“Stay married for the kids,” they say.

That’s decent enough advice, but couples going through a tough time in their marriage should also know that they should stay together for themselves. Most of the time, a couple that sticks it out through a really rough patch in marriage will be happier in the long run than a couple that co-parents and starts all over again romantically with other partners.

The stats back this up. One study found that two-thirds of couples who stick together through a rough patch are happy 10 years later. Imagine if they had split up?

In a culture that normalizes immediately leaving a relationship that is hard for one or both parties, it can be scary to commit to something that has ceased, at least for a time, to bring joy and validation. “Let go of what doesn’t serve you,” the culture tells us.

But marriage is not a relationship that exists to serve us, although it often does. Marriage is, at its best, a relationship where both parties are giving 100% without expectations or strings attached. It is a selfless union which the Bible compares to the sacrificial relationship Christ has towards His bride, the church.

The oft-cited 50% divorce rate is tragic, but it makes sense given how our culture thinks of relationships, particularly marriage. The seemingly limitless connections offered via social media give people the false feeling that they suffer no consequences from making and leaving friendships, parental relationships, and romantic relationships. Modern married couples think they only suffer from a “toxic” relationship, never imagining they may suffer more by leaving before it gets good. The idea that a relationship, romantic or not, can even exist without high points and low points has no basis in reality, and can only be believed by a society that is so listless it has never considered the cost of living only for one’s self.

Indeed, the most grotesque example of how our culture idolizes relationships that “serve you” and vilifies those that require sacrifice is in abortion. A child is referred to as a “parasite” by the pro-choice left, merely because said child is standing in the way of the mother’s – or father’s – self-actualization. The logical assumption that a relationship that requires much of you with little in return should be ended even if it requires murder is made without a thought. Keeping a child despite career sacrifice, for instance, is out of the question.

Modern wedding vows pledge a bride’s or groom’s troth to an “adventure buddy” and “best friend,” descriptors that are fundamentally contingent upon something. The idea is that as long as this person is your “adventure buddy” or “best friend,” you will continue to love and serve and commit to them. But life throws us curveballs and “adventure buddy” isn’t an actual category of person that remains constant.

Traditional wedding vows, on the other hand, pledge one’s troth to the other person, no contingent descriptors attached. For better or for worse. For richer or for poorer. In sickness and in health.

The real irony is that a culture that immediately flees relationships that are “unhappy,” however loosely defined, are very likely missing out on the most joyful relationship they could have. Everyone idolizes the “honeymoon period.” But those first one or two years of marriage are really just the introduction. The closeness and intimacy that exists between two people who have seen one another at their best and worst, and continue to choose each other with openness and confidence, is unmatched. Our culture is losing something seriously priceless by giving that up for flimsy and fleeting romantic freedom.

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image credit: Pxhere