Two Grounds for the Argument That 'One Should Marry a Christian': A Recommendation for 'Passive Advocacy' from an Agnostic Perspective

Introduction

Within Christianity, one sometimes hears the argument that 'it is better to marry a Christian.' The grounds supporting this claim actually fall into two distinct categories.

One is the position that preaches 'one should marry a believer' based on passages from the Bible. In this paper, I call this active Christian advocacy.

The other is the position that preaches 'marrying someone with a practical faith tends to carry a lower risk of divorce or infidelity' based on statistical data. I call this passive Christian advocacy.

I am an agnostic myself and do not hold a position on whether Christian doctrine is the truth. However, I believe that of these two types of advocacy, the latter—passive advocacy—is the one worth understanding and considering even for non-Christians. Below, I would like to organize the reasons for this.

Active Advocacy: The Structural Weakness of Arguments Based on Scripture

Active advocacy presents marriage between Christians as a norm based on teachings such as the New Testament instruction, 'Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.'

The problem with this line of reasoning is that its persuasiveness depends entirely on the premise that 'the Bible is authoritative truth.' While this premise may be self-evident to believers, for agnostics or followers of other religions, that premise itself has neither been verified nor shared. In other words, this argument has the structure of

For those who do not accept the initial 'the Bible is true,' they cannot even enter the arena of discussion. This is not so much logically incorrect as it is a matter of having an application scope limited to within believers. It is difficult to function as a basis for persuading someone who does not share the faith.

Passive Advocacy: The Broad Scope of Arguments Based on Data

On the other hand, passive advocacy does not assume the authority of the Bible. It is based on observable data itself, such as the fact that 'couples with a practical faith tend to have lower divorce rates and lower rates of infidelity compared to those who do not.'

For example, studies using social survey data in the United States have repeatedly reported a correlation where couples who attend worship services more frequently have lower rates of divorce. Similarly, multiple studies have shown that those who attend worship services more frequently tend to have lower rates of extramarital affairs.

The strength of this type of argument is that it can be considered without judging whether the Bible is true. Even with someone who does not share religious premises, one can discuss it on the common ground of 'how to interpret this data.' This has a broader scope than active advocacy in the sense that it can serve as practical decision-making material open to those who do not hold a faith.

However, 'Passive Advocacy' also has its limits

That said, passive advocacy should not be accepted uncritically. An important reservation is necessary here.

First, these data are almost all correlations, not causal relationships. Since it is ethically impossible to randomly assign people to 'believer' and 'non-believer' groups, one must rely on observational studies. Either direction of causality is possible: 'they are less likely to divorce because they are devout' or 'people who already have values that make them less likely to divorce lead a devout life.'

Second, the existence of confounding factors. It is highly likely that factors other than faith, such as age, education, income, place of residence, and conservative values, are involved simultaneously. While many studies adjust for these statistically, they cannot be completely eliminated.

Third, this is not necessarily an effect unique to Christianity. Similar trends have been reported in other religious groups with strong community norms and practices, such as devout Jews and Muslims. If so, what is effective is likely not the 'specific doctrine of Christianity,' but rather more general elements such as 'clear ethical norms,' 'support and monitoring from the community,' 'values that prioritize marriage and family,' and 'daily habitual practices.'

Fourth, the difference between 'believers' and 'practical believers' cannot be ignored. For 'nominal Christians' who rarely go to church and whose faith is not reflected in their daily lives, these trends are almost non-existent. In other words, what passive advocacy supports is not 'one should marry a Christian,' but more accurately, an argument abstracted one step further: 'one should marry someone who belongs to a community with consistent values and practices.'

Conclusion — As a 'Point for Consideration' Rather Than a 'Should'

Based on the above, I believe the correct way to use passive advocacy is not as a definitive statement that 'one should marry a Christian,' but rather as a qualified piece of reference information: 'partners who belong to a practical faith community and possess consistent values and lifestyle habits tend, statistically speaking, to build more stable relationships.'

Active advocacy makes sense as an internal logic for those who accept the authority of the Bible. However, it inherently lacks the power to persuade non-Christians. In contrast, while passive advocacy may be weak in terms of proving causality, it can serve as an open argument that allows for dialogue even with those who do not share religious premises.

It is in this respect that I, as an agnostic, consider passive advocacy to be more logical. In the sense that it allows us to examine 'what empirical evidence exists for this way of life' while setting aside the question of truth, I believe passive advocacy is a perspective worth considering for many people.