Jonathan Cooper
Professor Wood
Introductory Sociology
November 13, 2008
Factors for the Initiation and Cultivation of Marital Romance
and the Implications for Church Ministry
The implications of marriage are dramatic. When marriage works, marriage works wonders. Writing in the Journal of Marriage and Family, researchers noted, "Many studies have established that married people fare better than their never-married counterparts in terms of psychological well-being." (Lamb, Lee & DeMaris 2004: 953) In October of 2005, researchers from Cornell and Pennsylvania State University "found that married individuals reported the highest level of subjective well-being..." (Dush & Amato 607) According to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, "Married men and women report having more and better sex than single people." (Harrison, Stanley & Johnson) RAND's Center of Study for Aging observed, “Numerous studies covering 140 years have shown that married persons tend to live longer than their unmarried counterparts.” (“Health, Marriage” 1998) According to David Popenoe, head of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, "The empirical evidence is now strong and persuasive that a good marriage enhances personal happiness, economic success, health and longevity." (Popenoe 2007)
When healthy marriage is replaced with something else, however, the results are horrendous. This is true for the married individuals. In 2004, Psychological Medicine noted, "A considerable body of research has established that transitions out of marriage are generally deleterious for mental health..." (Pevalin & Ermisch 1553) The same trend holds true for children. According to leading researchers, "The "triple threat" of marital conflict, divorce, and out-of-wedlock births has led to a generation of U.S. children at great risk for poverty, health problems, alienation, and antisocial behavior." (Stanley & Markman, “Facts About”) In short, marriage matters.
Because marriage matters, this paper examines the factors that make marriage work. First, it offers two basic types of factors affecting the proper initiation of marriage. Second, it offers three attributes of a successful marriage. In light of these two sections, the paper then ends by discussing ways for the local church to help couples initiate and cultivate romance.
First, others’ decisions and individual’s decisions influence the initiation of a healthy marriage. For instance, the individual does not decide the health of the parents’ relationship, the date of birth, the support of others or the presence of mental illness. Nonetheless, parental divorce, low marital age, limited family endorsement and “neuroticism” increase the odds of divorce. (“Predicting Divorce”) Others’ decisions can influence an individual’s future marriage.
In regard to this paper, however, the individual’s decisions are more relevant. One of these important decisions is commitment expressed in premarital purity. In 2004, a study appeared in the Journal of Family Psychology entitled “Timing Is Everything: Pre-Engagement Cohabitation and Increased Risk for Poor Marital Outcomes.” This study monitored the relationships of couples who decided to cohabitate at different times in the relationship. The study’s seven researchers discovered the following:
“…the before-engagement cohabiters (59 couples) had more negative interactions, lower interpersonal commitment, lower relationship quality, and lower relationship confidence than those who did not cohabit until after engagement (28 couples) or marriage (49 couples), even after controlling for selection factors and duration of cohabitation.” (Kline, et al. 311)
This study is part of a body of research in support of premarital purity. In 2002, David Popenoe of Rutgers University stated, “Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have less satisfying marriages and a considerably higher chance of eventually breaking up." (Popenoe & Whitehead) Premarital purity helps initiate healthy marriage.
A second important decision of the couple-to-be is commitment expressed in pre-marital education. A 1999 study published by the Journal of Family Therapy offers the following synthesis on research related to pre-marital education:
“In addition, meta-analysis has demonstrated that individuals who participated in pre-marital programs did better than no-treatment control individuals in terms of improving their relationships or preventing later problems.” (Williams et al. 272)
Their study did not counter the established consensus. Out of the sample of over 1000 surveys from married individuals, “[t]he majority of respondents perceived their marriage preparation as a valuable experience…” (281) Premarital education helps initiate healthy marriage.
After a marriage is initiated, its love is to be cultivated. The first of three factors in the cultivation of romance is togetherness. One facet is religious togetherness; couples should grow toward God together. Bradford Wilcox is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia who completed a study in 2008 on church going couples. Wilcox offered the following commentary on the study’s findings:
“Attending church only seems to help couples when they attend together… But when they do, they are significantly happier in their marriages, and they are much less likely to divorce, compared to couples who do not attend church. I would say that church attendance is a beneficial component of marriage when it is done together.” (Catholic News Agency)
This study is not alone in finding value in religious unity. Writing in Social Science Research, Darren E. Sherkat references twelve studies in the following sentence: “Intermarriage also has important effects on family life, leading to lower fertility, higher rates of female employment, lower levels of marital satisfaction, higher rates of divorce, and greater spousal conflict…” (2004: 606) Religious togetherness cultivates marital happiness.
Also, there is recreational togetherness; couples should play together. At the time of the writing of the now classic His Needs, Her Needs, Harley had been successfully married for two decades and a marriage counselor for twenty five years “help[ing] literally thousands of couples improve their troubled marriages.” (Harley 12, 16) Pulling from his many experiences, Harley commanded readers to “[e]ngage in only those recreational activities that both you and your spouse can enjoy together.” (Harley 83) The importance of recreational togetherness is widely affirmed. In 2008, PARADE Magazine commissioned Insight Express in a survey a random sample of 1001 Americans about their marriages. Half of the sample reported being married for over a decade. When asked for reasons explaining their marriage’s endurance, “companionship” was the most commonly cited explanation, receiving citations from nearly three fourths of married Americans. (“The Truth”) Recreational togetherness cultivates lasting love.
Finally, there is visional togetherness; couples should plan the future together. Les and Leslie Parrott are a dynamic duo. The former is a professor of clinical psychology; the latter is a marriage and family therapist. Blending academic research and counseling experience, the two penned The Love List, a to-do list for cultivating romance in marriage. This couple recommends two activities every year: review the past and plan the future. Les and Leslie write, “Couples who make resolutions together for the good of their marriage are far more likely to make their resolutions last than those making resolutions on their own.” (“The Love List,” 119) The two continue by quoting Terry D. Hargrave, a professor of marriage and family therapy at West Texas A and M University: “Teamwork wins goals… If a resolution is as good for your spouse as it is for you—bet on success with the resolution and a sweeter marriage.” (119) In summary, David Popenoe, head of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, offers the following statement: “The happiest couples are friends who share lives and are compatible in interests and values.” (Popenoe & Whitehead 2002) Togetherness fosters lasting romance.
In addition, flexibility cultivates lasting romance. The first expression of flexibility is crisis prevention. When shifts in lifestyle approach, the wise couple gains outside advice. The findings of a study published in 2006 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychological "suggest that early family transitions that strain couple relationships provide critical opportunities for preventive interventions to strengthen marriage." (Schulz, Cowan & Cowan 20) Furthermore, due to constant change and forgetfulness, wise couples seek outside insight regularly. The large 1999 study examining premarital counseling found that the reported benefit of premarital counseling diminished over time. With this finding in mind, the researchers offer the following conclusion:
“This could mean that the benefits of marriage preparation weaken with time or that it is most effective in preparing couples for the initial adjustments or stage of marriage… marriage education could be viewed as an ongoing process, not simply a one-time strategy or intervention offered only to engaged couples.” (Williams et al. 281)
Every marriage will face change. Prevention gives romance the flexibility to survive in the midst of trying times.
The second expression of flexibility is crisis management. First, wise couples accept permanent disagreements. On January 29, 2007, Diane Sollee, a seasoned expert on marriage education, led The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy for the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. In describing the activity of researchers during the last few decades, Sollee explained, “They found out there is no compatible couple. All couples disagree the same amount.” Furthermore, Sollee made the following pronouncement:
“The experts also learned there are much better ways to manage - we never use the word resolve - conflict or disagreement in marriage. Even the happily married couples have irreconcilable differences; they just know how to manage them.”
As researchers Stanley and Markman state, “…there is a lot of reason to believe that what couples argue about is not as important as how they argue…” (“Facts About”) Wise couples manage crisis by loving despite disagreement.
In addition, enduring marriages manage crisis by restoring broken trust. Infidelity occurs in many couples’ lives. In the interview commissioned by PARADE Magazine, 19% of men and 11% of women admitted to marital infidelity. (“The Truth”) For many of these couples, infidelity could signal the end; according to a 2003 study published in the Journal of Family Issues, “Infidelity was the most commonly reported cause [of divorce], followed by incompatibility, drinking or drug use, and growing apart.” (Amato & Previti 602) However, infidelity is not necessary the end. Writing in His Needs, Her Needs, Willard F. Harley offers hope based on his experience:
“Retraining is possible at any time. For that reason I believe marriages that have been torpedoed by affairs need not sink. They can be towed into drydock, repaired, and refitted. Once refitted, they will sail farther and faster than at any previous time.” (18-19)
Although marriage does not always include adultery, marriage always includes disappointment. Wise couples seek to restore trust when crises come.
In addition to togetherness and flexibility, a healthy marriage is marked by complementariness. In a healthy marriage, the two spouses help meet the needs of both by offering specialized contributions. For example, marriage is safeguarded when one spouse wins the bread. In an article published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in 2004, Stacy J. Rogers reviewed the findings of studies over the last decade on the relationship between spouse employment and marriage health. Rogers states, "The present research suggests that access to similar levels of economic resources may facilitate divorce for unhappy spouses." (73) Based on Roger’s summary of past research findings, divorce is statistically more likely if both spouses share the load than if the wife is the source of income. Marriage is more durable with complementariness.
Complementariness, flexibility and togetherness are factors that cultivate romance. Premarital purity and preparation are factors that initiate health in marriage. If these are the factors that initiate and cultivate marriage, how should churches minister to couples?
Local churches can take two steps to facilitate the development of healthy marriages. First, the local church can offer premarital education. The 1999 study by Williams et al. identified effective elements of premarital education. Premarital education should include three formats: “…private sessions with clergy, weekend programs, and private meetings with married couples…” (281) The clergy should join the team of education providers; the findings suggest “that the absence of clergy involvement in marriage preparation in a church setting may be detrimental.” (279) The weekend programs should total eight to nine sessions, and the programs should include instruction on, among other topics, “communication, commitment, conflict resolution, children, and church.” (281-282) The church leaders should select and equip wise couples to act as marriage mentors; the participants in the study credited mentor couples with the most helpfulness. During the premarital education experience, there should be time devoted for couples to learn about and bond with one another. According to the study, “[d]iscussion time with their partner and using a premarital inventory were the most helpful program components…” (281)
In addition to premarital education, local churches can offer post-marital support. I do not know the best way to organize date nights, retreats, and reconciliation; however, I do know that organizing each would serve couples in several ways. Date nights help couples emote and play together. Retreats allow couples to relax, to remember truths from their marriage education, to review the state of their marriages and to refine their vision for the future. Reconciliatory counseling helps couples manage crises. According to Williams et al., “…the literature suggests couples may be more open to instruction after the wedding…” (280) With support before and after marriage, churches can help couples initiate and cultivate romance.
This ministry is not widely offered. According to a study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, only 16% of conservative Protestants attend a church that offers traditional marriage ministry. The researchers noted, “…[O]ur results suggest that only a small minority of churches have reacted to the changes and challenges of contemporary American family life by establishing family ministries in their own congregations.” (Wilcox, Chaves & Franz 2004:496) Most local churches offer little to help facilitate lasting romance in marriage.
One movement, however, is mobilizing local congregations. The movement is centered on the strategy called Community Marriage Policy. The word refers to an policy toward marriage agreed upon by a community’s churches. To create a Community Marriage Policy (CMP), “Clergy join together across denominational and racial lines and sign a public covenant on the courthouse steps to make healthy marriages a priority in their congregations.” (“2. What Is”)
Although the covenant’s details are region specific, the basic model is holistic, delivering premarital training and post-marital support. The churches commit to marry couples who have received premarital preparation. The church commits to administer a premarital relationship inventory, to communicate conflict resolution and to share biblical marriage principles. After the wedding, the couple joins other couples for enriching events, such as weekly date nights or retreats. In addition, the church agrees to pair troubled marriages with seasoned mentor couples. Finally, the church leaders “create a Stepfamily Support Group to assist couples with stepchildren…” (“3. What”) To help in these steps, church leaders agree to help professionally train mentor couples. (“3. What”)
The results are lovely for two reasons. First, church leaders are on the move. In October of 2007, ABC News began a series entitled “Key to Success” that featured “creative solutions to entrenched problems in this country.” In the first installment of the series, ABC News reported, “There are now more than 200 community marriage policies in place across the country.” (“Community Marriage”)
Second, marriages are flourishing. In March of 2001, former Deputy Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary, Patrick S. Fagan, Ph.D., commented as follows:
“In over 135 cities around the country where Community Marriage Covenants have been signed by clergy, congregations, and civic leaders, divorce rates are falling dramatically. In Modesto, California, for example, the divorce rate has plummeted 47.6 percent since 1986, when 95 pastors signed America's first Community Marriage Policy.”
The Institute for Research and Evaluation analyzed divorce rates in counties with Community Marriage Policies. The researchers were able to discern a statistically significant, causal relationship between the institution of Community Marriage Policies and declines in divorce rates. According to the March 2004 report, “31,000 divorces are being avoided in 114 cities/counties with a Community Marriage Policy.” (Birch, Weed & Olsen) When local church leaders concentrate and collaborate on marriage, they facilitate lasting love.
In light of the importance of marriage, this paper has examined the basic factors and the church’s role in the initiation and cultivation of marital bliss. As a couple moves toward marriage, they set their course in the direction of lasting love by waiting for sex and preparing for marriage. When married, wise spouses worship, play and plan in unison. Happy wives and husbands mitigate and manage disagreements and disappointments. Smart spouses also complement the marriage with unique contributions. Before and after the wedding day, the church can facilitate the journey toward lasting love.



Works Cited
“2.What is a Community Marriage Policy®?” Marriage Savers. Accessed November 13, 2008. <http://www.marriagesavers.org/sitems/SavingMarriages/whatisacmp.htm>
“3. What Does the Community Agree To?” Marriage Savers. Accessed November 13, 2008. <http://www.marriagesavers.org/sitems/SavingMarriages/agreement.htm>
Amato, Paul R. and Previti, Denise. “People’s Reasons for Divorcing: Gender, Social Class, the Life Course, and Adjustment.” Journal of Family Issues. 24 (2003): 602-626 <http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/5/602>
Birch, Paul James, Weed, Stan E., and Olsen, Joseph A. “The Institute for Research and Evaluation, Assessing the Impact of Community Marriage Policies on U.S. County Divorce Rates” Smart Marriages. March 2004. Accessed November 13, 2008. <http://www.smartmarriages.com/cmp.weed.pdf>
"Community Marriage Policies May Lower Divorce Rates, A 'Key to Success' in Love and Marriage" ABC News. Oct. 22, 2007. Accessed November 13, 2008. <http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=3761217&page=1>
<http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=3761217&page=2>
Dush, Claire M. Kamp and Amato, Paul R. “Consequences of Relationship Status and Quality for Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 22 (2005): 607-627. <http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/5/607>
Harley, Willard F., Jr. His Needs, Her Needs. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1986.
Harrison, Courtney, Stanley, Scott and Johnson, Christine. “Is Marriage for Me?” Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. Accessed November 13, 2008 <http://www.okmarriage.org/downloads/media/omi-026a-marriage%20tips05-09v11.pdf>
"Health, Marriage, and Longer Life for Men" RAND 1998. RAND Labor and Population Program Center of Study for Aging. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5018/index1.html>
Online summary of the following:
Lillard, Lee A. and Panis, Constantijn W.A. "Marital Status and Mortality: The Role of Health," Demography, 33(3):313-327, 1996
Kline, Galena H., Stanley, Scott M., Markman, Howard J., Olmos-Gallo, P. Antonio, Peters, Michele St., Whitton, Sarah W. and Prado, Lydia M. “Timing Is Everything: Pre-Engagement Cohabitation and Increased Risk for Poor Marital Outcomes.” Jounral of Family Psychology. 18 (2004): 311-318 <http://cyber.gwc.cccd.edu/faculty/sisonio/timing.pdf>
Lamb, Kathleen A., Lee, Gary R. and DeMaris, Alfred. “Union Formation and Depression: Selection and Relationship Effects.” Journal of Marriage and Family. 65 (2003): 953-962 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00953.x>
Parrott, Les and Parrott Leslie. The Love List. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002.
Pevalin, David J. and Ermisch, John. “Cohabiting Unions, Repartnering and Mental Health.” Psychological Medicine. 34 (2004): 1553-1559 <http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/pgme/abstract.00006826-200411000-00018.htm;jsessionid=JNHGkpGfZsnnVjvQqp3JHK2CnjDTd1DGwW6lmGypjynDJmT3TppQ!1251598232!181195628!8091!-1>
Popenoe, David. "The State of Our Unions, The Social Health of Marriage in America 2007, Essay: The Future of Marriage in America" National Marriage Project. 2007. Accessed November 13, 2008. <http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2007.htm>
Popenoe, David and Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. “The Top Ten Myths of Marriage” The National Marriage Project. March 2002. October 2008. <http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/MythsMarriage.pdf>
“Predicting Divorce” PREP Inc. 1998 Accessed November 13, 2008. <http://www.prepinc.com/main/docs/predicting_divorce.html>
Rogers, Stacy J. “Dollars, Dependency, and Divorce: Four Perspectives on the Role of Wives’ Income.” Journal of Marriage and Family. 66 (2004): 59-74 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00005.x>
Schulz, Marc S., Cowan, Carolyn Pape and Cowan, Philip A. "Promoting Healthy Beginnings: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Preventive Intervention to Preserve Marital Quality during the Transition to Parenthood." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 74 (2006): 20-31. <http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=2006-03253-003>
Sherkat, Darren E. “Religious Intermarriage in the United States: Trends, Patterns, and Predictors.” Social Science Research. 33 (2004): 606-625 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WX8-4BFXSHG-1/2/67219179f1452d3862335eb5c473d253>
Stanley, Scott M. & Markman, Howard J. "Facts About Marital Distress and Divorce" Smart Marriages. Accessed November 13, 2008. <http://www.smartmarriages.com/7.html>
"The Truth About American Marriage." PARADE Magazine. September 15, 2008. Accessed November 13, 2008.
<http://www.parade.com/hot-topics/2008/09/truth-about-american-marriage-poll-results>
Wilcox, W. Bradford, Chaves, Mark and Franz, David. “Focused on the Family? Religious Traditions, Family Discourse, and Pastoral Practice.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 43 (2004): 491-504 <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118754392/PDFSTART>
Williams, Lee M., Riley, Lisa A. Risch, Gail S. and Dyke, David T. Van. “An Empirical Approach to Designing Marriage Preparation Programs.” The American Journal of Family Therapy. 27 (1999): 271-283 [Note: Microfiche.]