Saturday, November 22, 1997

Churches skittish about confronting divorce

By Tom Schaefer

Knight-Ridder Newspapers

Ministers rarely talk about it, and when they do, they usually don't criticize it, other than in general terms.

It's the dirty little secret of most churches.

"By not talking about it, the church sanctions it," Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, social history professor at the University of Chicago, said in a recent issue of Christianity Today.

The "it" that Whitehead refers to - and that churches seem skittish about confronting - is divorce.

Whitehead, you may recall, wrote the provocative article "Dan Quayle Was Right" that appeared in a 1993 issue of Atlantic Monthly. In a carefully detailed account, she showed how our culture has glorified single parenthood to the detriment of society.

The data on single parenting are disturbing. In the past 30 years, divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. During that same time, teen suicide, violent crimes by juveniles and reported cases of child abuse also have increased. How closely connected those facts are can be argued. That they are connected is hard to deny.

These observations are not meant to be indictments of single parents, most of whom struggle to do the best they can; rather, the data suggest we've gone astray in our culture from supporting the importance of a two-parent home.

Divorce, it seems, is often a convenient way to get out of a bad situation.

Research has shown that the number of divorces began increasing in the mid-1960s and peaked in 1979 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people, more than double the 2.2-per-1,000 rate in the '60s.

Not only did the number of divorces increase, so did the justifications for them. Whitehead criticizes what has become popularly known as "expressive divorce," that is, "an instrument for self-development, self-actualization, self-expression - a way to be a new and better me." Sadly, the "new and better me" fails to account for the damage to children.

"For daughters, the effect is a loss of the first man that ever loved them responsibly, reliably," Whitehead said. "Very often the divorce leaves girls confused about the differences between love and sex, which leads to out-of-wedlock births."

For sons, a model of responsible manhood and male behavior is undermined. "It's a telling statistic that 70 percent of all juveniles in state reform institutions come out of fatherless homes," Whitehead noted.

While the data on divorce pile up (4 out of 10 marriages today are expected to fail), churches often adopt the divorce values of the culture around them.

"There is a feeling among clergy that to speak frankly about marriage is to be judgmental and unsupportive of all the people sitting in the pews who are divorced," Whitehead said. "This means those who have the most to say about the commitments of marriage are keeping silent."

Whitehead, who recently wrote "The Divorce Culture" (Alfred A. Knopf), isn't suggesting that preachers rail against the divorced from their pulpits; rather, they should stress the importance of marriage at every opportunity.

For example, traditional vows that stress "for better, for worse; in sickness and in health; till death do us part" should not be deleted as they are in many ceremonies, Whitehead said.

"Churches should use the traditional vows as an opportunity to prompt young couples to reflect on the meaning behind their commitment," she said.

Engagement encounters and marriage retreats, I would add, should be a vital part of marriage preparation and marriage maintenance. These programs provide opportunities for couples to consider what each partner expects in and will contribute to the relationship.

Groups of clergy should adopt standards on who will be married by the ministers (no quickie marriages on a Saturday afternoon, for example) and commit ministers to work toward reducing their local divorce rates. Their efforts, after all, are crucial. An estimated 75 percent of marriages in this country are conducted by members of the clergy.

"Most churches are blessing machines and wedding factories," wrote Mike McManus, a columnist who advocates clergy-endorsed standards. "The church has got itself to blame for this divorce rate, in large measure."

Finally, churches should rethink their theology of divorce.

Although there are times when divorce is the only option, often it's merely a matter of convenience. And the church ignores the consequences.

Whitehead recounted the story of a Baptist woman whose husband left her for someone he liked better. The woman he ultimately married divorced her husband. The two now attend the same church as the Baptist woman and her children. She asked Whitehead why the church had nothing to say about the moral dimension of breaking up marriages and ignoring the first spouse and the children.

Why, indeed.

Is it because divorce has become so much a part of our society that we're no longer able - or willing - to make moral judgments about human behavior? Is it because we no longer believe two-parent families should be the norm? Is it because "the divorce culture" includes those in the pulpits?

The solution to the problem is not lashing out at everyone who is divorced. As Whitehead and others have noted, no one suggests that a spouse must remain in an abusive relationship. But isn't it time that churches - and their leaders - construct a solid foundation of marriage, offering strong moral guidance on the meaning of the relationship and stressing the lifelong commitment that marriage is meant to be?

Or is the dirty little secret just too embarrassing for those in churches to face?

(Tom Schaefer writes about religion and ethics for the Wichita (Kan.) Eagle. Write to him at the Wichita Eagle, P.O. Box 820, Wichita, KS 67201, or send e-mail to tschaefer(at)wichitaeagle.com )

(c) 1997, The Wichita Eagle (Wichita, Kan.).

Visit the Eagle on the World Wide Web at http://www.wichitaeagle.com/

Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services.