Couldn't Help Noticing

What makes a ‘good’ marriage

Recently my reading has taken me to the pages of The Good Marriage: How & Why Love Lasts by Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee which was published in 1995. In a way, it's fitting that Wallerstein, better known for her work with children of divorce and families in transition, turned her attention to what makes a marriage work; the results of her 25-year study of 131 children from 60 Californian families whose marriages resulted in divorce are pretty grim, and would naturally lead to questions about how marriage can be strengthened so that divorce can be prevented. It seems that a good marriage is something many of us long for but have little idea how to bring about.

In The Good Marriage, Wallerstein presents her findings from a two-year study of 50 Californian couples who had been married for nine years or longer. She identifies nine “tasks” that couples must master if they are to reach the goal of a happy and fulfilling long-lasting union. The first two in particular stood out for me—“Separating from the Family of Origin” and “Building Togetherness and Creating Autonomy”. Wallerstein argues that separation from the family of origin is a painful but necessary step for the individual to make the transition to adulthood to forge a new identity as a husband or wife—a member of a new unit, a new family. Failure to do so could result in much unhappiness and even divorce. Similarly, failure to create a sense of togetherness or ‘we-ness’—“a shared vision of how you want to spend your lives together” (p. 62) or an “image of the marriage as a separate presence [requiring] continuing attention and nurture, like a healthy garden” (p. 63)—led to discontentment and marital breakdown. Wallerstein writes,

One of the most poignant stories in my divorce work was that of a young Russian couple in Fresno whose marriage broke even though they were very fond of each other. At issue was his inability to separate from his family. Both husband and wife told me that he and his brothers worked at their father's restaurant every day and every night without pay on the promise of someday inheriting the business. Though the husband worked hard, he never brought home a paycheck. And each night, when the restaurant closed, he and his brothers played cards and had dinner together. He came home late every night.

The woman, who married him at eighteen, worked outside the home to support the family and raised their two girls almost single-handed. She begged her husband to get another job, move to another town—anything that would give her a sense of having a real marriage. He was kind to her, he expressed his love for her, but he consistently refused her request. Finally, when the girls reached adolescence, in an act of desperation she took them and drove to another city and a new job. She hoped he would follow her, but the attempt failed. The man became acutely depressed and cried for two weeks, then hired an attorney and sued for divorce and custody of his daughters, which he won.

When I saw them together, he said of her, “She is the most beautiful woman I have ever known.” She said of him, “He's a kind and decent man. But I can't play house any longer.” The marriage dissolved. One child did very well; the other suffered for many years. The man married a woman who was willing to live within the extended family. The woman also remarried. She later said of her second husband, “He loves me, and it's very important to him that I do the things that make both of us happy, but I lost my children.”

The man's failure to separate led to a serious tragedy for this family. (pp. 58-59)

How appropriate that Wallerstein's first two tasks for building a good marriage should coincide with God's design for marriage as outlined in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”.

An encouragement for preachers

Let all preachers be reminded of this:

What function is so noble as to be
Ambassador to God and destiny?
To open life, to give kingdoms to more
Than kings give dignities; to keep heaven's door?
Mary's prerogative was to bear Christ, so
'Tis preachers' to convey him, for they do
As angels out of clouds, from pulpits speak;
And bless the poor beneath, the lame, the weak.
If then th' astronomers, whereas they spy
A new-found star, their optics magnify,
How brave are those, who with their engine, can
Bring man to heaven, and heaven again to man?

From “To Mr Tilman after he had taken orders” by John Donne.

Church signs

I couldn't help but notice three of the worst church signs I've seen in quite some time:

“I can't wait to hug you on Sunday” - God

Jesus—Superman's superman

You know you are getting old when Happy Hour is nap time

Even without seeing denominational placards hanging next to these signs, most of you could probably make a fairly accurate guess as to the theology of each of these churches.

Many churches place sayings on their signs to raise intrigue in the mind of the so-called ‘passing pagan’ (such an endearing term, isn't it?). However, I wonder what the average non-Christian thinks when he/she reads such signs? I will make a guess in saying that these signs go a long way in reinforcing to the non-Christians why church is stupid, irrelevant, and a big waste of time. All are further reasons that they are indifferent, if not hostile, to their local church.

Of course, sin is the underlying reason why non-Christians are hostile to their local church and so, I am not sure these signs really help get to that issue. But, I am not suggesting that the church sign I saw traveling a few weeks back helps much either:

Hell—not just another warm vacation hotspot

(Ed: For some church posters more helpful to the non-Christian, check out the work of Outreach Media in their poster archive.)

Bishop affirms that Matthias Media founder Phillip Jensen is not the anti-Christ

In a recent interview on the ABC's ‘Religion Report’ program, Bishop Robert Forysth, talking about whether Sydney Anglicans officially think the Pope is the anti-Christ, stated:

Robert Forsyth: That was dropped in 1559 when Queen Elizabeth returned the Anglican church to its freedom from the Bishop of Rome and I don't think Anglicans have officially called the Pope the ‘anti-Christ’. It is however in the Westminster confession. The Presbyterians. And that's still in some places may be technically current today. Go back to that time when there's a massive fight going on. Here is a man [i.e. the Pope] that seems from some Protestant points of view, a man who claims to be Christian but seems in so many ways to be undoing the Christian faith, it's so easy to draw the link; that sounds like an anti-Christ. But I would for a moment not want to use that language. The Pope is a Catholic, not the anti-Christ.

Stephen Crittenden: And what about your Dean?

Robert Forsyth: I don't think he's an anti-Christ either. (laughs)

This testimony from the very learned and discerning Bishop Forsyth comes as a very great relief to us here. We sleep more easily knowing that Matthias Media's ‘Founder’, Dean Phillip Jensen, is not the anti-Christ.

The Message of Isaiah

This book is now 11 years old, but as I am preaching on Isaiah at church, I pulled out Barry Webb's commentary on Isaiah and stumbled upon this wonderful passage:

Through all this [the crises in Judah and Jerusalem] Isaiah clung to the truth that had been etched into his consciousness by his call. In the year that king Uzziah died he had seen the King, high and exalted, and the whole earth full of his glory. So when Senaccherib's men stood at the gates and proclaimed, in the name of ‘the great king, the king of Assyria’, that Jerusalem was utterly at his mercy, then Isaiah knew it was a lie. The truth behind appearances was that the Lord himself was the supreme ruler, and would determine the fate of Assyria and Judah alike. Isaiah lived by the old creed. Ahaz and Hezekiah found it hard to translate into practical politics, the common people gave it only lip-service, and Senaccherib mocked it as madness, but Isaiah charted his course by it.

The meagre biographical details we have indicate how completely Isaiah's mission dominated and consumed him. Jerusalem, which featured so much in his preaching, was his home city. His ready access to the king suggested that he was high born and moved in the most elite circles. Yet there was nothing effete or fawning about him. His presence was a constant reminder that royal power was not absolute, and privilege entailed heavy responsibility. His tense confrontation with Ahaz in chapter 7, for example, speaks volumes for his courage and unswerving commitment and to his high calling, qualities that were eventually to cost him his life. His wife is called ‘the prophetess’ in 8:3, suggesting that she, too, prophesied. Certainly she did so indirectly, for she bore sons to Isaiah whose symbolic names expressed key aspects of his message. Beyond this, we know nothing of his family life, what solace he drew from it, or what strains it suffered. All we know is that he was not a divided person; his call impacted and shaped his home life as it did every sphere he moved in. We catch a glimpse in 8:16-18 of a small band of disciples gathering around him, with a strong suggestion that it included his sons. That, at least, must have been a tremendous comfort to him and a most fitting reward for his faithfulness.

Barry Webb, The Message of Isaiah (Leicester: IVP, 1996), pp. 24-25.

It is a great commentary—one of the first you go to once you've struggled with Isaiah for a while. And Isaiah, too, was a very great prophet.