Welcome to 2009! 

I don't make resolutions, but here's a prediction (and for free, too!):  2009 will be the year of Twitter.  Feel free to follow me at twitter.com/mattleeanderson.  

To the project, then.  In 2008, were talking about marriage and how it's the pre-eminent context for romantic relationships.  My main objective today is to examine more closely the nature of marriage.  While I have emphasized the existence of the marriage vow as central to the marriage union, I want to situate that vow not as protecting and promoting a romantic relationship of intimacy and freedom between Adam and Eve.  But for the long (winded) version, I refer you to the below.....

The opening chapters of Genesis reveal that humans were made for two purposes: to tend the garden, and to do so within the context of a covenantal relationship. These purposeful and communal aspects are at the center of the human experience. As a consequence, if we are to flourish as human beings, we must live within these confines. They constitute the fence around the playground.

continue reading

For some reason, in writing this book I felt some obligation to take on the first part of Genesis. I'm not entirely sure why that is, other than I think every book on human relationships from an explicitly Christian perspective should at least attempt to explain what is going on between Adam and Eve. This begins my attempt, then, to explain how Adam and Eve relate to college students and their romantic relationships. Enjoy.

One of These Things is Not Like the Other Things

The children's show Sesame Street used to have a segment that went something like this: a song entitled "One of These Things Is Not Like the Other Things" played while four objects were presented. One of the objects was different than the others, and the child was supposed to identify it.

continue reading

The reason I love thinking about romantic relationships is that they are a window into so many other fascinating areas.  For instance, over the Christmas break we started having a conversation about the intersection of faith and politics, we have talked some about history, sociology, theology, and we'll eventually get into Biblical studies. 

All these different topics make it a fun issue to study:  there are so many different angles to approach it through.  I, for one, am having a lot of fun!

To the work, then.  Last we met, I pointed out that marriage was in need of a defense.  This chapter is precisely that defense.

Chapter Two:  The Monstrosity of Marriage

I remember the evening vividly. It was late July in Southern California and the sky had turned golden yellow as the sun fell toward the horizon. The small church where my friend was about to be married was filled with friends and family. As a member of the groomsmen, I stood at the front of the church with the groom, nervously waiting the appearance of the bride.

continue reading

 This is the conclusion of the longest argument I make:  romance has become privatized, and because of that people have no idea where their relationships are supposed to head or how their supposed to get there.  

Though I don't say this specifically, I think the decision making is inherently teleological:  it is "end-oriented."  Purpose driven, if you will.   Because of that, our understanding of marriage governs everything else about our romantic (or non romantic!) lives.  Here's the longer version:

When marriage was an institution, it was assumed to be the goal of romance. Young people in love were expected to marry. And they were expected to do so because marriage was assumed to be superior to the alternatives. Why marriage is superior may not have been articulated, but people tacitly understood that marital happiness was possible only if both members were committed to each other for life, and if that commitment was honored.

continue reading

This is a hard argument to make.  From my experience of talking with numerous evangelical young people, deep misunderstandings about the nature of marriage prevail in the evangelical churches as much as they do in the surrounding culture.  This is that argument, which relies more on intuition and experience than anything else.  Take it for what it is--I'd be happy to be wrong.

As in the death of dating and courting, the erosion of marriage is not just the problem of the secular culture. While evangelical Christians are less likely to divorce than others, like the secular culture they have increasingly been given the burden of creating the meaning of their marriages themselves, rather than entering into a socially established institution. The traditions surrounding weddings, for instance, have been mostly forgotten. Marriage vows, once written for us and recited by the couple, are now completely customizable. And those who choose more traditional weddings often do so for stylistic reasons, not because of the traditions per se. Once a traditional wedding becomes a matter of individual preference, it is no longer tradition that gives the meaning, but the individual.

continue reading

Last week I talked about the rules of romance, and how they have been privatized.  It only makes sense that the same thing has happened to marriage, no?  There is lots I could say about this, but I'll wait to hear comments.  

In sports, the goal of any particular game and the rules for attaining that goal are intimately connected. In fact, the rules are often dependant upon the goal. If you change the goal of basketball, then the rules must necessarily be adapted accordingly. The rules mandating that players dribble the ball would only lead to chaos if the goal was to place the ball in the highest row of the stands.

So also in romance. The dissolution of the conventions surrounding finding a spouse is intimately related to the dissolution of conventions surrounding having a spouse-if we want a spouse at all. Young people want the benefits of marriage without marrying partly because they can get them. Why bother marrying if you can get all the sex-or the emotional fulfillment-you need and want without marrying? The sexual liberty and emotional intimacy of pre-marital relationships has necessarily changed the goal of romance. It used to be presumed that young people would (eventually!) marry. However, that is no longer the case, which has profound ramifications on how young people behave in their romantic relationships.

continue reading

At the end of the day, I am reasonably confident that my analysis of what is going on in contemporary romance is reasonably accurate.  The evidence of the social scientists seems to back it up, and my own experience confirms it.  But why stop at pure description?  What does the landscape actually mean for those who have to navigate the challenges?  This is my attempt at answering that question.

The above survey of modern relationships focuses on college students. The analysis would change for those who are in the workforce. After college, people will go on dates. But for most young Christians, college is the best opportunity they will have to find a spouse. Time and time again I have talked with those who have graduated from college who have struggled to find a marriageable member of the opposite sex. From a ratio standpoint, young men and women have their best odds of meeting the person they will marry in college-even if they don't marry them until after.

continue reading

The question has been lurking in our conversations here the last couple days:  what precisely do I think about what is going on in youth romance?  Today, I attempt to answer that question.  I save my judgment on what this means for Christian young people until later (Wednesday, to be precise).  This will be a light week, so that next week I can devote the whole week to marriage (you'll want to stick around for that one). 

And if you're just joining us, welcome, and feel free to let us all know what you think! You may be interested in reading the background on this crazy little exercise and in reading the previous sections in this series.

To the work, then.... 

If dating and courting are dead, what has taken their place?  In their important study Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right, Norville Glenn and Elizabeth Marquardt attempt to clarify the new relational landscape.  In it, they discover statistically what Allan Bloom had already observed:  widespread confusion among college students (women, specifically) about how to interact with the opposite sex.  College students of the opposite sex interact in four ways:  they “hang out” together in non-romantic social contexts.  They ‘hook-up,’ or engage in sexual activity without any emotional ties or commitments.  And they engage in either what they call “joined at the hip” relationships or relationships that “take it slow.”  These are the modern equivalent of ‘going steady’-exclusive relationships that may or may not be headed toward marriage, and that frequently involve some level of sexual activity. 

continue reading

Clarity is pre-eminent virtue in writing.  If the reader can't understand what you're saying, then it's probably not the reader's fault.  More than anything, I want to communicate two things in this chapter very, very clearly:  there used to be social expectations and rules that helped young people understand how to interact romantically, those rules and expectations have dissolved, and that has had profound consequences for how young people approach romance.  

Today's posting is a significant chunk of that argument.  I do a little footnoting here, which I've used astericks here to do.  I eagerly anticipate your responses! 

The modern rules for romance are simple: there are no rules. The conventions familiar to many grandparents and parents-guys calling girls, going on dates before “going steady”, etc.-have disappeared from youth culture. While Christians have focused on the proper approach to finding a spouse, the surrounding youth culture has continued its steady descent into chaos. While Christians have attempted to resurrect the rules within their own communities, I would suggest that those attempts have had limited success. On the whole, Christian youth participate in romance no differently-with the important exception of sexual activity-than secular youth.

continue reading

Let's face it:  comparing dating to sports is a tad risky.  I don't want to trivialize anything about romance, and I don't want to sanction the saucy locker room language that uses sports imagery crudely.  But the analogy works so well, so I ran with it.  Let me know, as always, what you think.

The early 2000s was a boom for “reality” TV shows. While shows like Survivor and American Idol achieved worldwide fame, those focusing specifically on relationships and marriage attained relatively decent amounts of attention. Blind Date, Elimidate and The Bachelor appealed not only to our voyeurist tendencies but also to our sense of competition. Fox, always on the edge, produced a number of these series, including Temptation Island and Paradise Hotel. MTV, which has seen viewership decline considerably, was not to be left out: Engaged and Underage followed suit, as did a series of dating shows.

continue reading