9/11, marriage, and divorce

In yesterday's New York Post (a paper I've never actually held in my hands, despite many visits to Manhattan), conservative commentator John Podhoretz wrote a personal commentary on 9/11: The antidote to horror is love.

Podhoretz tells the story of his rapid engagement to his wife, Ayala, in the aftermath of 9/11:

Within two months of 9/11 I was engaged to be married, within 13 months I was married, had a baby 19 months after that and another one due to be born in a months' time.

This wasn't the way it was supposed to be for me. I had only met Ayala in June, and I was determined not to think about marriage for at least a year in any relationship. I had nearly ruined my life getting married precipitously after a 10-day romance in 1997, and I simply could not trust myself.

But I couldn't be bothered with learning to trust myself. Getting married was an urgent, all-consuming need.

I took Ayala aback with the ferocity of my determination. At every turn I brought up what it would mean to be married. I was so determined that I proposed to her at 9 in the morning sitting in the living room of my Brooklyn Heights apartment, through whose window we had seen the black gash of the sky above Ground Zero every night since 9/11. She accepted - and then informed me we had to come up with a more romantic engagement story to tell her family and friends.

I'm telling the story now for the first time because I think it is romantic. I fell in love more deeply with Ayala and had to marry her because I had witnessed the worst and needed the best. Something deep and elemental within me needed to supersede the evil of 9/11 with the purest affirmation of existence - unconditional hope for the future and new life in the form of children whose presence on this earth would be the most crushing blow a middle-aged man like me could deliver to the cult of death that sought to tear out America's heart.

I'm inclined to be charitable towards Podhoretz, even if his final sentence seems a bit over-wrought and self-congratulatory.  Too often, the "traditional family" crowd, in their desperation to affirm what they see as an institution under attack, paint the exceedingly common acts of marrying and reproducing as heroically counter-cultural deeds.  It certainly flatters the sensibilities of those who do choose to marry, stay married, and make wee ones.  But it reminds me of those who suggested, five years ago, that the best response to 9/11 was to go shopping.  I mean, I get the principle of the heroism of everyday life, but it still makes me wince to read about how a middle-aged man's decision to reproduce was a "crushing blow" to Al Qaeda.  ("Honey, let's make a baby!  That'll show Osama!")

Anyhow, Podhoretz's post resonated with me for another, more painful reason.  In September 2001, I was newly married to the woman who would become my third ex-wife.   This was my first "post-conversion, post-recovery" marriage.   She and I had met on the Internet (Matchmaker.com), each of us browsing for available Christian singles.  She was nearing thirty, an evangelical from an Asssemblies of God background, and a graduate student eager to get married.  (Ask any single woman in conservative Christian culture about the pressure to wed.)  I was a new convert, equally eager for marriage, kids, and domestic tranquility after my years of instability and chaos.

We decided to marry about three weeks after we first met.  Though there were some significant red flags, our mutual excitement about "getting it all over with" trumped our reservations.  We were married in May 2001, less then four months before 9/11.

There's no question that 9/11 impacted folks in some obvious and not-so-obvious ways.  And it's only now, in hindsight, that I realize that 9/11 played a vital role in bringing this brief and poorly planned union to an end.  Podhoretz is right: the events of that day five years ago made many of us think about our lives in new ways. It brought a sense of immediacy and fragility to countless Americans.   And it sent what ended up becoming a clear signal to she who was my third wife.  Thinking about her own life, my ex began to come to one, unmistakable conclusion: Hugo Schwyzer was not the man she wanted to spend the rest of her days being married to.

I won't blog the details of that third marriage.  It was a kind marriage, characterized by civility and thoughtfulness on my part and on hers.  It was also a marriage nearly devoid of excitement, passion, and chemistry.  While chemistry fluctuates, it's not as if my third wife and I ever lost it -- we'd never had it to begin with.  In my post-conversion state, I was still relatively suspicious of intense sexual desire (having been misled by it so often in my younger days).  Thus it seemed to make sense to marry a woman who seemed attractive, but with whom I experienced no "heat."  At least initially, she felt the same way.

I know quite a few couples who had a lot of especially passionate lovemaking in the aftermath of 9/11.  I know many, who like John and Ayala Podhoretz, decided to get married and have kids soon after the terrorist attacks.  Podhoretz is right, I think, that on an instinctive level, one response to overwhelming images of death is the desire to commit, to marry, to reproduce, to make new life.  (That's one explanation for the post-war baby boom.)  But another result of 9/11 was that it made some folks think long and hard about the marriages they were already in -- and in our case, it made my ex-wife think long and hard about whether or not she wanted to spend the rest of her life married to man whom she "liked a lot", with whom things were "comfortable", but for whom she felt none of the intensity she realized she wanted and deserved.

It' s only recently that I've begun to come to the conclusion that 9/11 may have hastened the end of my very brief third marriage.  My ex never explicitly connected the two, but in hindsight it seems clearer and clearer that the shattering events of that unforgettable day marked a beginning of the end for both of us. If life is short, and can be taken from us at any moment, then we have no business marking time in a kind, friendly, but ultimately lukewarm relationship that leaves both parties unchallenged and unfulfilled. 

As if often the case in marriages, it was the woman who was the first to grasp this essential emotional truth.  Having been divorced twice before, and newly "come to Christ", I abhorred divorce.  Had I had my way, that marriage would have lasted.  Not because it brought out the best in either of us, but because I wanted to prove to myself that I could make something last no matter what, no matter what, no matter what.  After years of irresponsibility, I had swung to the opposite extreme and turned "white-knuckle, grit-your-teeth and hang on no matter what" tenacity into an idol.  My ex-wife, bless her heart, had enough sense and self-respect to realize that we each deserved better than what we were capable of giving each other.  Though she initiated the divorce over my objections, I came to see the wisdom of our separation.  She freed me to find a relationship that would be infinitely more fulfilling and exciting, and for that I will always be grateful.

I am sure my third wife and I would have ended up divorcing, 9/11 or no 9/11.  But reading Podhoretz last night, it really hit home to me how significant a role the events of that extraordinary day played in hastening the end of an unwise union. 9/11 brought clarity; it brought a hunger for life and for joy and for fulfillment.  And for my last ex-wife and me, it accelerated the process of recognizing that we would both be happier and more capable of growth outside of our marriage.

Comments

[Chip]

"If life is short, and can be taken from us at any moment, then we have no business marking time in a kind, friendly, but ultimately lukewarm relationship that leaves both parties unchallenged and unfulfilled."

No surprise, Hugo, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here in a major way. What you're unintentionally implying is that God cannot transform "a kind, friendly, but ultimately lukewarm relationship" into something better. He can, however. While this is not, of course, a typical story, I remember a moving Washington Post article from about 10 years ago concerning one of Senator Phil Graham's (sp.?) most vocal proponents for his presidential bid. She conceived a child out of wedlock and, when the father would not marry her, thought about abortion. Instead, she married a man who loved her but who she did not love. In fact, she virtually hated him at first. But over the years, she came to love him, and by the mid-1990s, they had a wonderful marriage. She was, perhaps not surprisingly, an outspoken pro-lifer.

God can cause love to grow within people for each other. Even while here in America, we would not want arranged marriages, we’ve probably read or heard of some such marriages where the couple did not particularly like each other to begin with, but who grew to love each other. For another example, at least as depicted on stage and screen, the love between C.S. Lewis and Joy Davidman seemingly lacked passion (at least as we typically define that term), but their love by all accounts was deep, and undoubtedly Lewis had to grow to love Joy amidst her illness.

Most importantly, the whole image of marriage as being analogous to the relationship between Christ and the church is clearly one depicting a marriage in which one spouse grows to love the other. Becoming more of a "little Christ" involves growing to love God more and more.

Marriage is ultimately NOT about challenge, fulfillment, our happiness, our growth, or even duty, although all five factors will come into play at different points throughout a marriage. It's about reflecting Christ's love for the church—a committed, faithful love devoted to the other’s good and directed toward serving God as a couple. It's absolutely impossible for us humanly speaking; none of us are adequate to the task. It's only the grace of God that can keep a man and a woman together given everything that can negatively impact the marriage. But we must rely on that grace—or, perhaps better said, keep learning how to rely on that grace.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Hugo]

Thank you, Chip, for the courage to confront me. Obviously, I disagree -- even though, as my critics often point out, my justifications are often rooted more in modern psychology than in Scripture.

I also have a marked tendency to take past events and rewrite them! My third ex-wife initiated the divorce. I ended up remarried -- and much happier. Therefore, the divorce must have been a good thing for all concerned. It's a bit of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, one to which I am often prone. Still, I think that one function of grace is to take our human failings and turn them around so that things come out for the best. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking...

[Antigone]

Marriage is ultimately NOT about challenge, fulfillment, our happiness, our growth, or even duty, although all five factors will come into play at different points throughout a marriage. It's about reflecting Christ's love for the church—a committed, faithful love devoted to the other’s good and directed toward serving God as a couple. It's absolutely impossible for us humanly speaking; none of us are adequate to the task. It's only the grace of God that can keep a man and a woman together given everything that can negatively impact the marriage. But we must rely on that grace—or, perhaps better said, keep learning how to rely on that grace.

So, the Jesus never challenged, fullfill, make happy or grow the church? Seriously, what kind of non-relationship is this? This isn't love: love requires equals.

In fact, all of your examples demonstrate an unequal situation: one where they didn't have much choice BUT stay in the relationship.

Is this the Christianity you want? Is this the MARRIAGE that you want? One where people must "get over" being miserable? One that is highly unequal? How horrible, but then again, I guess it's up to you: I don't claim to be Christian.

[Chip]

Antigone, I most assuredly was not talking about people being miserable in marriage. In all of the examples I gave, I was talking about people who are/were deeply and truly in love. The Post article presented the couple as being deeply in love; I've read and heard stories of people who fell in love after entering arranged marriages; and the deep, sincere love of C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham has been written about at length in books. The point I was trying to make is that marriage is not about our personal fulfillment, and that deep love can grow over time. As a Christian (and I recognize and respect that you are not one), I do believe that God can help couples work through incredibly severe difficulties.

I also was talking about a marriage of equals, where both spouses are devoted equally to the welfare of the other and are committed to serving God together. I'm not sure how you got the picture of inequality from my description.

If marriage is about our personal fulfillment and growth, what do you say to a couple who find out two months after they get married that one of them (in this case, she) has a severe illness. As the years go by, both of them pick up additional illnesses (and he already had one before getting married). This is a true story, and they've been married now for almost a decade. I can assure you that their marriage has not been one of personal fulfillment and growth. To say it's been extremely difficult is an incredible understatement. But their marriage, in the midst of all adversity, from a Christian perspective reflects something of the character and faithfulness of God.

If marriage is all about personal fulfillment and growth, what do you say to a wife when her husband becomes an invalid due to Parkinson's disease when in his forties? For nearly four decades afterwards, she cares for him every day of her life and runs a small business out of her home to make ends meet. This is another true story, this time of an aunt of mine; she cared for her husband, wiping the drool off his face, changing his clothes when his bowel movements became like those of a baby, and doing many more things that astonish and move me, even now some 15 years after he died. How much passion do you think was there in those 40 years? How much challenge in the sense of personal growth? How much fulfillment? But she is a living testament to the love and grace of God.

In both cases, Antigone, the spouses have had the ability to make choices. They could leave (or, in my aunt's case, have left) the other spouse. My aunt didn't, and I pray that God's grace will prove sufficient for my friends.

From a Christian POV, Antigone, marriage is for life. A marriage is not one of unequals, but of equals who voluntarily choose live and love together; to serve God together; and, to a large extent, to sacrifice their interests for the other person. This is why I am convicted that only by God's grace can a marriage survive. We are too naturally selfish, and, on top of that, there are too many things in this world that will work to tear a marriage apart. As someone who got married only 11 months ago, I am still very much learning how to love my wife.

Does all of this mean that marriage lacks joy, love, peace, or many other marvelous qualities? No, not at all, and that's certainly not true in my own marriage! Yes, marriage can bring personal growth and fulfillment. But such qualities are gifts of God and the byproducts of marriage, not the reasons for marriage. To confuse the two may well prove deadly for a marriage.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Chip]

"Still, I think that one function of grace is to take our human failings and turn them around so that things come out for the best. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking..."

Hugo, none of us can underestimate grace. (Speaking of grace, have you ever read anything by Brennan Manning? I think you'd appreciate his insights.) I do have one caution, however: In the context of Romans 8:28 ff., what is the good that God has in store for Christians out of bad situations? To make us more like Christ. It's not that our bad situations necessarily become good (most of the time they don't), but that God will use the bad to make us more like Christ.

When the Holy Spirit convicts us of our many sins and we repent of them, we are drawn closer to God and become more like Christ. We are forgiven and not under condemnation! Even so, though, that does not mean that any past sin has become good in and of itself; rather, it serves as a warning marker to us.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Antigone]

In all the examples, yes, the marriage did lead to growth. Do you not think it's challenging to see your loved ones in pain? Do you not think that by giving compassion your own compassion grows?

I think you misunderstand what I mean by growth.

But I still don't think that entering a loveless marriage is going to do anything, potential for love or otherwise. Love, and then (if then) marriage.

[Vacula]

Chip, fwiw, C.S. Lewis & Helen Joy Davidman Gresham certainly did not have a passionless, sexless marriage. A few later writers decided they didn't want to deal with the sex (and the why of that may be an interesting question) but that doesn't make it so.

There aren't any extant letters between the two after they married that I know of but there are letters from Joy to friends that make it clear they both enjoyed their sexual relationship. It would be hard to read Lewis' Four Loves, which she helped with, and find a prescription for the kind of marriage you imply. Some biographers question whether they may have anticipated the marriage, actually. Lewis had plenty of sexual quirks and he certainly wasn't a sexless naive bachelor when he met her.

[Chip]

Antigone, yes, there is growth; absolutely! I'm just saying that to desire such growth is not the raison d'etre for marriage. I agree with you that love should exist before marriage; I'm not intending to imply anything otherwise. What I was trying to convey is that I believe that God can bless and strengthen people in less than ideal, and even far less than ideal, situations -- including a lack of love. For example, while my case isn't the same as Hugo's situation, even though my wife and I are deeply in love, I keep discovering how much more I need to learn how to love her! That's not a negative; it's a positive.

Any adversity that comes our (in this case, I'm talking about any married person's) way could potentially become a temptation to conclude that we'd be better off not married. Any marriage is going to be tried and tested, and will go through difficult waters. As a husband, when tough times come, my focus must not ultimately be on whether I'm being fulfilled or how happy I am at any given moment, but how I can best serve God and my wife. That's not necessarily going to be easy to do, and that's one place where Christians need to rely on the grace of God. I'm not saying that my desires or needs are irrelevant, or should be left unattended; we all need to take care of things on our own end to effectively serve others. But the focus of marriage should not be a person's own self-fulfillment or happiness.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Chip]

Vacula,

I have always believed that about C.S. Lewis and Joy, and I didn't mean to imply that the marriage lacked passion! (I also know about the more recent controversies regarding Lewis, on which there is by no means universal agreement.) But I've read or heard reviewers and audience members of Shadowlands (both stage and screen) talk about how different their love grew compared to our modern notions of love; Roger Ebert, for one, did in his review of the film. My point was that the story of their love goes well against the grain of many modern expectations of what constitutes love. Sorry that I didn’t make that clearer earlier!

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Antigone]

If love isn't about challenging, support and growth, than what on earth is it for? Why get married? (And I'm asking this from a secular position.) Why not leave if you're making each other miserable.

[Chip]

Antigone, maybe we’re talking past each other and misunderstanding each other. Or maybe my answer is too much from a Christian perspective as opposed to a secular one for us to get close to the same wavelength; I don’t know.

Expressed in a different way than I have before, my point is that marriage is about love, not about our own self-fulfillment. It’s about a love that is committed to one’s spouse for life. It’s about a love that is not grounded in feelings (for feelings change and are deceptive), but far more maturely in a willingness to love and serve one’s spouse over time. It’s about a love that is willing to sacrifice for the other in all the difficulties of life and challenges that come the couple’s way. It’s a love that seeks to put the good of your spouse and/or the couple as a whole above your own.

For the Christian, this is a picture of what Jesus Christ did for us. And it’s humanly impossible without the power of God. Marriage is also a vehicle for serving God as a couple in a way that two individuals could never do alone.

Antigone, you apparently think that the examples I give are ones of misery; I do not. (And if your second question was a personal one, you’ve really misunderstood me-- my wife and I are very deeply in love.) I see a love that is committed over a period of life as a cause for joy, and great celebration. I think a love that rises above concern for one’s own happiness is a laudable, praiseworthy thing. Because with the storms that anyone experiences in life, there will always be opportunities for unhappiness, fears, and even doubts. It’s absolutely unrealistic to expect otherwise. And in our daily lives, we naturally gravitate to caring for ourselves and not other people; we are self-centered by nature. Love must overcome our self-centeredness.

In other words, we must love our spouse regardless of whether we feel like it—and there will be many times, and perhaps even some long periods of time, in any marriage when a spouse doesn’t feel like it. Love is not a feeling; it’s something much, much deeper and richer than that. So in times when a husband or wife is not particularly feeling fulfilled or happy or challenged, love must be allowed to fly, to rise above the feelings of the moment and persevere. To do so inevitably means that our love is going to have to grow, and we will have to keep learning how to love our spouses throughout our lifetimes.

(Please note, if there’s any doubt, that I am not saying that someone should stay in an abusive situation. That’s a whole other issue. Rather, I’m talking about the purpose of marriage not being the self-fulfillment of the individual.)

If this piece doesn't help, Antigone, I'm sorry but I've probably run out of different angles from which to explain it!

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[Antigone]

Oh, no no no, don't misunderstand me: I was asking in general, not personally.

I suppose you're right: we are at far to seperate viewpoints to get on the same wavelength. Thanks for trying, but I still have no idea what you're talking about.

[Hugo]

Gosh, Chip and Antigone, I like that. Sometimes, the best thing to do is to acknowledge an "epistemic gulf" as being too broad to bridge... and just say nice things about each other and leave it at that.

[Rose]

What is a True Biblical Marriage?
To find out, check out the sites below:

www.cadz.net
www.marriagedivorce.com
www.cpr-ministries.org