It’s probably best to use all three lenses when entering into or living in a marriage. But there are differences among them. The psychological lens emphasizes that people don’t change much over a lifetime. Especially after age 30, people may get a little more conscientious and agreeable, but improvements are modest.
In the romantic view, the heart is transformed by love, at any age. In the moral view, spiritual transformation ”” over a lifetime, not just over two passionate years ”” is the whole point. People have great power to go against their own natures and uplift their spouses, by showing a willingness to change, by supporting their journey from an old crippled self to a new more beautiful self.
The three lenses are operating at different levels: personality, emotions, the level of the virtues and the vices. The first two lenses are very common in our culture ”” in bookstores, songs and in movies. But the moral lens, with its view of marriage as a binding moral project, is less common. Maybe that’s one of the reasons the quality of the average marriage is in decline.
I read this article or rather column in print (because, Gentle Reader, I subscribe to the International Edition, delivered each day to my door in London). The author provides rich material for marriage preparation. I was left wondering, though, where ethnic marriage fitted into this scheme. London, being a world city, has many marriages from people who are honoring tribal or ethnic expectations. Even sometimes arranged marriages. These don’t fit neatly into any of the three categories.