An Unconstrained Society

As a kid, I remember feeling constraint, “a state of being checked, restricted or compelled to avoid or perform some action” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Constraint is experienced as a force that limits and directs what choices and options we have to act. I knew, almost without conscious thought, that there were expectations of what I could do and what I could not do; what was good and what was not good. And then, during America's cultural revolution in the sixties and seventies all hell broke loose. Two landmark legal decisions weakened and undermined constraint in our society. One is no fault divorce beginning with Ronald Reagan's 1969 signing of California's law and the 1973 Supreme Court's ruling to legalize abortion. Both of these decisions made it easier, lessened constraint, on what we individually, unilaterally could do. We had the “right” to make decisions that was in the best interest of me, not us. These decisions helped elevate individual choice and freedom over community good. The effect has been disastrous on our society contributing to much of the social dysfunction we are experiencing today. I believe this has significantly contributed and is continuing to contribute to our loss of freedom.

Consider this comment by Bradford Wilcox, director of the Marriage Project (http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce): “Prior to the late 1960s, Americans were more likely to look at marriage and family through the prisms of duty, obligation, and sacrifice. A successful, happy home was one in which intimacy was an important good, but by no means the only one in view. A decent job, a well-maintained home, mutual spousal aid, child-rearing, and shared religious faith were seen almost universally as the goods that marriage and family life were intended to advance.
But the psychological revolution's focus on individual fulfillment and personal growth changed all that. Increasingly, marriage was seen as a vehicle for a self-oriented ethic of romance, intimacy, and fulfillment. In this new psychological approach to married life, one's primary obligation was not to one's family but to one's self; hence, marital success was defined not by successfully meeting obligations to one's spouse and children but by a strong sense of subjective happiness in marriage — usually to be found in and through an intense, emotional relationship with one's spouse. The 1970s marked the period when, for many Americans, a more institutional model of marriage gave way to the "soul-mate model" of marriage.
Of course, the soul-mate model was much more likely to lead couples to divorce court than was the earlier institutional model of marriage. Now, those who felt they were in unfulfilling marriages also felt obligated to divorce in order to honor the newly widespread ethic of expressive individualism.”
Removing constraint on self expression with “an ethic of expressive individualism” is inherently destructive, it tears down and tears apart rather than builds up and connects. Or consider the “soul mate model of marriage” that places personal fulfillment over “duty, obligation, and sacrifice” for the good of the marriage and family. The effects a generation of divorce and breakdown in the family has had on our economic, physical, psychological, and social well being is well documented as every statistical examination of these factors indicate a significant loss in measures of well being. When we are losing ground on such measures, we are losing freedom because our choices become limited.

Even though divorce rates are dropping among the better educated and economically advantaged, the recent case of Mark Sanford and his wife Jenny (her recently released book about her response to his infidelity is Staying True) might be a prime example of the “soul mate model of marriage”. He is alleged to have said to his wife Jenny when discussing reconciling their marriage: “You expect me to give up my soul mate?” He also apparently refused to include a promise to marital fidelity in their wedding vows. Jenny's response? “In retrospect, I suppose I might have seen this as a sign that Mark was not fully committed to me...at the time, though, I thought his honesty was brave and sweet.”

Wow. Both of these obviously bright, talented, and socially successful people have an incredibly skewed perspective on what love is. It is apparent that Jenny Sanford was attempting to live out the “duty, obligation, sacrifice” version of marriage while her husband clearly, and “honestly” was not. It is easy to do a “you've got to be kidding me” response to this but given our cultural milieu of what constitutes a good relationship it is not so surprising. There really is very little legal and societal constraint that compels us in the direction of what is good for all of us; our children, our families, our spouses, and paradoxically our selves. We are a mess when it comes to loving and caring for one another in a way that produces successful human beings. A good place to begin is understanding what is good and appropriate constraint on our desires so that we might be able to be there for each other.

Place of Pain, Place of Hope

Every week couples come into my office facing a crisis in their marriage. They are typically at the end of their rope with each other and are often ready to separate. They are asking the question would I be better off if I were not with this person. They are wondering if their life would be more full to have their partner out of their life, to no longer be joined and responsible for being with their mate. The marital relationship has become something to avoid and get away from; it has become a place of pain. Marriage counseling is often a last gasp effort that hardly seems worth the trouble. It is hard work and requires the facing of our failures, another place of pain. For any couple to go through this there has to be the hope of a good marriage.

Most of us have an idea of what marriage is supposed to be like and many have a marriage that is full of love, commitment, safety and companionship. The good marriage is that picture of two people facing the challenges of life together and enjoying each other physically and emotionally. We see that picture in romantic movies, novels, and love songs. For those distressed couples sitting in my office this picture does not match their experience. I regularly hear them say that they are ready to give up on the idea of marriage believing that they have somehow been duped into entering into it in the first place: "If I had known how bad this would be I never would have gotten married and I will not make the same mistake again." I believe many people have had a similar thought even if never acted upon.

According to recent research conducted by the George Barna Group (www.barna.org) four out of five adults have been married; that is 78% of adults have been married and only 22% have never been married. Also, of those who have been married, one third or 33% have experienced at least one divorce. In spite of this rate of divorced individuals, marriage is a choice most make, even a second or third time. Marriage is obviously something people regularly do. So is divorce. As George Barna says: "There no longer seems to be much of a stigma attached to divorce; it is now seen as an unavoidable rite of passage… Interviews with young adults suggest that they want their initial marriage to last, but are not particularly optimistic about that possibility. There is also evidence that many young people are moving toward embracing the idea of serial marriage, in which a person gets married two or three times, seeking a different partner for each phase of their adult life."

The "idea of serial marriage" is a scary thought. Serial marriage means serial divorce and that brings to mind "serial murder". If you have ever been divorced or witnessed divorce as a child of a divorced couple, images of murder are not far off the mark. The emotional and material consequences of divorce have been well documented. Few divorces end amicably and they all involve, at the very least loss, a painful experience. No divorced person I know has ever denied that ending their marriage was painful.

It is ironic that couples who divorce are attempting to get out of a place of pain only to most likely enter into a more painful experience of divorce. Of course, pain can be all consuming and the present experience of pain is not dulled by a future promise of greater pain. We want the pain to stop now and getting away from a marriage that has become a place of pain dominates our motivation. If George Barna is right that there is a trend toward serial marriage (and divorce) it raises several questions, not the least of which is how well you are able to tolerate emotional pain. Maybe this trend of serial marriage is a dysfunctional way of coping with pain? Maybe many of us have don't know how to tolerate emotional pain so we run from one painful situation to the next.

What kind of pain are you willing to tolerate; the pain of a distressed marriage or the pain of separation and loss? Do you really think running from one marriage and divorce to the next marriage and divorce will solve your pain? Why not consider tolerating the pain, the frustration and the challenge of repairing a distressed marriage? Marriages can be repaired and restored. It is hard work and it does involve pain. A good marriage is not a false hope; you have not been duped into believing in and hoping for a good marriage. Your marriage can be good.

Real Help for Marriages

I am experiencing the privilege of having conversations with Dr. Sharon Hart May, the author of books on safe haven marriages. Her latest book, How to Argue So Your Spouse Will Listen is one I give to every couple I counsel. My conversations by teleconference are focusing on EFT or Emotionally Focused Therapy, an approach to marriage counseling developed by Drs Sue Johnson and Les Greenberg. A substantial body of research outlining the effectiveness of EFT now exists. Research studies find that 70-75% of couples move from distress to recovery and approximately 90% show significant improvements. The only situation in which EFT is not indicated is on-going violence in the relationship. EFT is being used with many different kinds of couples in private practice, university training centers and hospital clinics and many different cultural groups. These distressed couples include partners suffering from disorders such as depression, post traumatic stress disorders and chronic illness. I have found this approach to be remarkably effective with couples I see and can affirm that my experience with EFT is consistent with the research results. This method really helps couples.

I have over twenty-five years of experience with couples and marriage. I am a clinical member of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy and have taken numerous courses and workshops on how to help couples stay married and most of them have a documented success rate of around 35%. (One notable exception is Dr. John Gottman's work). I cannot express how frustrating and sad it is to watch couples make a decision to separate and divorce. I almost quit seeing couples who were in distress because I knew how unhelpful traditional marriage counseling was with true and meaningful results. I no longer feel that way and am now confident that with God and this method I can help any couple who desires to stay together or reconnect.

I do not make this statement lightly. I know it is bold. The couples that find their way to my office are in significant distress. There typically has been an affair or some other major betrayal or traumatic experience that severely stresses the relationship bond. There is great emotional pain present but the tools and means are available to help them restore, redeem, and transform their relationship and grow into loving union. I am humbled and grateful to participate in such a thing as this. Please tell any couple who is experiencing marital difficulties that real hope is available.

May Blessings Be in Your Day