1. Read the sixteenth point of contrast between a Wild and a Wise Thing (Pages 207-215)
2. Download and complete the Chapter Questions for Personal Reflection
3. Post your comments on the Blog

• Describe a time when someone close to you broke a promise they made. How did you feel? How did it affect your thoughts and feelings towards that person?
• Why is it important that we are faithful in little things?
• Why is keeping our word particularly important in marriage?
• How can you be more faithful in the little things?

© Mary A. Kassian

by Dr. Albert Mohler

One essential task for the Christian Church is to rebuild and maintain a marriage culture — even when marriage itself no longer makes sense to so many around us.

“Once upon a time, marriage made sense.” So write Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison in the June 11, 2010 edition of Newsweek magazine. The two women who wrote the article are both young adults who identify themselves as “committed to our careers, friendships, and, yes, our relationships.” But, as for marriage, not so much.

As Bennett and Ellison explain their case, marriage once made sense, at least for women, because it “was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights.” But now, thanks largely to the feminist movement, they claim, the financial and legal rights are theirs without marriage. They never actually get around to saying much about fathers sticking around to take responsibility for children.

The Newsweek article represents what may be the most direct journalistic attack on marriage in our times. Though only an op-ed column, it presents arguments that had to date been made largely, if not exclusively, outside of mainstream circles. Consider this column an opening salvo in a battle to finish marriage off, once and for all.

Both women identify themselves as secular, and their rejection of marriage reflects the inevitable crumbling of a marriage culture in the wake of a moral revolution. As they explain, reserving sex for marriage is simply unthinkable to them and their peers. “And the idea that we’d ’save ourselves’ for marriage? Please.” Interestingly, they quote a young man who makes a remarkable case for why the loss of moral stigma for premarital sex breaks down the institution of marriage itself: “If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know.”

And when it comes to having children without marriage: “We know that having children out of wedlock lost its stigma a long time ago.” They then point with envy to Scandinavia, where a majority of children are now born out of wedlock, but parents claim to spend more time with their children than parents of other nations.

The secular worldview represented by Bennett and Ellison is joined to their status as young professionals. Marriage does not enhance professional prospects, they argue. Women who take their husbands’ last name are considered less professional, less competent, and less ambitious than women who keep their own names.

As they explain, “We are also the so-called entitled generation, brought up with lofty expectations of an egalitarian adulthood; told by helicopter parents and the media, from the moment we exited the womb, that we could be ‘whatever we wanted’—with infinite opportunities to accomplish those dreams. So you can imagine how, 25 years down the line, committing to another person—for life—would be nerve-racking.”

And just who are they seeking as partners, anyway? They explain that their generation of young women is looking for a “soulmate” — a fantasy they admit is hard to define and even harder to find.

And an adult lifetime is just too long for any realistic commitment, they insist. “With our life expectancy in the high 70s, the idea that we’re meant to be together forever is less realistic.” So while their generation of young women is, by their admission, unrealistic in what they are looking for in a partner, they are supposedly cold sober realistic when it comes to calculating the value of marriage, and finding it wanting.

This duo of young women go so far as to claim that “the permanence of marriage seems naive, almost arrogant.” Others, of course, might be forgiven for seeing unbridled arrogance in dismissing an institution that has been central to human flourishing for thousands of years.

They cite authorities who make the predictable arguments that humans are not hardwired for monogamy, anyway. Bennett and Ellison propose that perhaps a series of short, mostly monogamous relationships is best. “For us, it’s not that we reject monogamy altogether—indeed, one of us is going on six years with a partner—but that the idea of marriage has become so tainted, and simultaneously so idealized, that we’re hesitant to engage in it,” they explain.

In their essay, Bennett and Ellison cite a considerable body of research on marriage and make reference to our disastrous divorce rate. Nevertheless, it never seems to cross their minds that the very social trends they celebrate were the cause of marital decline — both in terms of individual marriages and the institution of marriage itself.

The moral revolutions of the late-twentieth century brought personal autonomy to preeminence. These moral revolutions included the rise of “no fault” divorce and a host of other developments that subverted marriage. Chief among these was the “liberation” of sex from marriage. Once sexual intercourse was no longer limited to married couples, marriage lost respect and binding authority, becoming more like a mere legal contract. Once having children out of wedlock was normalized (at least in many sectors of the society), marriage became a lifestyle option and little else.

There is an amazing lack of humility in the article by Bennett and Ellison, and a breathtaking lack of concern for other women as well. What about women who are not so professional, so secular, and so liberated from a desire for marriage? They are simply thrown under the bus, run over by the very social trends and moral revolutions these women champion and celebrate.

The Christian church should take careful note of this essay, not because its arguments are unprecedented, but because its distillation of these arguments in one of the nation’s two major newsweeklies must not escape attention. Christians see marriage, first of all, as an institution made good and holy by the Creator. Its value, for us, is not established by sociology but by Scripture. We also understand that God gave us marriage for our good, for our protection, for our sanctification, and for human flourishing.

In other words, the Bible compels us to see marriage as essential to human happiness, health, and infinitely more.

The essay by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison is an undeniable reminder of our challenge to rebuild a marriage culture, and to start inside our own churches. “Once upon a time, marriage made sense,” Bennett and Ellison assert. One essential task for the Christian Church is to rebuild and maintain a marriage culture — even when marriage itself no longer makes sense to so many around us.

Reprinted from Dr. Mohler’s Blog

© Dr. Albert Mohler

In my opinion, the research (and the Globe and Mail’s foreboding advice) demonstrates more about a prevalent bias against marriage, motherhood, and womanhood than it does about the competence,  intelligence and ambition of women who change their names.

First, it’s important to note that the researchers and participants of the study were unmarried college students. Since college students have not yet embarked on a career, it’s safe to assume that their perceptions are not based on their experience with married women in the workforce, but rather on what they’ve been taught about the ideals to which women ought to aspire.

College students have been have been taught that if a woman is smart, she will be career-minded, independent, and calculating—a high-earner, who is fiercely intent on reaching the highest rung on the career ladder. They’ve been trained to believe that it would be a “waste” for a smart woman to spend her life on family rather than career. Those women who value marriage, family, and commitment above career—those who get married and/or change their name, become dependent on a man, or give up anything for him—are regarded by today’s students as either less competent, or just plain dumb.

Unfortunately, it may take several decades of life experience for it to dawn on them that this simply isn’t true. And by then, their course will be set, and it will be too late.

Why should you say “I do” to changing your name when you get married? I think there are six biblically-based reasons:

1. Unity:  Scripture says that when you become married, you become one flesh with your husband.  Changing your name to his reflects that fact. (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5)
2. Identification: Scripture teaches that it’s the man who launches out to establish a new family unit. Changing your name to his, and naming your children with the same name, identifies all of you as part of his family unit. (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5)
3. Commitment: Changing your name indicates that you are making a permanent, life-long commitment to your husband, and will henceforth be identified as being inseparably linked to him. (Rom. 7:2; Matt. 19:6)
4. Roles: Changing your name to his indicates that you affirm the biblical pattern of your husband being the head of your marriage and household. (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5)
5. Paradigm: Since the relationship between husband and wife is a paradigm of the relationship between Christ and the church, Christian women who change their name model and bear witness to the reality of Christ changing our names when we enter a relationship with Him. We—the church Bride—identify ourselves with Him and are called by His name when we become one with Him. Christ’s bride is rightly called by her Husband’s name. A woman who changes her name bears witness to this part of the gospel story. (Isa. 43:7, Acts 15:17, 2 Chron. 7:14, Rev. 3:12; 14:1)
6. Precedence: Adam named Eve. Twice. (Gen. 2:23; 3:20)

Whether a woman uses her husband’s name is a cultural practice– but culture cannot be separated from ideology. A culture’s practice is based on that culture’s belief system. The reason our culture is deviating from the practice of a woman adopting her husband’s name is due to a devaluation of marriage and emphasis on woman’s independence from man.

More and more women are keeping their names, or hyphenating their names, or negotiating with their husbands to change both names to a new, blended name. Although the Bible doesn’t directly address this issue, I believe there are strong reasons for a woman to take on her husband’s name when she gets married.

Contrary to popular media opinion, saying “I Do” to changing your name may, in fact, be more intelligent than saying “I Don’t.”

© Mary A. Kassian

This past weekend, my family had the enormous joy of celebrating my parent’s 60^th wedding anniversary. It is rare indeed that couples remain married long enough, or live long enough to reach such a momentous milestone. I figure that anyone married that long will have some premium advice on how to make a marriage last—advice that’s far better than any that Seinfeld or his philandering and serially-divorced pals have to offer.  Seizing the occasion, I asked my mom to come up with a few tidbits of marriage/relationship advice to share with you on my blog.

So here are 10 tried-and-true pure-gold tips from my mom, a 60-year marriage pro:

1. Don’t confuse love with infatuation. Love is much more than just a feeling—it’s a choice.
2. Love is giving and serving.
3. To love, you need to “grow up” and make mature instead of childish choices.
4. When you say “I do” on your wedding day, you enter into the school of love. Remember that you will always be a student. Learning how to love requires constant, life-long effort.
5. As you go through life, you will have to adjust to one another again and again.
6. To overcome difficulties, you have to set aside personal interests and die to self. It’s hard, but it’s worth it.
7. Always try to esteem, recognize and encourage your spouse.
8. Read Gods precious Word together for encouragement and guidance.
9. Pray together.
10. Use the “Love Passage” (1 Corinthians 13) to regularly evaluate if you’re doing a good job loving your spouse:

• Am I patient with my spouse?
• Am I kind to my spouse?
• Am I envious of, or feel like I’m in competition with my spouse?
• Am I boastful that I am better than my spouse?
• Am I rude toward my spouse?
• Am I seeking my own interests rather than my spouse’s interests?
• Am I easily angered?
• Do I keep a record of wrongs?
• Do I always protect and guard our relationship?
• Do I choose to trust my spouse?
• Do I hold on to hope for our marriage?
• Do I always persevere?
• Does my love for my spouse never fail?

There you have it.  Brent and I been married for almost 28 years, and given my mom’s list, still have a lot of learning and growing up to do in the marriage department. I guess that’s her point– that a good marriage requires a life-long commitment to work at being a better lover. I think that this week I’ll try to recognize and encourage Brent more. What about you? Which piece of my Mom’s advice will you put into practice this week?

Oh, and thanks Mom—for your and Dad’s amazing example! What a gift and what a legacy you have left for your children, grandchildren and their children to come. Happy Anniversary! I love you!!!

© Mary A. Kassian

Why? Because the commercials often provide fascinating cultural insight into current trends and thought. Advertisers spend millions and millions of dollars to produce and air them. To ensure they appeal to their target audience, they do extensive market research beforehand, to determine what the target group is thinking and feeling. The Super Bowl, being a quintessential male event, featured several interesting commercials that provided insightful commentary on the thoughts on the mind of the modern-day male.

Besides the expected beer commercials (getting the girl), and annoying chicken commercials (getting the food), and voice-over babies trading stocks (getting the money), there were a few commercials that illustrated that men were also getting frustrated:

Dove soap aired a Superbowl “MAN-them” to launch their line of male skin-care products.  It featured a jingle listing the ways that one particular man had complied with what others had told him he ought to be and do as a man (particularly his wife).

“You’ve reached the place where you feel at ease – you’ve come this far, it wasn’t a breeze,  You can take on anything, of course you can – because you’re a man!”

The commercial features a compliant man, and ends by implying that since men have accepted and are now comfortable with the new definition of manhood, they also ought to get comfortable in their own skin – and start using Dove skin-care products.

In “Man’s Last Stand”, an ad for the Dodge Charger, several robotic, compliant, dazed-looking males listed off all the ways they had acquiesced to the demands of the women in their lives. In a defeated tone, they itemized all their obedient behavior. Their “last stand” of manhood was maintaining the right to choose their own car:

• I will get up and walk the dog at 6.30 am
• I will shave
• I will clean the sink after I shave
• I will put the toilet seat down
• I will put my underwear in the basket…
• I will say ‘yes’ when you want me to say ‘yes’
• I will be quiet when you don’t want me to say’ no’
• And because I do this…. I will drive the car I want to drive!!

The Docker’s Super Bowl ad,”Men Without Pants,” featured the song “I Wear No Pants.” The 30-second commercial featured a group of men in underwear who marched through a field singing “I Wear No Pants.” It mocked the concept of compliant, feminized males who were proud of their “pantlessness” and encouraged men to once again “wear the pants.”

Okay. So we’ve got a “man-them” praising men for complying with women’s desires for them, and encouraging them to start using skin cream; a “Man’s last Stand” in which men bravely hold on to their right to choose their car–the only matter in which they don’t need to obey women; and a “MAN-ifesto” encouraging men parading around pantless to “wear the pants.”

The common theme, and the probable finding of market research, is that men are keenly feeling the effects of the feminist movement. They are painfully aware that they’ve been bossed around by women and told what they should be and do.  Women have defined manhood.

The first commercial encourages men to accept this fact and continue to be feminized. The second encourages them to hold on to the very few areas in which they are still allowed to make decisions. And the third encourages them to stop being proud of their de-masculinisation and again start to wear the pants.

I thought the conundrum of male identity was summarized pretty well at the half-time show, when the band of old, tired-looking rocker-types croaked out the question:  “Who are you??”

The message I took away from the Super Bowl commercials is that guys are tired of being told who they are.  They don’t know who they are, but are starting to realize that the feminized, emo, metro-male, skinny vanilla latte image doesn’t fit.  What is manhood really all about? It’s a Super Question… one that the Super Bowl asked, but that apart from Christ, will be left unanswered.

© Mary A. Kassian