WHAT DOES it mean when two people of different faiths marry without either giving up his faith for the other? It means neither is serious about what they believe and their children will believe in nothing.

By the way, the wedding pictures of Chelsea and Marc suggest a fairly typical modern couple: an exultant, confident bride and an insecure, timid man.

                                                         — Comments —

Simone Greenbaum writes:

My mother is Jewish and my father Christian. Just like Chelsea Clinton and her new husband, neither is serious about what they believe. My brother and I were given the ‘freedom’ to believe in whatever we wanted to believe in, whether that be Christianity, Judaism or to renounce religion altogether and pursue a wholly secular life. In other words, we were raised to believe in nothing. (I would like to note here that my parents are not hostile towards religion; they fully acknowledge it is the glue that has held society together for so long and that its marginalization is the reason for society’s rapid decline.) 

Such an upbringing is certainly not ideal. I would not recommend it and it is not the approach I am taking with my own children. On the other hand, I don’t think that the upbringing I had is any more problematic than being raised in a Christian or Jewish home by parents who do not take their religion seriously. In fact, based on my own observations, I have come to the conclusion that it is actually preferable to be raised as a ‘nothing’ than to be raised by religiously liberal parents who attend a liberal place of worship. I can’t explain why, but in my experience the former generally seems to come out with a more benign view of religion than does the latter. 

My mother has many liberal Jewish friends whose children have ‘married out’ and now lead completely secular lives. A few of them have said to my mother that they can’t understand why this has happened to them. They believe they did everything ‘right’ (sent the children to Jewish schools and Jewish holiday camps, attended synagogue on high holidays and lived in Jewish areas) and my mum did everything ‘wrong’ (see above), and yet it was my mother who got to stand under the chuppah with both her children. 

Any lack of seriousness about religion, regardless of the professed faith of the parents, will result in children who believe in nothing. That said, I do agree with you that a Jewish/Christian wedding should be regarded as the joke that it is.

Laura writes:

In fact, based on my own observations, I have come to the conclusion that it is actually preferable to be raised as a ‘nothing’ than to be raised by religiously liberal parents who attend a liberal place of worship. I can’t explain why, but in my experience the former generally seems to come out with a more benign view of religion than does the latter.

That is a fascinating observation. It makes sense.

Kristor writes:

What does it mean when two people of different faiths marry without either giving up his faith for the other? It means neither is serious about what they believe and their children will believe in nothing. 

Ah, but what does it mean when two people of different faiths marry and one of them does give up his faith for the other? It means that the one who has given up his faith in the Eternal One for the sake of a creature has made himself an idolater, and put his worship of his spouse ahead of his worship for God Almighty; or else that he is an idiot about religion. The bottom line is that there is no morally clean way to marry someone of a different faith. Such unions entail a derogation of righteousness, however it is conceived by either party. Participants in such unions must either repudiate the notions of righteousness they had before understood as governing, or else repudiate righteousness per se.

Laura writes:

You are absolutely right about my statement. One cannot give up one’s faith for someone else without rendering faith meaningless. It does, on the other hand, make sense to give up one’s faith after having been genuinely converted by someone one loves. While a person may not give up faith for a potential spouse and remain true to God, intimacy and friendship may bring close contact with the tenets of that faith, sometimes leading to a new appraisal and sincere conversion.

I agree there is no “morally clean way” to marry someone of a different faith.

Kristor adds:

Simone writes, In fact, based on my own observations, I have come to the conclusion that it is actually preferable to be raised as a ‘nothing’ than to be raised by religiously liberal parents who attend a liberal place of worship. I can’t explain why, but in my experience the former generally seems to come out with a more benign view of religion than does the latter.

This happens because parents who profess religion formally but not substantively – who go through the motions – are lying about what they believe. No child is ever fooled by such lies. Seeing how their parents hold their own religion in implicit contempt, the children follow suit. Children of parents who are straightforwardly agnostic or atheist, or religiously “tone-deaf,” have at least the benefit of parental honesty. I would wager also that parents who are comfortable with and therefore honest about their antipathy for religion are also commensurately, and in general, healthier in emotional terms than those who go through life as religious hypocrites. A hypocrite – the word in Greek means “pretender” – can’t but feel a bit guilty, can’t help but suffer some cognitive dissonance in respect to the most profound aspects of his own worthiness and integrity. Parents are no more fooled by their own religious dishonesty than children. And all things considered, that sort of deep inner conflict in parents must end up expressed in their children.

All that said, there are lots of intensely serious religious liberals. And I am betting that most of their children end up seriously religious. That is what happened to me. I saw my parents taking religion seriously, so that’s what I did. They didn’t try to guide me, much; they just provided me with models of religious seriousness.

Laura writes:

These are excellent insights.

Children know when they are being forced to go through the motions. That’s why it is generally a mistake for parents to join a church simply for the purpose of allowing their children to “come into contact with” faith or religious morals. However, some parents recognize they are “tone-deaf” and want to educate their children about faith. In these cases, I think it is best if they themselves teach their children about a particular faith, explaining all the time why they cannot really accept its beliefs.  In other words, they can teach a child about religion in the same way they would teach him about a different culture or language. This idea of parents teaching their own children about these matters places, however, too high a demand on some people. That’s why I’m not sure it is always wrong for parents to go through the motions and join a church so their children can be exposed to rituals, doctrine and those who genuinely believe. But in most cases, in these circumstances, they fall away, especially in a culture where there is not much stigma to being non-religious. By the time their children are teenagers, when they are in highly formative years intellectually, the family is usually no longer bothering to go through the motions.

Atheists should teach their children the rudiments of theology and Christians should teach their children about the arguments for the non-existence of God. Whenever children encounter adults who are honest and articulate about faith, they are more likely to seriously consider the issues themselves. However, they should be given the chance to consider the issues; that’s a parent’s duty, whether he is atheist, agnostic or believer. When children are lied to through insincere gestures or practice, they are taught that ultimate questions don’t really matter.

I think you are right that the children of earnest religious liberals probably have a better chance of becoming religious themselves. However, the earnestness of their parents can be seriously undermined by the hypocrisy of a liberal congregation and liturgy.

James P. writes:

Kristor writes,

“This happens because parents who profess religion formally but not substantively – who go through the motions – are lying about what they believe. No child is ever fooled by such lies. Seeing how their parents hold their own religion in implicit contempt, the children follow suit. Children of parents who are straightforwardly agnostic or atheist, or religiously “tone-deaf,” have at least the benefit of parental honesty. I would wager also that parents who are comfortable with and therefore honest about their antipathy for religion are also commensurately, and in general, healthier in emotional terms than those who go through life as religious hypocrites. A hypocrite – the word in Greek means “pretender” – can’t but feel a bit guilty, can’t help but suffer some cognitive dissonance in respect to the most profound aspects of his own worthiness and integrity. Parents are no more fooled by their own religious dishonesty than children. And all things considered, that sort of deep inner conflict in parents must end up expressed in their children.”

The erroneous assumption here is that “parental honesty” is an unmitigated good and an absolute requirement. It is not. If you spent your youth in drunken, drug-addled debauchery, there is no reason at all to share your sordid history with your children, and every reason “hypocritically” to steer your children away from this sort of behavior, even with false assertions of personal virtue. I have profound skepticism about the actual educational value of what is taught in American schools — from kindergarten through grad school, much of what is taught is worthless nonsense and outright lies — but I see no reason to share this skepticism openly with my children on grounds of “parental honesty”, as this will simply discourage them from learning in general and from obtaining what are, like it or not, necessary credentials. A parent who is “religiously dishonest” can still correctly believe that exposing his child to religion has positive value for any number of valid reasons, including the inculcation of virtue and respect for tradition.

I simply do not believe liberal dogma that “honesty” is always “emotionally healthy”. Nor do I accept the liberal dogma that “hypocrisy” is counterproductive and even a sin (as Obama termed it, sin is “being out of alignment with my values”). Both of these attitudes are fundamentally narcissistic — the individual person gets to decide what his values are, and prioritizes the expression and fulfillment of them over the needs of others and of society as a whole. We simply cannot run a society on the basis that everyone gets to decide for himself what his values are, and that everyone has the right to live in accordance with these self-defined values. Some values must be externally imposed, and obedience to them enforced. As for hypocrites, the idea that personal imperfection discredits the advocacy of virtue is absurd. Nobody is perfectly virtuous, but virtue remains a goal that we should all strive to achieve and endorse whenever possible. Parents whose religious belief is imperfect need feel no shame in trying to promote belief in their children, rather than wallowing in their “parental honesty” for their own emotional gratification.

Children know when they are being forced to go through the motions — but it does them no great harm to do so. They will be forced to go through the motions many, many times as children and as adults. Sitting in church as a child is good practice for sitting through mandatory “diversity awareness training” as an adult. 

Laura writes:

 Excellent points.

 James P. writes, Some values must be externally imposed, and obedience to them enforced.

Religious values and doctrine can be effectively transmitted, even to children of parents with tepid beliefs, in churches that geuininely hold to those values. But when a child attends a church that essentially teaches the worship of mankind and he has tepid parents, does the child benefit at all or is he actively pushed away from faith by the prevailing falsity and idolatry of it all? It used to be a non-believer could expose his child to Christianity in most churches, and parents have always since the beginning of organized faith, gone through the motions. But now the non-believer or tepid parent is likely to take his child to church and bring him into contact with what is almost anti-Christianity.

Kristor writes:

James P. says a bunch of things I basically agree with. But I think we are talking about two different sorts of honesty. He is talking about a parent’s honesty toward his children, while I was talking about a parent’s honesty toward himself. This is tricky, so I think the best way to explain what I mean is by drawing two examples, Joe and Bill. Neither are wholehearted believers; both feel that religious education is important and correct for their children; both attend the same church. The difference between them is that Joe is honest with himself about his unbelief, and Bill is not. 

Joe doesn’t see how to believe a single theological doctrine of Christianity, even though he feels compelled to assent to its basic moral teachings – these seem inherently correct to him. And given how important religious training is in building the future success, happiness and sheer goodness of children, Joe has decided that it is his fatherly duty to return to church with them, and raise them as religiously observant children of religiously observant parents. Joe takes religion seriously, even though he is not a believer himself. His children are therefore likely to take religion seriously, too. And I would argue that this would be likely also if Joe were to be honest with his kids about the situation: “Look, kids, I don’t know about all this heaven and God stuff, I can’t make sense of it myself [or even, “it’s all hogwash, so far as I can tell”]; but I think it is important, nonetheless, and I am determined that you should grow up equipped to think about these things. It’s good for you.” 

Bill on the other hand has never grappled with the issue of his unbelief. He has been going through the motions of religion since before he had kids. He is Presbyterian, but he doesn’t know who Calvin was. He goes to church because he has always done so, and he vaguely enjoys it; he finds it comforting. His theology is pantheistic, or inchoate, or absent. He has no idea what the Credo means; he is hardly aware that it is a Credo, or how a Credo differs from the other prayers he recites in church. He says it anyway. His lips move, but not his heart, nor his mind. He is not engaged with his religion; is not confronting the matter of religion head on, the way that Joe is. And Bill is just as dishonest with his kids about religion as he is with himself. In short, Bill is shirking his duty both to God and to his children. Joe at least is dutiful to his kids, and straight in his admission that he cannot acknowledge a duty to a God whom he cannot honestly credit. 

It was Bill to whom Christ said, “So, because you are lukewarm – neither hot nor cold – I am about to spit you out of my mouth..” (Rev. 3:16). I can’t help but think that Bill’s kids are likely to turn out less serious, in religious terms, than Joe’s. Joe is heeding Christ when he says, “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Mat. 5:37) 

Now, curiously, it is unbelievers just like Joe whom Pascal advised to go through the motions of belief, in order to attain belief. Those who take religion seriously and thoughtfully, if they diligently attend services and try their best to pray, will generally find their minds eventually opened to faith, and their hearts. This happens not because they convince themselves falsely, not because they learn bad faith, but because through serious, mindful engagement with religion they learn what it really means. They learn that they had been unable to credit the doctrines of the faith because they had misconstrued them. 

James P. does not accept the “liberal dogma that hypocrisy is a sin.” But that dogma is not liberal, but Biblical. Jesus and John Baptist repudiated the Pharisees because they were hypocrites – a brood of vipers. Because liberalism is false, liberals cannot function in this world without making unprincipled exceptions – i.e., hypocritically lying. If your philosophy is false, life will force you to repudiate it with your actions, if not with your mouth. Liberals are hypocrites, then, almost by definition. And then, also, the opposite of hypocrisy is not moral nominalism, as James P. seems to think, but integrity: a coherent philosophy, consistently applied. It is of course impossible for any of us, acting only under our own steam as it were, to be perfectly consistent either in the apprehension or the application of the whole truth. It is impossible for mere creatures to enact the truth immaculately. That is possible only to God. And James is correct that the fact that we cannot be completely virtuous does not mean that virtue is not virtuous, however it is attained, and even when it is viciously motivated. The fact that I refrain from murder only because I fear retribution, rather than because it is evil, does not change the fact that obeying the 10 Commandments is virtuous. It is good to act virtuously, even with a vicious heart or mind; it is better for everyone involved if you can manage to act virtuously with a virtuous heart and mind. So likewise it is good to go to Church and teach your children to fear God; it is far better to do so as a believer. 

Kristor adds: 

I should add as a post script to my previous comment conversion to another faith for the sake of one’s spouse is different from conversion by one’s spouse, but for the sake of the truth. If Joe loves Mary, and respects her, then he cannot but respect her faith; and that respect may open his mind for the first time to the teachings of that faith, so that he grapples with them for the first time, and finds himself convinced. This is how my wife was converted from liberalism; she fell in love with me, recognized that I was neither thoughtless nor heartless, and realized that if she was going to marry me she would have to figure out how conservatism had come to make so much sense to me. So she listened to the conservative apologetic with an open mind for the first time in her life, and was convinced.

M. Jose writes:

The problem with lying to your children is that if you get caught, they likely will not trust you or anything you say again.

There is no reason to share sordid details of your history with your kids. However, tell them false stories, and then they hear from someone about what a drunkard you were in college – they will stop trusting you. They will also reason that attempting to appear virtuous is what really matters – after all, they can lie too – the real goal is not to get caught. Your hope is that the children will try to live up to the false image of yourself that you are giving them – but just as likely they will simply learn that the appearance of virtue is an effective substitute for real virtue and so they don’t really need to strive for virtuousness as long as they can become convincing liars.

James P. writes:

I have profound skepticism about the actual educational value of what is taught in American schools — from kindergarten through grad school, much of what is taught is worthless nonsense and outright lies — but I see no reason to share this skepticism openly with my children on grounds of “parental honesty”, as this will simply discourage them from learning in general and from obtaining what are, like it or not, necessary credentials.

But if they are being taught lies, do you really want them to internalize those lies? If they are being taught politically correct history, do you want them to actually believe it? You can teach that there is value in getting an education (you obviously believe that they are better off with than without one) without teaching them to blindly accept everything they are taught.

As for hypocrites, the idea that personal imperfection discredits the advocacy of virtue is absurd. Nobody is perfectly virtuous, but virtue remains a goal that we should all strive to achieve and endorse whenever possible.

But that’s not what hypocrisy is. The advocacy of virtue that one does not live up to is not hypocrisy – the advocacy of virtue that one does not believe in is hypocrisy. Alternately, pretending that one has lived up to virtuous standards when one has not is also hypocritical (and it comes with the implication that virtue is easy), as is excusing one’s past sordid behavior as more acceptable than similar behavior in one’s offspring (“doing drugs was different when I was a kid”). However, telling kids, “even if I did this, you should do that instead” is not hypocrisy. You don’t have to be perfectly virtuous to advocate virtue. But you don’t have to pretend to be perfectly virtuous either. Honestly admitting your failure to live up to your ideals is not the same as denying that those ideals are worth striving for. In fact, by pretending to be more virtuous than you are, you are actually telling you kids that that personal imperfection does discredit the advocacy of virtue, because you feel that admitting your imperfection undermines the virtues you teach. This, I would think, would make the kid more likely to abandon your values as soon as he has a failure rather than less.

As for church:

Children know when they are being forced to go through the motions — but it does them no great harm to do so.

But it also teaches them no real respect for religion. They understand that they are going through the motions to please others, and in due course, they will abandon religion as soon as it is no longer necessary for them to go through the motions to please another. If your goal in taking them to church is to teach them how to politely get through annoying social situations, great. If your goal is to show them that what is taught in church actually has any value, I think you will fail.

They will be forced to go through the motions many, many times as children and as adults. Sitting in church as a child is good practice for sitting through mandatory “diversity awareness training” as an adult.

Perhaps, but that is all that it is practice for. Moreover, do you really want your kids to have the same attitude toward religion as they have toward “mandatory diversity training?” That it is a humbug that they pretend to believe in in social situations where it is necessary, but not something that they actually value at all?

Ilion writes:

Kristor made a comment about a comment by James P which really surprised me because Kristor is generally so careful and insightful, but in this case I am certain he quite misunderstood Mr P’s comment. 

James P said: “I simply do not believe liberal dogma that “honesty” is always “emotionally healthy”. Nor do I accept the liberal dogma that “hypocrisy” is counterproductive and even a sin …” 

Kristor said: “James P. does not accept the “liberal dogma that hypocrisy is a sin.” But that dogma is not liberal, but Biblical. Jesus and John Baptist repudiated the Pharisees because they were hypocrites …” 

James P wasn’t talking about actual hypocrisy … note his scare-quotes around the word … he was talking about the “liberal” “definition” of it. You know, the one by which, if one were a rake before marrying and siring sons, then one is a “hypocrite” if one tries to raise one’s sons to not be rakes; the one by which, if one were a pot-head as a youth, then one is a “hypocrite” if one tries to raise one’s children to never use the stuff.

Kristor writes:

Ilion is quite right: I mistook that statement of James P. I took him to mean hypocrisy, rather than “hypocrisy.”

Please follow and like us: