Why Divorce Calls Children's Existence into Question

Why Divorce Calls Children's Existence into Question
Two years ago was the 25th anniversary of one of the most epic movies of all time. Every American not in a coma or an Amish community has seen Steven Spielberg's Back to the Future, and if they haven't, they can easily catch it on television, as TBS and TNT seem to rerun it every few hours.
The last time I caught a rerun of the 1985 science-fiction adventure, instead of switching the channel, I lingered and watched. I realized that the 25th anniversary was significant because Doc (Christopher Lloyd) had planned to travel 25 years into the future—to 2010—before those pesky Libyan plutonium dealers opened fire in the mall parking lot, sending Marty (Michael J. Fox) speeding off in the DeLorean back to the year 1955.
Once he arrives in 1955, Marty has to make his way "back to the future," and must avoid any contact with any person to avoid irrevocably altering the future in a single encounter. But it just so happens that Marty has already befriended his dad and, oddly, has become his mom's crush.
When Marty explains this to Doc, he asks to see the 1985 family photo Marty carries with him. Examining it, Doc points out that Marty's oldest brother is already disappearing from the photo. Now that Marty's mother has a crush on Marty and not on George (his father), his brother is being erased from existence. Marty must do all he can to make sure his parents fall in love in 1955 so that he might not disappear from 1985.
A Frightening Analogy
I had seen these scenes dozens of times before they solidified as a frightening analogy for my own family's story. Just months before my own wedding, I sat with my mom in the living room of the home I had grown up in, as she explained that divorce was the next exit on the highway of our family's history. It had been several weeks since she had told me that her and my father's marriage was in serious trouble. Now, she told me more: They had gotten married way too young, noting that if she could do it all over again, she would have chosen another route for her life, someone other than my father to share life with.
I couldn't help feeling a shadow come over me. I looked at our family portrait hanging on the wall across from us, and wondered if I might be disappearing. I glanced at my hand, wondering if I was becoming translucent like Marty did. My parents' impending divorce made me feel thin, as if now that my parents' marriage was disappearing, the divorce was becoming our shared identity, and I too was disappearing.
I existed only because my mother and father had become one, creating me out of the abundance of their covenant community. Now, standing amid the debris and shock of the collision that ended their marriage, all this felt up for grabs. If I was through their union, who could I be in their division? If I was because of their coming together, who would I be if they nullified the community that gave me life? Could I be at all?
A Triune Relationship
As so many psychologists, philosophers, and theologians have stated—most recently cultural commentator David Brooks and sociologist Christian Smith, but also theologians Dietrich Bon-hoeffer, Karl Barth, and Stanley Grenz before them—we are social animals with the mental ability to ponder our existence. The community of people we call family—those who made us and welcome us into their community of love—assures us that we rest secure on safe ground in this world. It is no wonder that so many happily adopted children will nevertheless embark on intense journeys to find their birthparents, whom many of them call their "real" parents. We desire to be found, to know and encounter those who brought us into the world.

A Fractured and Beautiful Faith
Streaming This Weekend, May 24, 2013

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).













Comments
Displaying 13 of 22 comments
See all comments
Mandilina M
to lastblast Seven: part 2 - My dad had to then pull himself up by his bootstraps and make it on his own. Without my mother fixing it for him on a daily basis. Without her putting up with his intimidating antics. Now he is a pleasant, jovial, easygoing, likable guy. Far from the man I was nervous around as kid. Divorce improved him. Yet you have no qualms criticizing divorcees for venturing into this institution again. Post divorce does not remove the longing one has for a mate. Anyhow, I think it'd take some audacity on my part to have expected my miserable, depressed parent to remain in a distasteful relationship on account of me. I dont take their divorce personal. Despite any angst or bones I have to pick with seculiar or faith related issues I'm so greatful their union created me and can glean some joy in this life. Maybe thats what we should be focused on.
Mandilina M
to lastblast Seven: Baffled. If your parents had stayed together they would've ended their lives happy? How do you know? In your teens and 20s you struggled with alcohol/drugs and love. Whats your point? It's not all that uncommon for this age group to dabble with life in the fast lane a bit. Your parents divorce couldn'tv have contributed to your poor behavior because they divorced when you were in your forties. Why would you paint children of divorce in one broad stroke and assume they are putting on good face? It's not feasible that a marriage may have evolved into an unhealthy setting? Where the atmosphere can range from cold and uncomfortable up to acrimony and various abuses. The constant exposure in this type of setting is what develops the walking wounded. Staying married in this environment often makes one an enabler. My parents divorced when I was in my early 20s and my brothers agree that mom should've done this sooner.
Bruce Hamill
Fine article Andrew. I would suggest however, that if humans are relationally constituted, then psychosocial matters are not an alternative to ontology, they are aspects of our being. We do not have to choose between psychology and ontology (provided, of course our psychology is rigorously relational). I suspect you agree with this, since immediately after talking of changing the discourse from psychology to ontology you go on to talk about how people feel.