesus in whom Steph Curry has placed his faith, actually lived on earth in the first century. Should one choose not to believe this, does not nullify Jesus’ existence, and our need to acknowledge Him as Lord of our lives.