Study: Marry Young, Marry Your First, Stay Married
The conventional wisdom holds that spending your twenties focusing on education, work and fun, and then marrying around 30 is the best path to maximize your odds of forging a strong and stable family life. But the research tells a different story, at least for religious couples. Saving cohabitation for marriage, and endowing your relationship with sacred significance, seems to maximize your odds of being stably and happily married.
The traditional model of marriage — not always honored in practice, but as the societal ideal — was to marry young without living together first, and with the aim of a lifetime commitment. The supposedly sophisticated critique of this model has argued that young people should do other things besides form families, that one should try on multiple relationships first, that 21-25-year-olds aren’t mature enough for lifetime commitments, and that living together first is a good test run of whether the relationship will endure. As sociology professor and National Marriage Project director W. Bradford Wilcox explains, however, his latest empirical study along with demographer Lyman Stone supports the traditional view, not that of its critics — at least among religious Americans, who may start off with the advantage of taking marriage more seriously in the first place:
Our analyses indicate that religious men and women who married in their twenties without cohabiting first…have the lowest odds of divorce in America today. We suspect one advantage that religious singles in their twenties have over their secular peers is that they are more likely to have access to a pool of men and women who are ready to tie the knot and share their vision of a family-focused life. Today, young singles like this are often difficult to find in the population at large…Shared faith is linked to more sexual fidelity, greater commitment and higher relationship quality. One Harvard study found that women who regularly attended church were about 40% less likely to divorce. The family-friendly norms and networks found in America’s churches, mosques and synagogues make religion one of the few pillars of strong and stable marriages in America today.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
The Illiteracy of Current Issues
State of Theology: Christian Societal Responsibility
23. Christians should be silent on issues of politics.
This question deals with the Christian’s responsibility regarding society, which is clearly implied in Scripture. While Scripture does not direct or imply any particular level or nature of political involvement, it is clear that Christians should be deeply concerned about the society in which they live, seeking to improve it in ways that glorify God (Jeremiah 29:7). Israelites were commanded to care for widows, orphans, and sojourners (Deuteronomy 14:29 and 24:17) as well as to relentlessly pursue justice and mercy (Exodus 23:6, Zechariah 7:9). While these commands could be considered part of the civil law, they are undergirded by the moral law that is still just as binding today as it was then. They are part of loving your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:8) and not neglecting the weighty matters of justice (Matthew 23:23) as clearly taught by Jesus. Many political issues are issues of justice, so to be silent about them is to disobey these commands. Scripture is equally clear that silence in the face of injustice and oppression are just as sinful as the injustice and oppression themselves (Job 31:16-23, Isaiah 1:16, Ezekiel 22:6-12). This means it is incompatible with Scripture to say that Christians should be silent on political issues in general. Over half of respondents across all categories affirmed that silence about politics is not commanded in Scripture, ranging from 56% of regularly attending Northeasterners to 76% of Midwest evangelicals. These results are mixed, but generally positive. While there is certainly room for debate as to how much political involvement is prudent and appropriate, it would be improper to say that silence is required. However, it is equally important to stress that while individual Christians can be involved in the political process, it is not the place of churches to be officially involved in politics. We do not wage war using the weapons of the world (2 Corinthians 10:4), including politics. The Gospel is what truly transforms society, and history teaches that such transformations are often slow. Churches must focus on the Gospel, which then compels individual believers to act in ways that advance the Kingdom of God much as it compelled people like William Wilberforce to fight against slavery over two centuries ago.
State of Theology: Extramarital Sex
25. Sex outside of traditional marriage is a sin.
This question is explicitly addressed in Scripture by the Seventh Commandment as interpreted by Jesus (Matthew 7:27-32). Scripture therefore defines “traditional marriage” as the covenantal union between one man and one woman as established by God to reflect the diversity and unity of the Trinity as well as the union between Christ and the Church (Genesis 1:28, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1 Peter 1:7). Throughout Scripture, sex outside of this union is prohibited (Leviticus 15 and 20, Proverbs 5-7, Mark 10:1-12, 1 Corinthians 5-6). This is further echoed by Paul with his use of the generic term “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside of God’s definition of marriage (Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 4:3). Thus, Scripture is clear that sex outside of traditional marriage (as defined by God) is sinful. While over half of respondents across all categories except the Northeast (at 39%) affirmed this, it is concerning that results both overall (53%) and for the Midwest (54%) were also relatively low for something so clearly taught by Scripture. Only with regularly attending evangelicals nationwide and in the Midwest were results better than 80%, showing that in certain regions and denominations the sin of extramarital sex has either been denied or neglected. This is especially concerning when we consider that this question only deals with the act of sex and not with lust, which Jesus equates with adultery (Matthew 5:27-28). Had the question included lustful thoughts, pornography, and other forms of sexual immorality outside of sex itself, I fear the results would have been much more negative. Still, it is slightly encouraging to see that in our hypersexualized society, the majority in most categories did affirm the sinfulness of extramarital sex, even if it was only a slight majority.
State of Theology: Abortion
26. Abortion is a sin.
The question of abortion is not clearly addressed in any passage of Scripture but is clearly implied by Scripture overall. Since the term “abortion” does not appear in Scripture, it must be defined first. For our purposes, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the willful killing of the baby in the womb. Thus abortion is a premediated act and not the death of the child during an act of medical necessity to save the mother’s life. Being the killing of a baby, abortion is sinful if it falls outside of the limitations for killing in Scripture. The command against killing in Scripture rooted in the Sixth Commandment forbidding murder, which is reiterated by Jesus, proving that it is part of the moral law and thus still applicable today (Matthew 5:21, 15:19, and 19:18, Mark 7:21 and 10:19, Luke 18:20). While speaking His covenant to Noah, God says “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6). This comes just before God reiterates the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply (verse 7), so it refers to all mankind (men and women of all ages). This establishes that since people are made in the image of God, killing them is a grave sin apart from specific circumstances explicitly set out by God. The first of these caveats is seen in this passage: punishment for murder or other serious crimes, which must only come after a just conviction (Numbers 35:30, see also Exodus 21:12-14. Leviticus 24:17-18, Numbers 35:31). The second is the killing of enemy combatants in battle (which is allowed in certain circumstances throughout Scripture) and when the death of a perpetrator happens due to self-defense that was not premeditated (Exodus 22:2-3). Scripturally, the killing of a person outside of these caveats is murder and thus sinful.
Scripture is equally clear that a baby in the womb is a person with equal worth to any other person. -
A Response to Sojourners’ President Adam Taylor’s Call to Protect Abortion Rights
I noticed you feel great compassion for women in crisis. While this is commendable, I am concerned by the lack of similar concern for babies. You mentioned a woman’s right to abortion eight times and a child’s right to life once. And that your prescription for limiting the number of abortions is based on government welfare programs for the mother. I did not see any provisions for making adoption easier and faster. Nor did I see any provisions for the church to provide more support through pregnancy centers.
Dear Adam,
I read your article “As a Christian, I Want to Reduce Abortion, Not Overturn Roe.” I noticed you used the phrase “As a Christian” three times to buttress your moral authority in this area as you pled for both abortion availability and yet fewer abortions. As a brother in Christ, I have concerns over unbalanced compassion, exegetical acumen, and a surrendering of God’s Law to modern culture.
I noticed you feel great compassion for women in crisis. While this is commendable, I am concerned by the lack of similar concern for babies. You mentioned a woman’s right to abortion eight times and a child’s right to life once. And that your prescription for limiting the number of abortions is based on government welfare programs for the mother. I did not see any provisions for making adoption easier and faster. Nor did I see any provisions for the church to provide more support through pregnancy centers. It’s almost as if supporting government welfare policies is a key component of a compassionate character.
God has made each person as a free, moral being. Joshua commanded the people to make a choice about who they would serve: “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord” (Jos 24:15, NASB-95).
Each of us makes choices, Adam. Unfortunately, those choices often end with tragedy for ourselves and others. The Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 17 asks:
Q. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.
You pointed out cases of rape and incest. These are terrible tragedies brought about by sin that cause great misery, but why is the most innocent victim, the child, the one who bears the brunt of the tragedy? Abortion advocates often claim that every child should be a wanted child. So, is it compassionate to impose the death penalty on a child because the mom chooses not to love? We are told a child should not suffer from poverty. But that’s how we choose to treat suffering animals; we put them out of their misery because they cannot understand what is happening. Not so human beings. And God’s Word affirms that babies, even in the womb, are people:
“Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me.6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;you taught me wisdom in that secret place.” (Psalm 51, NASB-95)
People can choose to learn from suffering and can choose to rise above it, given the opportunity, unless that opportunity is pre-empted by another’s choice. Consider the story of Lazarus; a poor beggar covered in sores. He had a terrible life, and no one looked at him with compassion. In the end, for all eternity, Lazarus found compassion and comfort (Luke 16: 19-31).
I commend you on the compassion you have toward women in crisis but I implore you to extend that same compassion to the babies in the womb.
As a brother in Christ, I was glad to see that you are meditating on Rom 12:12, and I hope you continue to mediate on this verse. By applying proper exegetical methods, you will discover that the word conformed in Greek is suschématizó and means to assume “a similar outward form (expression) by following the same pattern” (Strong’s). The word transform in the Greek is metamorphoó, which means “changing form in keeping with inner reality” (Strong’s). Paul is calling on each of not to copy the current godless culture, but to be transformed, truly, from the inside by God’s Word (properly interpreted). So, respectfully, I disagree with your conclusion that this is a call to be counter cultural. This is a call to be a genuine Christian, one who knows and lives by God’s law, regardless of the personal cost that might entail.
I found it ironic that you used Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees to make a point that by placing the health of babies in the womb in extreme jeopardy, i.e., death, we can avoid policies that place expecting mom’s health in jeopardy. A closer look at Luke 13:10-17 reveals that the Pharisees are hypocrites because they exult in manmade standards of righteousness that even they cannot keep. Has not support for abortion become the same litmus test for a righteous character in secular society?
As a brother in Christ, I plead with you to consider God’s law as opposed to man’s law. In Psalm 19, God tells us He has given us supernatural revelation:
“The law of the Lord is perfect,refreshing the soul.The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,making wise the simple.8 The precepts of the Lord are right,giving joy to the heart.The commands of the Lord are radiant,giving light to the eyes.” (NASB-95)
The more a society’s laws reflect God’s laws, the better, kinder, more compassionate that society is. I wonder if you ever researched how Greek and Roman cultures practiced their respective laws? There was a marked difference in culture as Christianity grew in influence and the moral authority of God’s Word was practiced. Here’s how Aristotle framed it:
“As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it (the child)” (Aristotle, Politics 7.1335b ).
Or Cicero: “Deformed infants shall be killed” (On the Laws, 3.8). Cicero considered an unwanted child to be deformed.
God gave Moses this commandment: “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13, NASB). I’d rather live in a society that respects life, protects its most vulnerable members, and has laws that reflect those values.
Al Taglieri is a Ruling Elder in the Providence Presbyterian Church in York, Penn.
Related Posts: -
A Critical Look at Critical Race Theory in America’s Classrooms
The Heritage Foundation invited 13 scholars to contribute to “The Critical Classroom,” a volume that uncovers the often surreptitious application of critical race theory and analyzes the effects that such a biased theory has on teachers and students alike. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) “The Critical Classroom” traces the origins of critical race theory and explains that racist institutions, such as slavery and Jim Crow laws, violated our nation’s ideals—and adds that America is not systemically racist.
“There is little to no evidence that critical race theory itself is being taught to K-12 public school students,” The Associated Press wrote recently.
If that’s true, why would the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, invest in a campaign to keep the theory in K-12 instruction? That is, how could the union keep critical race theory in classrooms if it wasn’t there in the first place?
The answer is simple: School officials around the country not only are teaching critical race theory’s components, such as “intersectionality,” to K-12 children. They also are applying the theory’s principle that discrimination is appropriate and necessary for school activities in the form of mandatory racial affinity groups. For example, where students are separated by skin color for different school functions.
Racial prejudice left a shameful mark on America’s past, but contrary to what critical race theorists believe, racism does not define America. And racial discrimination has no place in law or culture today.
The Heritage Foundation invited 13 scholars to contribute to “The Critical Classroom,” a volume that uncovers the often surreptitious application of critical race theory and analyzes the effects that such a biased theory has on teachers and students alike. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
“The Critical Classroom” traces the origins of critical race theory and explains that racist institutions, such as slavery and Jim Crow laws, violated our nation’s ideals—and adds that America is not systemically racist.
Yet radical activists who aim to keep critical race theory in schools want students to believe that America’s laws and cultural institutions are beyond repair.
As Heritage’s Mike Gonzalez writes in the opening chapter of “The Critical Classroom”:
If, from the start, one teaches the young population that the system of beliefs of their parents and grandparents has produced an oppressive conceptual superstructure, and that they must begin de novo, then one can change society’s blueprint in a generation or two.
Read More
Related Posts: