It's been a while since I last posted on the topic of male cynicism towards marriage and family, but I haven't stopped thinking about the topic.
I've heard quite a few women argue that modern men often have a fear of commitment. I'll concede that, but yet I wonder if I wonder if much the same argument applies in reverse.
The more that I think about the topic the more I wonder if my personal policy - don't date a woman who won't commit to a church - is shared by others. Such a policy is really a special instance of my more general policy - don't commit to the non-committal - rather than being a way of testing whether or not a potential date is a Christian (which is a separate issue of importance).
While a willingness to commit is important to all involved in a relationship, I think that this is a quality particularly important for men to look for in a potential spouse. Why? I can think of two primary reasons.
First, as previously mentioned, statistically a wife is twice as like to divorce her husband than a husband is to divorce his wife. It's three times as likely in the case of marriages involving children and, in such cases, odds are high that, as a man, you can kiss your kids goodbye and seldom see them again.
The second reason applies mainly to those (like myself) with a complementarian view of marriage. A complementarian view of marriage, roughly stated, is the belief that men and women, while equal in value, have distinct roles. Such a view holds a husband/father as head of the family (albeit with leadership to be understood as sacrificial service a la Ephesians 5:25). With such a view of family structure, a woman's willingness to commit seems key, manifesting itself as a willingness to be led by an imperfect leader. While an organization can somewhat function with lousy leaders as long as the others continue to act, anarchy is pretty much guaranteed if members of an organization doesn't listen to its leaders. Leaders are pretty much guaranteed to make mistakes, which can make the "grass greener on the other side of the fence", especially when society shines a spotlight on it.
I would think that very few people would describe themselves as non-committal, which means that attempting to determine whether or not another is willing to commit is a relatively difficult task. Someone not showing signs of commitment, but who is willing to acknowledge their non-committal ways, may be more likely to commit than someone who'd describe herself as committal but doesn't manifest this in their life. (At very least, they're more consistent). Thus you can't simply ask someone about their willingness to commit. At the same time, attempting to observe the behaviour may influence the behaviour (e.g., you probably pay closer attention to the rules of the road if you're taking a driving test). The same reasons that scientists tend to use blind or double-blind tests in experiments involving human subjects also apply here.
Church membership as a test? There are multiple ways get a "pass" and multiple ways to fail. Not all churches have any sort of formal membership program, and commitment will look different in such cases. Not being a formal member might also be acceptable if, e.g., you happen to be a paedo-baptist in a town with only credo-baptist churches or, e.g., if you're somewhere involved in the membership process. On the other hand "meh" is not a valid argument. Having one's name on a membership list somewhere also doesn't make one a member - being a member doesn't require participating in all a church's activities, yet if you participate in none can you still really be deemed a member?
Why would not joining be a problem? Well, from the perspective of what it says about commitment, first of all it seems to me that you need a good reason not to join if those who are your leaders ask you to and argue that it is important. An argument against formal church membership might work (I disagree but probably could accept that) or, for example, the membership process being onerous might qualify. Depending on the denomination, non-membership may also require rule-breaking for you to participate in certain church activities. If membership is simply a matter of having your name in a spreadsheet somewhere, a lack of membership might not be such a big deal. However, if non-membership means rule-breaking than a much stronger argument is required to argue that you're still willing to commit if in such cases you're willing to break rules. Consider, for example, the PCA's policy on communion:
The minister, at the discretion of the Session, before the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church, to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate.
PCA Book of Church Order, p. 167
Roughly speaking, this policy seems to translate into English as follows: if you've attended every single service since the start of the church yet never joined, someone from another church who may have the same core doctrines yet differs in many non-essentials is more entitled to take part. Taking part yet not being a member seems on the face of things to violate this. Again, if you want to argue that you're not non-committal than you need a good argument as to why you should be breaking rules. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the length of time that's been spent hanging around without joining as inversely proportional to ability to commit. How I interpret this: a willingness to hang around without a corresponding willingness to commit seems to imply that you're willing to leave at any point in time without warning from any relationship in which you're involved. Can you expect someone to commitment to a lifelong, close relationship when they're unwilling to commitment to a temporary, less close relationship?
(This is a quick overview of membership as it relates to commitment. There's a lot more to say about the issue though. For the broader case for membership, try the book Stop Dating the Church.)
There are oher ways in which commitment can be tested in addition to looking at church membership. How does a person live up to their stated commitments? Do they have realistic commitments - simultaneously avoiding both under-commitment and over-commitment? I've met enough women who plan to simultaneously have a large family, run a fortune 500 company, and travel the world. Not realistic. Pick one - maybe two - but beware that commitment in one area may conflict with commitment in anotheffr.
I now think that "commitment to commitment" is not something that only I focus on. Among Christian women that I know in the 20-30ish age range in Calgary, most of those who have joined a church are married or in a serious relationship, and most of those who have avoided membership are single. I also see this reflected in the denomination that I came from. Their member profile seems quite similar to the Amish that my church's new church-planter guy was blogging about: terrible at evangelism yet with an above-average member retention rate and, generally speaking, a higher level of demonstrated commitment. Members of that denomination also seem to marry at higher rates at younger ages. Proof by anecdote isn't exactly the best proof technique, yet at the moment it's all I have.
What do you think? Agree or disagree?
For many fans, players and coaches across the country, hockey isn't just a game. It's a religion. The game-day rituals, intense camaraderie of fans and cultural presence of the sport have elevated it to sacred status. 
