Evangelicals have an above-average divorce rate (at 54%, higher than atheists and agnostics). This might be somewhat surprising considering the Bible's rigid stance against divorce, and the evangelical's profession that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Another factor makes this even more surprising. A distinctively evangelical practice, many engaged couples go through pre-marital counseling. Usually done with their pastor, it is supposed to help divorce-proof Christian marriages. After weeks, even months, of counseling, the pastor almost always put his (rubber) stamp of approval. Then he officiates the wedding (and collects his $).
Mathematically, pastors - who are supposed to have keen insight into peoples' character - are thus wrong more than 50% of the time. In other words, a chimpanzee flipping a coin would be a better predictor of a marriage's success or failure. Tsk tsk, pastors, we say to ourselves.
But maybe that is unfair. Pastor are put (or put themselves) in an untenable situation. Either give the green light (despite personal reservations) or royally piss off the engaged couple (who will go to a less "judgmental" pastor, or none at all). In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The problem, as I see it, is that pastors get into the game way too late. The couple has already fallen in love. Nothing you say will dissuade them at this point (especially if a down deposit has been made, if invites have been sent out, a wedding website has been ... etc. etc.). Nothing we say makes a dent.
The solution is to get in the game much, much earlier. To even before the couple meets. Yes: before the couple even meets. I propose that pastors should be a lot more engaged in cross-church arranged marriages.
Pastors, especially of young single urban churches, know that the 20/30-somethings are on the hunt. But they also know that for these marriage-seekers, dating within the church feels a little like spiritual incest. And the ramifications to the church as a whole if the relationship sours can be devastating and divisive.
Inter-church dating, however, is ideal. If the relationship eventually ends, no harm, no foul. Each person can retreat to his/her respective church, now with a sob story that adds gravitas to the person (however deserved). If the relationship succeeds, their wedding turns into a veritable hotbed for young Christian singles from the two churches to meet. Oh, the Bestman&maid-of-honor possibilities!
For this to work, though, pastors need to work together. It's simple. Pastor Alex meets with Pastor Bob for a long lunch. Together they discuss the (participating) singles in the church and cross-match them based on compatible levels of (in no specific order): age, looks, intelligence, pedigree, spirituality, interests, emotional attractiveness, income-expectations, etc. Then they give out facebook/email to the matches, and away they go. If the first date(s) doesn't work out, the my-pastor-was-wrong is a convenient outie. No harm, no foul.
For this dating scheme to have any integrity, however, there must be certain preconditions. Participation should be limited to: (1) only church members with demonstrated commitment; and (2) only those who are intent on seeking a spouse - this is not a casual dating service.
To me, it's a brilliant scheme. Untested, I'd be the first to admit, but brilliant in its simplicity. What say you?
A couple other thoughts: there's a selection bias when it comes to Christian divorce numbers. Christians get married, thus can get divorced, whereas non-believers may feel no compunction to marry at all.
If Brewright's data analysis is accurate, I'll need to revise my opinions on the data set profoundly.
:)
As for your scheme - I would agree. It's just a responsibility a lot of people would eschew due to the myriad possible headaches that could occur. I do think that evangelical churches need to be more engaged at helping their singles find good yolk-mates. It's an essential part of shepherding and spiritual growth; why not more intensive "training"?
Setting appropriate expectations and their theological underpinnings is appropriate. I personally dislike the Christianized romanticism that pervades the thought life of a lot of young adult Christians -- Myself included, I fear.
And of course, once so-"armed" they're no doubt more ready to engage in the eventual "set-ups" you propose!
Comments (2)
actually, barna's marriage stats stink. a sociologist dug deeper into the numbers...
http://brewright.blogspot.com/2006/12/christian-divorce-rates.htmlNice post.
A couple other thoughts: there's a selection bias when it comes to Christian divorce numbers. Christians get married, thus can get divorced, whereas non-believers may feel no compunction to marry at all.
If Brewright's data analysis is accurate, I'll need to revise my opinions on the data set profoundly.
:)
As for your scheme - I would agree. It's just a responsibility a lot of people would eschew due to the myriad possible headaches that could occur. I do think that evangelical churches need to be more engaged at helping their singles find good yolk-mates. It's an essential part of shepherding and spiritual growth; why not more intensive "training"?
Setting appropriate expectations and their theological underpinnings is appropriate. I personally dislike the Christianized romanticism that pervades the thought life of a lot of young adult Christians -- Myself included, I fear.
And of course, once so-"armed" they're no doubt more ready to engage in the eventual "set-ups" you propose!