I know Andrew Root's work on youth ministry pretty well and have mostly found it impressive. I'm really encouraged in general by the 'theological turn' in youth ministry and its leading representatives Kenda Dean, Root, and Kara Powell, inter alia. The recognition that the 'relational youth ministry' model has led in many cases not to robust, 'sticky' faith in adolescents but to the inculcation of MTD, the idolatrous, uniquely American substitute for Christian faith is entirely salutary. The establishment of centers for the study of youth ministry at Fuller (where Root teaches) and Princeton is encouraging. So I have followed Root's publications with interest.
This book offers an analysis of the effects of the home environment which statistically nearly 50% of evangelical youth live with. The initial chapter is a whirlwind tour of the history of marriage - from marriage as economic alliance or 'merger' to what Carl Becker called marriage as 'apocalyptic romance'. The latter, Victorian idea of the home as a separate sphere designed for intimacy, domesticity and the inculcation of virtue lasted, Root maintains, from the late nineteenth century to the 1950s, culminating with the 'golden moment in the love-based marriage, the Leave It to Beaver family'. Root contends that the love-based idea for marriage contained within its own logic the seeds of the crisis in marriage that we have experienced since the 1960s: 'to fulfill the obligation of the love-based marriage, individuals would have to first give allegiance to their subjective self-fulfillment. If you were happy or self-fulfilled, then you could fulfill your marital obligation. But if you were not happy, if you did not feel blissful (or something just short of it), then the marriage was thrown into question. An unsatisfying marriage lacked the very foundations upon which marriage was understood to rest, the self's feeling of love. Accordingly, when love was interpreted to be absent, there was de facto no marriage and no family, and tragically (from the perspective of late modernity) the self was denigrated' (22). Using Gidden's work, Root points out that modernity has fundamentally transformed our approaches to time and space 'by directing the self toward an unknown future in an unknown place', in other words orienting the self toward a happiness in the indeterminate future rather than accepting the givenness of one's present conditions as normative. This has given rise to the 'pure relationship', that is, the idea that the relationship comes down not to the family or to the society that depends upon it but to the two individuals engaged in the relationship. In such a context, 'the possibilities for identity and intimacy are no longer bound by custom, but only by your imagination' (36). Coupled with no-fault divorce which allowed easy dissolution of marriages, the number of marriages ending in divorce consequently skyrocketed.
But our culture was still left with the inconvenient issue of the children produced by these homes. The imagined solution, the product of the quite complex changes within the conception of human anthropology in the late twentieth century, was the idea that so long as the divorce occurred with a minimum of acrimony and the process was clearly explained, the child(ren) could experience minimal emotional fallout and adjust to the new family structures. The problem is that the 'pure relationship' functions asyemetrically for children, as the mother and father are able to freely choose a new mate, but the child(ren) are 'told to act like these people are family, while having no real choice at all' (41). More importantly than this, however, is the fact that despite popular analyses to the contrary, there can be no such thing as a 'good divorce', as Root's evisceration of popular myths about divorce on 95-100. Divorce, the dissolution of the union that gave rise to the being of the child(ren), actually throws into question the very being of the child. In other words, divorce creates not just epistemic but ontological wounds within children, so it cannot be fixed merely by getting children to 'think rightly' about divorce. Root contrasts the experience of divorce with the experience of a parent's death: the death of the parent 'can suggest or reveal vulnerability: the death of a parent may witness to the reality that one day the child will be overcome by death. But again, it does not retroactively threaten his being as divorce does. Death looks to a future reality, an event that will happen as time unfolds for the young person. Divorce does not so much point forward as throw the foundational event of the child's very origins into regret and question. Death promises the eventual end of his being; divorce questions if he ever should have been at all. This no doubt is a much more haunting reality' (77).
While not intended to be a condemnation of parents who succumb to divorce, the first five chapters of this book would, it seems to me, be utterly devastating to read as a divorcee. But although there is a 'no' to the act of divorce which inexorably has deeply wounded the children of divorce, there is also a 'yes' in Christ here. The last chapter is a beautiful and practical chapter on the 'church as a community for the broken', both parents and children. The church is the family of God in Christ that has emerged from the ashes of our natural families, filled with broken people brokenly loving one another in the power of the Spirit. 'This new community cannot replace, and does not sublimate, the family, but it provides the members of a broken family a place to be-with and be-for as they suffer their ontological trauma. Nothing can replace the biological union of our parents. Nothing can erase the wounds and scars of our parents' divorces. But finding a communion that suffers with and for us can assure us that we are real, that our suffering is embraced concretely by these people called church, who witness to a God in Jesus Christ who bears our brokenness' (122).
This is a theologically and philosophically adept, sympathetic and yet unflinching analysis of the wounds inflicted by divorce. But there is a hopeful resistance to what I have often called the 'heresy of sociology' here. The way things are is not the way things must be, because there is a power at work in the church greater than the sinners that compose it.