Vows

The New York Times unearthed a surprising trend in the wedding industry: Many couples are now choosing cemeteries as wedding venues. It’s a way to highlight an eternal commitment by choosing a place of eternal rest, and after all, many wedding vows include the promise “until death do us part.”

“Every year, we get more and more requests,” said Richard Harker of the Historic Oakland Foundation, which runs Atlanta’s Oakland Cemetery, the oldest public park in the city. According to Harker, Oakland hosted more weddings in 2023 than funerals (36 to 25, respectively).

Some couples choose them for personal reasons, such as to honor a loved one who can’t be present in the flesh. Others simply find the combination of outdoor décor appealing. In some cases, the cost is lower because of less demand, and often restrictions on the size and scope of the gathering make it easier for couples who want a smaller gathering.

Cemetery weddings are nothing new. Jews living in Eastern Europe and in the United States sometimes held weddings in cemeteries during times of mass disease, like during the 1918 influenza, in the belief that having the ceremony in the presence of the dead might bring about better times.

Whatever the reason, couples looking to choose a cemetery for their nuptials must be prepared to abide by a lot of logistical rules that govern the locale; no matter how joyous the affair, cemeteries are still the resting place of the dearly departed. Many of the more historic cemeteries have rules in place preventing, for example, dancing or loud music.

Still, for the right couple in the right situation, a cemetery can be a great choice. There’s so much love [there],” according to Laura Lavelle of Oak Hill Cemetery in Washington, D.C. “It can hold sadness and happiness. It can hold grief and joy.”

Possible Preaching Angles:

While this trend may seem unconventional, it offers a unique perspective on the meaning of marriage and the human experience. 1) Marriage; Commitment; Vows - It invites us to consider the deeper significance the sacredness of vows, and the reality that love and commitment persist even in the face of death and sorrow. 2) Remembrance - The Bible often emphasizes the importance of remembering the past and honoring the dead. A cemetery wedding could be a way to honor loved ones who have passed away and to keep their memory alive.

Tucked away in the church grounds of Biertan, a quiet village in Romania, there is a small cottage known as the “matrimonial prison.” It was here that couples whose marriages were on the rocks were once sent, to sort out their problems while being locked away for up to two weeks. The method was said to be so effective that records show that there has only been one divorce in the area for the past 300 years.

In Biertan, the most important structure was the church and within the grounds is a small building with a room inside barely larger than a pantry. Couples who approached the local bishop to seek a divorce were sent to this matrimonial prison for a maximum of two weeks—six weeks according to some—to iron out their issues. The room was sparsely furnished with a table and chair, a storage chest, and a traditional Saxon bed. The couple attempting to repair their marriages had to share everything inside this tiny dwelling, from a single pillow and blanket to a single plate and spoon.

According to Lutheranism, the religion of the area, divorce was allowed under certain circumstances, such as adultery. But it was preferred that couples attempt to save their union.

Ulf Ziegler, Biertan’s current priest said, “The reason to remain together was probably not love. The reason was to work and to survive. If a couple was locked inside for six weeks, it was very hard for them to (grow) enough food the following year, so there was pressure to get out and to continue to work together.”

The small, dark room is currently a museum, yet Ziegler reveals that even today he receives requests from couples who look forward to using the prison to repair their own struggling marriages.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Divorce is far too easy in our culture. Although we cannot recommend this method, the idea of a couple being “encouraged” to seriously talk through their issues before simply rushing into divorce is sound.

On June 2, 1953, in the splendor of Westminster Abbey, a twenty-five-year-old woman knelt before the archbishop of Canterbury to seal the oaths she had just sworn. “Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?” he had asked. “I will,” Queen Elizabeth had replied.

When she died on September 8, 2022, flags in Europe, Canada, and America were at half-mast. Brazil declared three days of mourning. Australia’s prime minister wept on television. Jamaica announced twelve days of public tribute. Other nations too numerous to name followed suit.

Why did she have such a profound impact around the globe? Here’s the most basic answer: because her faith in Jesus was real and deep. In her first Christmas broadcast in 1952, the newly enthroned queen asked, “Pray for me . . . that God may give me wisdom and strength to carry out the solemn promises I shall be making, and that I may faithfully serve Him and you, all the days of my life.” In 2016 she said, “Billions of people now follow Christ’s teaching and find in him the guiding light for their lives. I am one of them...”

In her 2020 Christmas broadcast she noted, “for me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life.” She also expressed her love for the Bible: She asked, “To what greater inspiration and counsel can we turn, than to the imperishable truth to be found in this treasure house, the Bible?” She maintained a lifelong friendship with Billy Graham, who once wrote, “No one in Britain has been more cordial toward us than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.”

An article in Christianity Today summarized her role in these words: “The Queen demonstrated how to keep one’s Christian faith personal, private, inclusive, and compassionate while serving in a global, public role under intense scrutiny from virtually every sector.”

In a recent Cosmopolitan article, Pauline Jayne Isaac lists the 36 greatest on-screen love stories of all time. She begins:

The most famous movie couples have the ability to turn cynics into believers, critics into fans, and can even warm the iciest of hearts. Whether it's a romantic comedy or a drama—the outcome is the same. Love stories make you believe in love.

But the title reveals a problem; "Sorry, But I Just Have to Say It: These Iconic Movie Couples Gave Me Unrealistic Expectations About Love.” Unrealistic expectations are, of course, a key issue in marriages.

Over the years, of course, countless love stories have been told at the box office. Isaac limited her list by selecting stories that met three criteria: "the couples have to be aspirational, the chemistry palpable, and most importantly, the love has to be intense."

Perhaps Hollywood love stories create unrealistic expectations because they are not love stories. An authentic love story is not built on the glamour of aspiration, the feel of chemistry, and thrill of intensity, experiences that come and go while real love remains.

Possible Preaching Angle:

God’s work of grace in Jesus Christ is a “legit love story." It has "the ability to turn cynics into believers, critics into fans, and can even warm the iciest of hearts.”

In the novel Captain Corelli’s Mandolin (written in 1994) an older man named Dr. Iannis tells his daughter about his love for his late wife. He says that at first love “erupts like a volcano” but then it subsides. “And when it subsides,” he continues, “you have to make a decision. Do you want real love or just being ‘in love?’”

Then he gives this definition for true marital love: “[Real] love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away … Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossoms had fallen from our branches, we found we were one tree and not two.”

Americans say they believe in “true love.” In a recent survey, 61 percent of women and 72 percent of men believe in love at first sight. Another poll asked, “Do you believe in the idea of soul mates, that is two people who are destined to be together?” 74 percent of men and 71 percent of women answered “yes.” This often creates extremely unrealistic expectations in marriage about how a spouse will meet our needs.

Research has also shown that our expectations for love and romance are heavily influenced by the movies and shows we watch. But the actors in these “true love/soulmate” movies can’t live up to the reality they create on the screen. Researcher Arthur Brooks says:

Hollywood doesn’t have your love interests at heart. When you indulge in a romantic comedy, consider its source. … “A-list” screen stars have a divorce rate of 52 percent within the first 16 years of their first or subsequent marriages, more than 10 points higher than the rate after the same length of time among Americans who wed in the 1970s; more than 20 points higher than Americans who wed for the first time in the 1960s. Not even the creators of the movie can achieve the standard they are promoting. Enjoy the occasional rom-com as entertainment if you must, but do so in the way you do science fiction, because it is about as realistic.

There's a new reality dating show on Netflix called, "Love is Blind," that tries to test whether relationships can be successful based on emotional connection rather than physical appearance. Couples are placed in separate rooms for a series of "dates" where they get to know each other without being able to see each other until the big moment when they're ready to get engaged. Then the engaged couples get a month to spend time face-to-face before a marriage ceremony that proves whether a blind beginning can guarantee true love.

The show’s creator explains the popularity of the show in a time where social media and dating apps make so much of outward appearance: “Everyone wants to be loved for who they are on the inside. It doesn’t matter where you live, what you look like, how old you are, what your background is, which class you know, or social structure you feel like you’re a part of, everyone wants to be loved for who they are.”

But is blind love the way to love someone as they truly are? The British writer G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.” Chesterton argued that real love depends on commitment. The way to love someone as they truly are is to vow to love them no matter what comes, and the more one is committed to the vows of marriage, the less blind they are to the real person who desires to be loved.

Author Heather Havrilesky wrote in an article titled “Is Marriage Obsolete?”:

Isn’t it reasonable to question the value of a legal contract, written in ink, on paper, that involves disastrously punitive forms of dissolution? … Particularly when it’s paired with an enormously expensive ceremony that often includes allusions to obedience and lifelong mutual suffering and death, of all things? … And (there are) a host of inconveniences to being married, along with untold drudgery, monotony, frustration, and regret. … Considering all that, what could possibly be the point of this outdated charade?

But she answers that question this way:

So why do I love this torturous state of affairs so much? The daily companionship, the shared household costs, and the tax breaks are not enough. ... (It is) because some of the peak moments of a marriage are when you share your anxieties, your fears, your longing, and even your horrors. … That’s why sickness and death are key to marriage vows. Because there is nothing more divine than being able to say, “Today, I am really, truly at my worst,” knowing that it won’t make your spouse run for the hills. My husband has seen my worst before. We both know that our worst is likely to get worse from here. Somehow that feels like grace.

A collection of Einstein's letters auctioned off in 1996 contains a list of marital expectations for his wife, Maliva Maric. The list includes daily laundry "kept in good order," "three meals regularly in my room," a desk maintained neatly "for my use only," and the demand that she quit talking or leave the room "if I request it." The marriage ended in divorce, but the list lives on as an illustration … of assumptions commonly held about marriage in 1914.

Compared with Einstein's requirements, modern marital expectations have surely evolved for the better. Or have they? An insightful study theorizes that as people abandon religious institutions, they start expecting romantic relationships to satisfy a host of needs that formerly were satisfied through religion. If you think clean laundry and regular meals require effort, try meeting the demands of relationship-worship today by providing transcendence, unconditional love, wholeness, meaning, worth, and communion.

An article in First Things concludes:

The Western fixation on romantic love creates a crushing burden for mere mortals. It engenders a powerful myth regarding love, courtship, and marriage: that a fallible human partner can not only share our passions but sate our existential yearnings. Contemporary couples expect much more from marriage than it can realistically deliver … As Eli Finkel of Northwestern University observes, "most of us will be kind of shocked by how many expectations and needs we've piled on top of this one relationship."

For a culture that's bought into the photo-shopped notion that romance equals euphoria, or blissful self-fulfillment, or nonstop infatuation, writer Heather Havrilskey offers the following advice on true romance:

After a decade of marriage … I'm going to tell you my most romantic story of all. I was very sick out of the blue with some form of dysentery. It hit overnight. I got up to go to the bathroom, and I fainted on the way and cracked my ribs on the side of the bathtub. My husband discovered me there, passed out, in a scene that … well, think about what that might look like …

My husband was not happy about this scene. But he handled it without complaint. That is the very definition of romantic: not only not being made to feel crappy about things that are clearly out of your control, but being quietly cared for by someone who can shut up and do what needs to be done under duress …

Now let's tackle something even darker and more unpleasant, the seeming antithesis of our modern notion of romance: Someone is dying in their own bed, and someone's spouse is sitting at the bedside, holding the dying person's hand, and also handling all kinds of unspeakable things that people who aren't drowning in gigantic piles of cash sometimes have to handle all by themselves. To me, that's romance.

When America went to war after Pearl Harbor, many couples married rapidly as men were drafted into the armed services. In a typical scenario, a young woman at the time, became engaged to her beau who subsequently shipped out with the Navy before they could have a wedding. They weren't able to marry until they had enough leave to come home. She and her mother planned the wedding down to the last detail. They even printed the wedding invitations, but the left the date off. They didn't know when the bridegroom would be able to make it, so they waited at the ready. Finally, after eighteen long months, a telegram came that said, "You should get the white dress you've been wanting." The groom was on his way. They wrote by hand and send off the invitations.

We know who our bridegroom is; we just don't know when he's going to appear.

Ever wonder how to spend a $1 billion on a wedding? Hint: include Jennifer Lopez. A couple in Moscow took [the] notion of a lavish wedding ceremony to a whole new level—and to add to the sticker shock, both the newly-married husband and wife are in their twenties.

Khadija Uzhakhova is a 20-year-old college student, and Said Gutseriev is a 28-year-old Russian elite and son of oil and media tycoon Mikhail Gutseriev, who is worth $6.2 billion. The wedding was held at Safisa, a luxury restaurant and banqueting venue that the couple transformed into a fairy-tale setting with walls of freshly-cut flowers and furniture sourced from Paris.

And forget buffet food. The 600 guests at this wedding were served sushi and feasted on a full European meal, which ended with the presentation of a cake taller than the couple. Elie Saab designed the bride's 28-pound custom gown, which is estimated to cost nearly $25,000. And as for entertainment at the ceremony, the couple enlisted Sting and Enrique Iglesias to warm up the stage for none other than Jennifer Lopez (yes, J. Lo!)—who put on a full show for the bride, groom and other lucky attendees.

Still not impressed? The wedding party traveled in a fleet of Rolls Royces, and guests of the ceremony left with their own elaborate jewelry boxes. An official price tag for the wedding isn't available, but Harper's Bazaar estimates it falls within the $1 billion range. We just hope there's a thank you letter to Dad in the mail.

Possible Preaching Angles: 1) This earthly wedding is extravagant, but it is nothing compared the wedding feast of Jesus and his bride the church. 2) The bride of Christ will share in the inheritance of Christ because of his great love for her. 3) The wealthy live in temporary extravagance but one day it will all quickly pass away if they are not rich toward God.

New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that there are three different lenses through which to think about marriage decisions—the psychological, the romantic, and the moral lens.

Most of the popular advice books adopt a psychological lens. These books start with the premise that getting married is a daunting prospect. So psychologists urge us to pay attention to traits like "agreeableness," social harmony, empathy, and niceness.

The second lens is the romantic lens. This is the dominant lens in movie and song. More than people in many other countries, Americans want to marry the person they are passionately in love with. But in their book "The Good Marriage," Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee concluded that 15 percent of couples maintain these kinds of lifelong romantic marriages.

The third lens is the moral lens. In this lens a marriage exists to serve some higher purpose. Brooks points to Tim Keller's book "The Meaning of Marriage," where Keller argues that marriage introduces you to yourself; you realize you're not as noble and easy to live with as you thought when alone. Brooks writes:

In a good marriage you identify your own selfishness and see it as the fundamental problem. You treat it more seriously than your spouse's selfishness. The everyday tasks of marriage are opportunities to cultivate a more selfless love. Everyday there's a chance to inspire and encourage your partner to become his or her best self. In this lens, marriage isn't about two individuals trying to satisfy their own needs; it's a partnership of mutual self-giving for the purpose of moral growth and to make their corner of the world a little better.

When scientists studied the brain chemistry of the newly love struck they found that certain chemicals are elevated when love is new. Researchers at the University of Pavia, for instance, found that levels of nerve growth factor (NGF)—a protein that maintains the health of neurons—were higher in people who had reported just falling in love when compared to single people or those in long-term relationships. After about a year, though, the subjects' NGF levels fell back to a normal level.

But after the first years of wedded bliss, some discontentment seems to follow. A poll of 5,000 married couples found that men and women begin to take their marriage for granted after two and a half years. Half the couples surveyed for the 2008 study reported that they felt undervalued at the 2.5 year mark. The majority of the men said they stopped picking up after themselves, while the women were no longer making an effort to look nice for their spouse. A 2011 survey of married couples found that irritation peaks at the 3-year mark. More than two-thirds of all of those surveyed said that little quirks, which were seemingly harmless and often endearing during the first flushes of love, became major annoyances at 36 months.

Time magazine recently featured an article that asked, "Is monogamy over?" The article offered various opinions, including "monogamy is a charade" that leads to "institutionalizing dishonesty," and "[monogamy] is just an option, not the default," and "There's no right, there's no wrong." Time also featured Pastor Andy Stanley who offered this biblical view:

Monogamy is more like an endangered species. Rare. Valuable. Something to be fed and protected. Perhaps an armed guard should be assigned to every monogamous couple to ward off poachers. Perhaps not.

The value a culture places on monogamy determines the welfare of its women and children. Women and children do not fare well in societies that embrace polygamy or promiscuity. In the majority of cases, sexual freedom undermines the financial freedom of women. Sexual freedom eventually undermines the financial and emotional security of children.

If we are only biology, none of the above really matters … If we are only biology, monogamy was probably a flawed concept from the start. But very few of us live as if we are only biology … As a pastor, I've officiated my share of weddings and I've done my share of premarital counseling. I always ask couples why they are getting married. Survival of the species never makes the list.

The "I" and "You" that inhabit our bodies desire more than another body. We desire intimacy—to know and to be fully known without fear. Intimacy is fragile. Intimacy is powerful. Intimacy is fueled by exclusivity. So, no, monogamy is not obsolete. It's endangered.

Two researchers at Emory University studied 3,000 married couples in the U.S. to determine the factors that predicted divorce. They discovered some surprising statistics that should interest many couples, especially Christian couples:

• Church attendance matters. Couples who said they attend church sometimes had a 10 percent greater chance of divorce. Couples who said they attended church "regularly" had a 46 percent less likely chance of divorce.
• Unconditional, committed love matters. Men are 50 percent more likely to end up divorced when they said their partner's looks were important in their decision to get married, and women are 60 percent more likely to end up divorced when they cared about their partner's wealth, compared to people who said they cared about neither.
• Focusing on the marriage, not just the wedding, matters. "The more you spend on your wedding," Olson notes, "the more likely you'll end up divorced." Shockingly, couples who spend less than $1,000 on their wedding are 53 percent less likely to get divorced, while couples who spend over $20,000 on their wedding are 46 percent more likely to get divorced.
• Going on a honeymoon matters. Yes, by all means, take that honeymoon. Couples who took a honeymoon were 41 percent less likely to get divorced later. Maybe it's the start of a healthy pattern of working on your relationship.

The Italians have a beautiful expression for love: ti voglio bene. Though commonly translated as "I love you," [the phrase] more literally means "I wish you good" or "I want what is good for you."

This simple phrase reminds us that true love is not primarily about what good feelings may be stirring within me. Even less is it about what I can get out of a relationship for myself. The fullness of love is looking outward toward my beloved and seeking what is best for that person, not just what is good for me.

Gerontologist Dr. Karl Pillemer, whose book 30 Lessons for Loving is drawn from 700 interviews, discovered that older adults "place intimacy as a high priority" in their marriages. He cites the example of Jennie B., now an 82-year-old widow who married her first and only husband when they were in their mid-20s, and were sexually active through their 47 married years before his death in 2003. Jennie explained,

There's an intimacy that comes later that is staggeringly wonderful. You can hold hands with this person you love and adore, and somehow it's just as passionate as having sex at an earlier age. There is such a sense of connection and intimacy that grows out of a long relationship, that touch carries with it the weight of so many memories. And many are sexual.

Indeed what she misses most as a widow, she says, is holding hands. "Sex was certainly an important and joyful and healing part, but I'm not sure that the connection through holding hands, which elicited such peace, was not a deeper intimacy," she wondered.

A small article in The Week, a secular source for world and American news, made the following statement:

Want to help America's economy and yourself at the same time? Then get married. The advantages of raising kids in a stable household are well documented: "Children of married parents are more likely to graduate high school, less likely to go to jail, and more likely to delay sexual activity." … [Kids from single parent homes] are "five times as likely to live in poverty." Men who marry, research has shown, are more productive at work, are paid better, and are more likely to be employed than their unmarried counterparts. Economist Stephen Moore has pointed out that marriage is a "far better social program than food stamps, Medicaid, public housing, or even all of them combined."

Yet despite the advantages of connubial life, "single-parent families have exploded." Today, more than 40 percent of American children are born out of wedlock. To restore the vigorous economic growth that built America's middle class, we first need to restore the "pro-growth" institution of marriage.

Editor’s Note: According to Statista, the percentage has remained right around 40% from 2007 to 2022 (latest figures available as of 2024).