Will Gender-Based Abortions Change the Debate?

In an article last week, Al Mohler offered a depressing analysis of how far apart the positions of the pro-life and pro-choice movements remain. The article was entitled, “'Abortion is as American as Apple Pie’—The Culture of Death finds a Voice.”

Describing attempts to find a moderating position in the abortion debate, Mohler notes:

With predictable regularity, cultural authorities call for the emergence of a moderating position between the pro-life and pro-abortion positions. But efforts to achieve a stable compromise on the abortion issue are doomed to failure. The two positions hold irreconcilable views of reality. The pro-life movement holds that the central issue is the unborn child’s right to live. Abortion activists have staked their entire case on the claim that the only determinative issue is the woman’s unrestricted right to choose.

The viewpoints represented have such differing views of reality, compromise is almost impossible. Will a pro-life person change their minds regarding the value of life? Speaking for myself...no.  

But will a pro-choice person waver in their commitment that “the only determinative issue is the woman’s unrestricted right to choose”? I hold out hope that the answer may yet be “yes” for many pro-choice advocates.

On the one hand, the case seems bleak. Consider the assertions made by Merle Hoffman in her recent memoir, Intimate Wars. Mohler writes:

Just recently, Merle Hoffman, a major voice in the abortion rights movement and founder of Choices, a major center for abortions in New York City, has written a memoir, Intimate Wars. In telling her story, Hoffman calls for her colleagues in the abortion industrial complex to defend abortion as a moral choice.

Abortion is the ultimate act of empowering women, she argues. “The act of abortion positions women at their most powerful, and that is why it is so strongly opposed by many in society,” she asserts.

A central portion of her memoir deals with the abortion rights movement’s attempt to defend abortion in the face of pro-life arguments that the fetus has a right to life.

“The pro-choice movement had to find a way to navigate these narratives,” she explains. “The simplest option was to negate the claims of the opposition. And so many pro-choice advocates claimed that the fetus was not alive, and that abortion was not the act of terminating it. They chose to de-personalize the fetus, to see it as amorphous residue, to say that it was only ‘blood and tissue.’”

As she explains, the pro-life movement thought that, if women really knew what abortion was — the killing of an unborn human being — they would decide to keep their babies. She rejects the argument.

Hoffman argues that women do know what an abortion is. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that it is not “just like an appendectomy.” Her conclusion is that women know that abortion is “the termination of potential life.”

She then makes this statement:

“They knew it, but my patients who made the choice to have an abortion also knew they were making the right one, a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart. Sometimes they felt a great sense of loss of possibility. In the majority of cases, they felt a great sense of relief and the power that comes from taking responsibility for one’s own life.”

Rarely do we see abortion defended in such unvarnished terms — “a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart.” Merle Hoffman goes on to explain how she can speak of abortion so directly. She has, she tells us, no conception that life is sacred.

Common ground with such extremism seems impossible.

But I have hope that the pro-choice movement is not monolithic and some in its ranks may waver in their belief that the right to choose is the ultimate issue at stake in this debate. Evidence of this is seen in the gender-based abortion debate.

On January 20, 2012, Canada’s National Post ran an article entitled, “Sex-based abortion divides pro-choicers on rights.” In the article, Danielle VanDerSchans describes the quandary the radical pro-choice person is in.

Mara Hvistendahl is pro-choice, except when she is not.

She believes a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Except if she is in China or India and wants to abort a female fetus because she was hoping it was a male. In those countries, the toll of “missing” girls is in the millions, despite existing bans on sex-based abortions.

While she said a ban in the Asian context “makes complete sense,” she is solidly against a U.S. bill that would criminalize the practice in America — the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act introduced by anti-abortion Republican Trent Franks last November. [. . .]

And Ms. Hvistendahl supports reproductive rights for women, but not necessarily when it comes to knowing the sex of the fetus she is carrying. A woman should have the choice of whether or not to abort, but not to know all the details about it.

“There’s no real need to know the [sex], and that could be an effective way to fight sex-selective abortion,” she said. She summed up her stance by saying: “You can believe in a right but still believe it has limits.”

But why? Why limit on the basis of gender?  VanDerSchans continues:

In pro-choice, feminist circles the idea of limiting a woman’s rights has long been condemned. But the idea of aborting female fetuses strictly because they are female, of discriminating against them because of their sex, may have presented feminist pro-choicers with a new and rather difficult challenge — a philosophical issue where a well-founded rejection of patriarchal cultural attitudes conflicts with an instinct to beat back any limits at all on a woman’s right to choose abortion.

The pro-choice movement is anything but unanimously or easily decided on sex-based abortion. It is divided, whether publicly or behind closed doors, between the pro-choice absolutists who fear any concession marks a slippery slope, the feminists who loathe too much the idea of fewer females being born, and all those who carve out what several pro-choice activists called a “nuanced” position somewhere in the middle.

The hypocrisy of taking a "nuanced" position is not lost on many within the pro-choice movement.  Many recognize how people like, well, me would react.

Joyce Arthur, executive director of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said it would, indeed, be hypocritical for a pro-choice group to support restrictions on a woman’s right to choose or even to information about her fetus. She said the coalition does not support a ban on sex-based abortions, nor does it support concealing the fetus’ sex until 30 weeks.

“As soon as you put any kind of restriction on abortion, it really is a slippery slope,” she said, adding that education is the key to reducing sex-based abortions around the world and in Canada, where the medical journal said hundreds of girls are aborted in favour of boys each year, mostly by immigrant women. “If you can restrict sex-based abortions, then why can’t you restrict abortions for genetic abnormalities?”

Indeed, why not?

Arthur is exactly right.  Those of us who are pro-life do hope that restrictions on gender-based abortion "rights" would prove to be a slippery sloope.  We hope that as people recognize the value of life little girls, it would lead to a recognition of the value of all life.  

What Does it Mean to be Evangelical? A Review of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

On September 17, 1915, while speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, B.B. Warfield lamented the confusion regarding the term “evangelical”:

"The religious terrain is full of the graves of good words which have died from lack of care—they stand as close in it as do the graves today in the flats of Flanders or among the hills of northern France. And these good words are still dying all around us. There is that good word “Evangelical.” It is certainly moribund, if not already dead. Nobody any longer seems to know what it means."

Nearly 100 years later, Warfield’s dilemma has worsened. The diversity of those who would claim to be “evangelical Christians" has increased to the point that the label seems meaningless.  If one disagrees with the historic understanding of the gospel or evangelicalism, one simply redefines the term to make it mean what they want it to mean.  As one pastor, when asked if he was an Evangelical, put it:

I embrace the term evangelical,” he remarked, “if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

Unfortuantley, that's not what we mean, at least not historically.  While those sentiments are nice, that definition can just as easily be applied to a Peace Corp volunteer as an evangelical.

Complicating the problem, the term evangelical is sometimes used as a pejorative in the public sphere. For example, evangelicals are caricatured in the political realm as anti-intellectual and anti-freedom; individuals who want to impose their religious beliefs on others while failing to meet their physical needs.

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Stanley Gundry, provides a valuable resource for those who want to understand how those who identify themselves as evangelical define the term.

Kevin Bauder provides a Fundamentalist perspective on what it means to be evangelical. He doesn't defend hyper-fundamentalism but instead the idea that the gospel “draws the boundary of Christian fellowship” and believes that Christians should also separate from those who fail to draw those boundaries (but he's really nice about it).  

Al Mohler argues for something Confessional evangelicalism. He maintains that adherence to certain beliefs define an evangelical.  To deny those core beliefs places one outside the boundaries of evangelicalism.

John Stackhouse considers himself a Generic evangelical.  He maintains that there are distinctive features to evangelicalism but wants the tent to be large enough so that we can “all feel we are authentic evangelicals.”

Roger Olson, promoting a position called Post-Conservative evangelicalism, believes that there are not boundaries to the evangelical movement but rather a center. In other words, there are core beliefs that can be considered "evangelicalism", but no one who desires to be considered part of the movement can be excluded.

This book will not solve the dilemma of what it means to be evangelical. In fact, it sheds far more light on the theological perspective of the individual authors than the issue of what it means to be evangelical.

While I had expected to be irritated by Bauder's fundamentalims, I found myself largely in agreement with much of what he wrote.  Unfortunatley, his insistence on "secondary separation" (the idea that we must separate from those who refuse to separate from those who undermine the gospel) is a bridge too far for me. 

I found Stackhouse an interesting read but extremely confusing. He seemed confused himself on what he was willing to call evangelical and what he must be forced to admit fell outside the boundaries of evangelicalism.

I disagree with Olson in terms of what ought to be true of evangelicals, but I found myself admitting that he was at least correct in a practical sense. As much as I believe that the term evangelical should be reserved for those who profess the evangel, the gospel, it is hard to deny that the term has grown to include those who deny significant truths related to the gospel. In this sense, Olson is right. Evangelicalism is not an institution but a movement.

But Olson arrives at an understanding of evangelicalism that empties the word of any real meaning. As he admits:

So, how…do I define evangelical and evangelicalism? I’m tempted to say, paraphrasing a Supreme Court justice, that while I can’t define who is an evangelical, I know one when I meet one. . . . I refuse to talk about evangelical boundaries or about anything approaching an evangelical magisterium. I value its movement character and its diversity as well as its unity (182).

This will not do. For a term to have meaning, sometimes it must have both positive and negative value. When we classify something, we are not only saying what it is, we are simultaneously saying what it is not. A chair is not a window. A book is not car. Defining something necessitates limitations.

Like Bauder, Mohler argue for a definition that is more theological than sociological.  I agree with him when he writes: “Evangelicalism is coherent as movement only if it is also known for what it is not. Attention to the boundaries is as requisite as devotion to the center. . . . Our task is to be clear about what the gospel is and is not” (210).

The hope I have is not that we will preserve some arbitrary term.  My prayer is that we will rightly define evangelical so that we will maintain clarity in our presentation of the good news of Jesus Christ.

Welcome Kent Kloter

On Sunday night, our church unanimously voted to affirm hiring Kent Kloter as our newest associate pastor. It’s hard to express the joy I feel about our plans to have Kent join our staff on January 1, 2012, but let me give you just three of the many reasons I’m so eager for him to join our staff.

1. I’m excited by his shepherd’s heart.

Kent loves the flock at Bethany Community Church.  One of the most convicting passages for me as a pastor is God's rebuke to self-serving shepherds in Ezekiel 34.  “The weak you have not strengthened," God tells them. "The sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them" (v. 4)

Kent is the very anti-thesis of these uncaring shepherds.  I have witnessed the pain he feels as he ministers to those who are hurting.  I believe that his love for the church will cause us to grow in our ability to minister to one another.

2. I’m excited by his love for God’s Word and belief in the power of the gospel.

Kent’s care for the flock is coupled with a deep understanding of God’s Word and appreciation of its power. Like Paul, he is “not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” (Romans 1:16-17).

3. I’m excited by his spiritual maturity.

Kent likes to joke about being an “old man.” He’s not, of course, even though he does raise the average age of the staff (in a good way).  There is a strength of perspective and wisdom that Kent will add to our staff and I’m glad that God is allowing us to benefit from his experience.

So this is a thrilling time for our church.  Thank you for allowing me to serve as a pastor here.  Thank you for the confidence you have showed in the leadership by affirming Kent in this position.  Please pray for Kent and Janell as they make the transition to Bethany Community Church. Pray that their ministry for the Lord will be joyful and bear much fruit.

Christians and Love for Homosexuals

A friend asked me to post a response to a blog article entitled, “I’m Christian Unless You’re Gay,” by Dan Pearce (warning: some language). While I normally refuse such requests on the “you’re not the boss of me” principle, this request intrigued me.  The article has generated lots of responses and hits upon a topic with which many Christians are wrestling.


Let me share four thoughts I had as I read the article.  I hope that my friends who would identify themselves as homosexuals would read the entire post and know the spirit of love in which I write this.

1. The post is about Christianity and Homosexuality.

At the beginning of his article, Pearce writes:

Before I go on, I feel I must say something one time. Today’s post is not about homosexuality. It’s not about Christians. It’s not about religion. It’s not about politics. It’s about something else altogether. Something greater. Something simpler.

It’s about love.

It’s about kindness.

It’s about friendship

And love, kindness, and friendship are three things that Jacob [Pearce's friend] hasn’t felt in a long time. 

In many of the follow-up comments to the post, some claim that if you think the post is about homosexuality and Christianity, you’ve missed the point. If that’s so, please count me among those who missed the point.

Certainly the article touches tangentially on other topics. The themes that Pearce claims are the main points are certainly discussed. But the themes that dominate both the article and the follow-up posts are Christianity and homosexuality. Those who write to Pearce to express how much the article has meant to them primarily address the issue of homosexuality. Those who are angered by the article identify themselves primarily as Christians.

If the article isn’t about Christianity and homosexuality, (1) it was poorly titled and (2) most people have responded to it for reasons that were not the author’s intent. I don’t believer either of those is true, however. I think the title expressed the intention of Pearce and people have responded pretty much as he anticipated, except maybe for the intensity of their responses.

2. Some who claim to follow Christ act in a way that is contradictory to that claim.

In his article that is not about Christianity (ahem), Pearce contends that many who claim to follow Christ act in a way that is contradictory to that claim.

Love others.

Period.

So if this is the founding directive of all the major religions… why is it that sometimes the most “Christlike” people are they who have no religion at all?

Let me repeat that.

Why is it that sometimes the most Christlike people are they who have no religion at all?

Of course it is true that those who claim to be Christians do not act in a Christ-like manner. It would be very foolish to argue the contrary.  Jesus said that there would be those who named His name and yet He would tell them that He never knew them. The apostle John tells us that those who claim to be followers of Christ yet do not have love are deceiving themselves (1 John 4:7-8).

So I agree with the truth of Pearce’s statement if by “Christ-like” he is referring to those claiming the mantle of Christ while denying Christ’s teaching. That certainly happens and it is grievous when it does.

3. Defining the terms "loving" and "unloving" is crucial.

And here we come to the most significant problem with the article. What is it about Christians' actions towards homosexuals that Pearce finds so unloving?

Mostly, the article is full of vague statements about unloving conduct that simply assume the truth he’s claiming.  One specific instance that Pearce notes is the shunning of his friend “Jacob.” After Jacob revealed that he was practicing homosexuality, he claims his friends deserted him and refused to even talk to him. If this is indeed what happened, certainly we can agree that this is unloving.

And in some places I agree with Pearce’s exhortations. Of course we should be willing to put our arm around someone who is hurting.

But in other places in the article, “loving” is defined in a way with which I disagree.

I think it doesn’t matter if you or I or anybody else thinks homosexuality is a sin. It doesn’t matter if you or I think anything is a sin. It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a sin or not. In fact, it doesn’t matter if anything anybody else does is a sin or not.

Because sin is a very personal thing! It always has been and it always will be!

And it has nothing to do with love.

Absolutely nothing.

But sin is not simply a personal choice and is very much related to love. James 5:19-20 tells us:

My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

If Scripture teaches us that one of the most loving things we can do is warn someone who is headed for a path that will end in misery, I think we should do so.

The problem is that our actions may be perceived as unloving by those whom we care about. And those who claim Christ’s name and behave in an unloving don’t make it easier for those of us who truly care about homosexuals. Reading many of the comments posted on Pearce’s article, there were some claiming to be Christians who seemed to relish the idea of eternal destruction for homosexuals. Such an attitude does not reveal a heart that has truly been transformed by faith in Christ.

The unstated thesis in my opinion is: Christians need to love those who are practicing homosexuality. But with Pearce’s definition of love, the expanded thesis is: Christians need to love those who are practicing homosexuality by refusing to say that it is contrary to how God says to live.

4. We must think rightly about how to minister to those struggling with homosexuality.

Those who wish to promote the homosexual lifestyle would have us believe that sexuality is predetermined. We are what we are and we need to accept how we feel about how to express our sexuality.

Sexuality is much more complicated, in my opinion. All aspects of our human nature have been tainted by our sin nature, including our sexuality. No person save Jesus Christ has ever been sinless in the area of sexuality. We all have or have had wrong views or thoughts or actions in regards to sex. Based upon our past experiences and current temptations, the way in which we fail to honor God in this area differs.

The solution to these wrong opinions is not to look within ourselves to see what seems “best” to us. The solution is to see what God says regarding how we are to live our lives. Then our responsibility is to lovingly proclaim that message to others.

How do I believe Christians demonstrate love to those struggling to rightly follow God’s instructions for sexuality?

With those who claim to be Christ-followers yet are living immoral lifestyles, other believers should talk with them about what God’s Word says regarding how we are to conduct ourselves as saints. If those who are members of your church refuse to turn from sin, this may end in removing them from membership (Matthew 18:15-20; Galatians 6:1-3).

The purpose of removing them from membership is not to shun them but rather communicate to them the danger of knowingly following a path that is contrary to what God has told us to do. The goal and heart attitude is always complete and full restoration.

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:7-8 regarding a man who had committed immorality and was now repentant: “you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.”

This is true love, according to Scripture. Holding fast to Biblical principles of sexuality, yet caring for those who have turned from these principles. We encourage Christians to pursue holiness not to rob them of joy but so that they may know the fullness of joy!

With those who are outside the church and make no claims of being Christ-followers, other believers should pursue friendships the way one would with anyone else. As the opportunity allows, proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, not focusing first and foremost on the question of sexuality but rather the absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Love is not the absence of conflict.  Love is sacrificially caring about another person for the glory of God.

Ben Davidson: Guest Blogger

As I am on vacation this week, Ben steps up to the plate and does the weekly blog update...

This fall, a number of us at Bethany Community Church participated in short term compassion projects presented by BCC’s Community Compassion ministry. The purpose of the Community Compassion ministry is to glorify God by meeting the spiritual and physical needs of our neighbors (Matthew 9:35-38).

The purpose of these projects was to give short term exposure to compassion ministry and see where the Lord may lead our church in future compassion ministries.

Historically, the universal church has struggled to know the balance between gospel-proclamation ministry and a perceived separate ministry of caring for the poor. I believe these two ministries are beautifully wed together in the Scripture:

James 1:27 - Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Galatians 6:10 - So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Colossians 1:28-29 - Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

Matthew 9:35-38 - And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
(All Scripture quotations from the ESV)

What does it mean to minister to the poor and still hold fast to the gospel? What is the Good News? Is it simply making the world a better place? Watch this video entitled “Ministries of Mercy” as John Piper, D.A. Carson, and Tim Keller interact over this topic. The conversation speaks to what John Piper means when he says, “we exist to relieve all suffering—especially eternal suffering (hell).” View it at: http://thegospelcoalition.org/videos/26484222

May our hearts be infatuated with the gospel and its implications for our lives!

Pastor Ben

Occupy My Street

Anxiety and materialism are close cousins.  The anxious person fears his or her lack: lack of security, lack of wealth, lack of safety.  This Sunday, we will discover that our tendency to become anxious reveals we don't trust our heavenly Father.

This past Sunday, I mentioned an article by Frank Turk at the Team Pyro blog.  The graphs I showed may have been a little hard to see, so I thought I'd reproduce the two graphs I showed here and direct you to his article here for his excellent observations: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/11/open-letter-to-occupy-movement.html. 

By the way, Turk used Gapminder World to construct his graphs and make his observations, which you can find here. 

The first graph, if you recall, shows the average life expectancy and median per capita income in the year 1800.



The second graph shows us in 2010:




Turk writes:

The green line there is the median household income for the United States in 2010. If you have forgotten 6th grade math, the "median" in a series of numbers is not the average of the series: it is the number in the middle of the series. So if you lined up the incomes for all 113,146,000 households with incomes in 2010, the value in the dead center of the list is $ 44,389.00 This is an interesting number as it shows how incomes skew either to the high end or the low end of the distribution -- and given that the mean household income is north of $60,000, I grant you it shows that the household incomes in the U.S. skew lower than average.

But see here: that green line has a startling place on the graph of world economies. There are only 4 nations that have an average per cap GDP higher than our median household income -- so the median household in the U.S. has it pretty good. And that value has special meaning relative to Rosling's video: Rosling classifies income of $40,000 as rich.

Rich! Isn't that awesome? That puts your complaints into a certain light, but there's one more vertical line I want to stripe in here:

You may not be familiar with the quintile rankings for income, so briefly: if you took that list of 113,146,000 households again in lowest-to-highest rank, and broke them up into five evenly-sized groups, you would have quintiles of income. The break point between the 1st (lowest) and 2nd quintile is at $18,500 -- meaning the bottom 1/5th of households in the US have an annual income of under $18,500. That sounds pretty scary, right? That's the kind of thing you are out in the street trying to educate us about, yes?

But check it out: the line where you and I would say is the line which designates the poorest of the poor is well above the per capita income of more than 85% of the world's population. It's a level of income 80% greater than the per cap GDP of South Africa, 30% greater than Russia, and six times greater than that of India.

That is: we define poverty in an opulent way. Compared to the UK in 1800, we have defined the crown of Western Civilization to that time down to a dirty little country which we would be offended to live in. The great part about this is the punchline: it's because we're greedy.

"It's because we're greedy."  His words are hard to take, but he's right.  The problem with the world is not only found in greedy fat cats on Wall Street, nor grungy kids in the streets.  The problem is within men.  The protestors, if they want to find examples of greed need not go to Wall Street--they can come to My Street.
 
I'm excited to be going through the Gospel of Luke with you and being challenged to live for God's glory in a more profound and radical way.

The Fool, Money, and Marriage

This Sunday, as we continue to go through the Gospel of Luke we will look at "The Parable of the Foolish Rich Man."  It is one of those parables that makes us squirm.  In it, a man decides to build larger barns to store his vast resources.  Finally, he tells his soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” 

But God calls this man a fool, for his life comes to an end that very night and, God asks, “now who will own what you have prepared?”  Jesus concludes: “So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

We’ll deal with the text Sunday, but it should be obvious that there is no shortage of sermon illustrations on this subject.  Let me share just one study with you that demonstrates how foolish those of us who believe we can find joy and peace in the material things of this world.  The original story can be found here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/byu-cbm101111.php

Can't buy me love: Study shows materialistic couples have more money and more problems

New research to be published Oct. 13 confirms The Beatles' lyrical hypothesis and finds that "the kind of thing that money just can't buy" is a happy and stable marriage.

Scholars at Brigham Young University studied 1,734 married couples across the country. Each couple completed a relationship evaluation, part of which asked how much they value "having money and lots of things."

The researchers' statistical analysis showed that couples who say money is not important to them score about 10 to 15 percent better on marriage stability and other measures of relationship quality than couples where one or both are materialistic.

"Couples where both spouses are materialistic were worse off on nearly every measure we looked at," said Jason Carroll, a BYU professor of family life and lead author of the study. "There is a pervasive pattern in the data of eroding communication, poor conflict resolution and low responsiveness to each other."

The findings will be published Oct. 13 in the Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy.

For one in five couples in the study, both partners admitted a strong love of money. Though these couples were better off financially, money was often a bigger source of conflict for them.

"How these couples perceive their finances seems to be more important to their marital health than their actual financial situation," Carroll said.

And despite their shared materialism, materialistic couples' relationships were in poorer shape than couples who were mismatched and had just one materialist in the marriage.

The study's overall findings were somewhat surprising to Carroll because materialism was only measured by self-evaluations.

"Sometimes people can deceive themselves about how important their relationships are to them," Carroll said. "It's helpful to step back and look at where you focus your time."

Brothers and Sisters, only the fool pursues a path that will not bring him joy.  Pursue the pearl of great price instead of the guady trinkets of self-destruction.