quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
Much to my alarm, Sprog1, a soon-to-be-fresher, tells me that a substantial proportion of evo couples in the CU get engaged within months of meeting, and that even getting married at university, whilst not the norm, raises few eyebrows.

---

Why is this so alarming to you?
 

---

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
The trouble with this kind of question is that it is easy to be lured down the road of confirmation bias. I can certainly think of some who would fit that criteria but is that indicative of a "substantial proportion".

Then you must also factor in general shifts in societies over time.

It is my understanding that in the UK, the average age for a first marriage is going up. So when my parents were married (at the time they were anglicans), then being 21 & 20, it was not considered unusually young. Today, it might seem so.

Some friends I know got married shortly after university, indeed one in my church proposed to his girlfriend a few days after finishing his last exam! In my own family, one sister got married at the end of her second year of uni, one married a few years later and I never got hitched - unless one considers being married to a job to be anywhere near an approximation, at least in terms of time and effort.

I'd rather see some sound statistics than rely on anecdotal evidence before coming to a conclusion as to the question posed.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
How many of these early marriages, even among GLE's, last? From my experience (a good few years old, of my daughter's generation, many of them result in divorce, or at least separation.

And maybe they get married because, unlike the rest of the students, they don't just "shag and move on" in the process learning about themselves and others.

OK, I'm cynical in my old age
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Many Christians have been brought up with the belief that Christians should not marry non-Christians and given the general organisation of CUs, that is very likely to be the party line. Essentially a bit of guidance that there may be compatibility problems got turned into a prohibition which is a very common belief amongst folks from an evo background. This can create two different kinds of anxieties. Firstly, that you have a restricted choice. Secondly, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!

The unequally yoked scripture has been looked at a lot in both serious scholarship and also on SoF a few times and it does not mean the prohibitive belief; it is about mission, not marriage. You can infer it of course. Or you can take it as a piece of common sense that if you want to marry someone with a different world view to your own you need to do some considerable exploration of what that would mean for you as a couple. There are likely to be substantial challenges for you to work out together.

Now, interestingly, that bit of common sense also should apply to Christians in the wider question of compatibility. As many have discovered to their cost, you don't resolve the issues of compatibility simply by marrying someone of the same faith. Compatibility issues are not just about macro differences over world views.

What I think may happen in CUs is that the bird in the hand/restricted choice factors may produce a certain optimism! There's an opportunity to link up with members of your peer group, why not make the most of it? The consequences of acting in haste, for whatever reason are often repentance at leisure. As we have daily proof, as the divorce rate implies. The divorce rate is high generally; most of the stats I see suggest it is not a lot different when the couples share the same faith.

We've done marriage prep for years, and the line we've always taken is that it's wise to explore compatibility issues seriously in advance. Beliefs, temperament, character, differences of experience, how marriage has been modelled to us in our growing up, all factor into that. Life time commitments shouldn't be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. It's worth taking your time over that. Whatever your beliefs over mixed marriages may be.

[ 26. June 2014, 07:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
TheAlethiophile:

quote:

---

It is my understanding that in the UK, the average age for a first marriage is going up. So when my parents were married (at the time they were anglicans), then being 21 & 20, it was not considered unusually young. Today, it might seem so.

---

If Ken was here ( ) he would probably be reminding us about now that the average age for most people to marry in the nineteenth century was late 20s/early 30s, because that was how long it took you to save up enough to start your own household unless your family was fairly rich. So things are going back to the way they were.

I only know one couple who got married whilst at university and I lost touch with them, so I don't know whether their marriage lasted. More than half of the couples I know who got married just after university are still together, suggesting that the divorce rate among my acquaintances is about the same as the rest of society. I don't think you can assume that getting married at university or just after graduation is always going to be a bad thing. It may be unusual nowadays, but that's because most people now wait until they've bought a house together (or until they're ready to have children) before getting married.

I myself am glad I didn't get married as an undergraduate, though, because I didn't meet my Other Half until I was on my postgraduate course.

Oh - and what Barnabas said.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
My CU was impressively resistant to coupling up for the first couple of years. We were all just very close friends, boys and girls. And then suddenly in the final year there were engaged couples everywhere. Some of us suspected a bandwagon

I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong to get married early if you’re sure you’re with the right person. Nonetheless I do think there’s a lot of pressure on students to get with the program and form nice little evangelical families. A non-Christian fellow student of mine, hearing about this, did comment, “that’s really awful. It just confirms what we all think, that Christians get married just so they can have sex.” If this is true (IMO it’s a bit more nuanced than that, but I do think it’s a factor) I personally view this as a bad reason for getting married.

I think the other problem I saw was this: if getting married at the end of university = “normal”, the people (like I was) who are still very, very single and with nary a date in sight can start feeling like there’s something wrong with them. Getting married is somehow equated with some sort of spiritual success. Now it probably didn’t help that at the time I was also attending a church whose approach to the family was firmly stuck in the 1950s, but even so, I was 23 years old and pretty much convinced I was on the shelf. Being in that kind of environment can skew your judgment that way, and the phenomenon is amplified at university, I think, because for many evangelical students, their whole friendship group comes from the CU. Single at 23 doesn't make you weird. It’s married at 23 that’s unusual these days.
 

---

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :
 
Wow, I am bowled over by the quality & quantity of your responses, private & public, and in such a short time. Thank you one and all. It's already difficult to respond to all the points made, I'll try to do so in separate posts, but first, to be fair, I must answer GCabot's “why so serious?” question:

I must confess that, in raising the issue, I am wearing my “Overly-protective dad. Grrr.” t-shirt. I don't want (evo) Sprog1 doing something rash and regretting it. I realise that “young love” can work, e.g. arethosemyfeet, but common sense says it should not be normative and the risk is very high. What could I do about it anyway? Sweet FA, of course.

However, apart from my personal self-interests, it does raise a serious question about a potential time-bomb of failed evo marriages at the T+10year mark. I read recently (sorry, lost the citation) that 48% of young marriages fail within 10 years (USA, general population, recent), which, as a reasonable analogue to the subject in discussion, does not bode well. I predict a pastoral nightmare, and a loud “told you so” from la vie en rose's friend and society in general. Also, what the hell are evo pastors doing, affirming this unwise trend by performing the marriages?

[ 26. June 2014, 10:55: Message edited by: Amir Emrra ]
 

---

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Hi Amir. Welcome to the ship. (Did you notice the sign as you came up the gangplank that said Abandon hope all ye who enter here?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
How many of these early marriages, even among GLE's, last? From my experience (a good few years old, of my daughter's generation, many of them result in divorce, or at least separation.

And maybe they get married because, unlike the rest of the students, they don't just "shag and move on" in the process learning about themselves and others.

OK, I'm cynical in my old age

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElaineC:
I met Mr. C in the college CU. We got engaged in my third (of four) year and were married as soon as I graduated.

This August we will celebrate our 40th Wedding Anniversary.

One couple who married the year before us and another couple who married the year after us are also still married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
The trouble with this kind of question is that it is easy to be lured down the road of confirmation bias.

I'd rather see some sound statistics than rely on anecdotal evidence before coming to a conclusion as to the question posed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
Wow, I am bowled over by the quality & quantity of your responses, private & public, and in such a short time. Thank you one and all. It's already difficult to respond to all the points made, I'll try to do so in separate posts, but first, to be fair, I must answer GCabot's “why so serious?” question:

I must confess that, in raising the issue, I am wearing my “Overly-protective dad. Grrr.” t-shirt. I don't want (evo) Sprog1 doing something rash and regretting it. I realise that “young love” can work, e.g. arethosemyfeet, but common sense says it should not be normative and the risk is very high. What could I do about it anyway? Sweet FA, of course.

However, apart from my personal self-interests, it does raise a serious question about a potential time-bomb of failed evo marriages at the T+10year mark. I read recently (sorry, lost the citation) that 48% of young marriages fail within 10 years (USA, general population, recent), which, as a reasonable analogue to the subject in discussion, does not bode well. I predict a pastoral nightmare, and a loud “told you so” from la vie en rose's friend and society in general. Also, what the hell are evo pastors doing, affirming this unwise trend by performing the marriages?

---

I'd imagine that in the con-evo world, an unwise marraige is still better than an unwise shag.

As you can't say much other than a passing comment about them being sure and having their whole lives ahead of them etc, direct them towards a marriage prep course. Their church may offer one, but if they don't, it may be possible to find one locally. That will give them a good basis to build on and will help them think through some of the issues that concern you.

But, TBF, many couples don't think about much before heading down the aisle. It's amazing how much thought goes into The Day compared to the Life Afterwards. Rev T and I got married in our thirties and did marriage prep with a group of a similar age. (IIRC, we were the only couple not already living together). Most of them hadn't discussed things like children, money etc. Some of them had wildly different ideas about what they wanted. The car journeys home must have been very interesting!

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
My experience is pretty much the same as Lamb Chopped. The year after we graduated, we attended six weddings of couples who had met at University, became engaged when they graduated and married the year after. Most had dated for a couple of years at Uni prior to becoming engaged, so they didn't get married quickly.

A seventh couple married the following year, and then we were the eighth; we waited until my salary was enough to support my PhD student husband.

All eight couples are still married, over 25 years later.

My younger is also a soon-to-be-fresher, but right now I'm more concerned about the cost of student accommodation than the possibility of her getting engaged at an early age!
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
How many of these early marriages, even among GLE's, last? From my experience (a good few years old, of my daughter's generation, many of them result in divorce, or at least separation.

---

quote:

---

If Ken was here ( [Frown] ) he would probably be reminding us about now that the average age for most people to marry in the nineteenth century was late 20s/early 30s, because that was how long it took you to save up enough to start your own household unless your family was fairly rich. So things are going back to the way they were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Maybe I misremembered the dates - actually now I think about it, I have a feeling he was talking about early modern marriages (16th-17th century). That's more likely than Ken getting his facts wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
Wow, I am bowled over by the quality & quantity of your responses, private & public, and in such a short time. Thank you one and all. It's already difficult to respond to all the points made, I'll try to do so in separate posts, but first, to be fair, I must answer GCabot's “why so serious?” question:

I must confess that, in raising the issue, I am wearing my “Overly-protective dad. Grrr.” t-shirt. I don't want (evo) Sprog1 doing something rash and regretting it. I realise that “young love” can work, e.g. arethosemyfeet, but common sense says it should not be normative and the risk is very high. What could I do about it anyway? Sweet FA, of course.

However, apart from my personal self-interests, it does raise a serious question about a potential time-bomb of failed evo marriages at the T+10year mark. I read recently (sorry, lost the citation) that 48% of young marriages fail within 10 years (USA, general population, recent), which, as a reasonable analogue to the subject in discussion, does not bode well. I predict a pastoral nightmare, and a loud “told you so” from la vie en rose's friend and society in general. Also, what the hell are evo pastors doing, affirming this unwise trend by performing the marriages?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
Latest stats on UK marriage from the ONS, 2012, say median age for marriage is 25-29 yo age group.

ONS Infographic

ONS research paper

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:
However, apart from my personal self-interests, it does raise a serious question about a potential time-bomb of failed evo marriages at the T+10year mark.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Now regarding marriage and 1 Corinthians 7, I would have thought evangelicals would have been opposed to sexual relations at all. If they recommend abstinence for gays, let alone marriage, I think they ought to adopt the higher standard for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One website I came across suggested that early marriage and frequent divorce in American evangelicalism was possibly due to the fact that most American evangelicals are relatively poor. Poverty is a significant contributing factor to divorce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One website I came across suggested that early marriage and frequent divorce in American evangelicalism was possibly due to the fact that most American evangelicals are relatively poor. Poverty is a significant contributing factor to divorce.

---

Yes, I saw a US study that said, regarding teen marriages, dropping out of school raised that person's chances of chronic poverty by 11% , but getting married early raised the chances to 31%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, let the kids have space to go out, spend a bit of time together, kiss and hold hands, maybe a bit more. Without forever having the "Is this the person I'll be spending the rest of my life with?" question constantly there. And, that requires pastorally sensitive guidance on relationships, and pastoral care to pick up the pieces if needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
I think this is where the nub of the problem is - I'm not sure how normative my CU experience was, but I would say the vast majority of students saw the CU as the main focus of their efforts and energies, and the local church was just where you went on Sunday. There were several churches which were geared up to catering for students, but other than Sunday mornings there was very little contact the rest of the week - we didn't join church home groups or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If the evangelical student majority now routinely pair off at uni (are there any figures?) then I suppose there should be relevant group discussions about romance and marriage, etc. to get them thinking. I presume that chaplains have always been available for young couples looking for confidential advice, but do students think to ask?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One website I came across suggested that early marriage and frequent divorce in American evangelicalism was possibly due to the fact that most American evangelicals are relatively poor. Poverty is a significant contributing factor to divorce.

---

Yes, I saw a US study that said, regarding teen marriages, dropping out of school raised that person's chances of chronic poverty by 11% , but getting married early raised the chances to 31%.

---

And those American teens probably come from relatively poor families to start with.

I'm in England, and times have changed from when I was in the Methodist/URC Soc at uni in the early 90s. It didn't seem weird for Christian students to meet up and then get married after graduating. But neither was it a big fashionable thing to do.

If the evangelical student majority now routinely pair off at uni (are there any figures?) then I suppose there should be relevant group discussions about romance and marriage, etc. to get them thinking. I presume that chaplains have always been available for young couples looking for confidential advice, but do students think to ask?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amir Emrra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One website I came across suggested that early marriage and frequent divorce in American evangelicalism was possibly due to the fact that most American evangelicals are relatively poor. Poverty is a significant contributing factor to divorce.

---

Yes, I saw a US study that said, regarding teen marriages, dropping out of school raised that person's chances of chronic poverty by 11% , but getting married early raised the chances to 31%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
My view is that Christians are more polarised than ever, either marrying soon after Uni or on the other hand struggling to meet the right sort of person and not marrying (or even dating) until their thirties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
My view is that Christians are more polarised than ever, either marrying soon after Uni or on the other hand struggling to meet the right sort of person and not marrying (or even dating) until their thirties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

For a lot of people in the UK, these days, if you don't find The One at university, your chances of finding someone will become a whole lot harder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edith:
Are there any Evangelicals who don't go to university? And if there are, do they marry early too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edith:
Are there any Evangelicals who don't go to university? And if there are, do they marry early too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edith:
Are there any Evangelicals who don't go to university? And if there are, do they marry early too?

---

IME, conservative evangelicalism (as opposed to charismatic evangelicalism) tends to be strongly middle-class in the UK and so most young con-evos will go to university or at least some other kind of higher education (Bible college for instance, which I would class separately to standard universities). In my experience of those who don't go to university (con-evo and char-evo) they tend to marry younger than the secular average but IME university gives a push to early marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tulfes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edith:
Are there any Evangelicals who don't go to university? And if there are, do they marry early too?

---

IME, conservative evangelicalism (as opposed to charismatic evangelicalism) tends to be strongly middle-class in the UK and so most young con-evos will go to university or at least some other kind of higher education (Bible college for instance, which I would class separately to standard universities). In my experience of those who don't go to university (con-evo and char-evo) they tend to marry younger than the secular average but IME university gives a push to early marriage.

---

Are you not stereotyping people? After all, you would be howling with anger if anyone dared to stereotype gay people as "promiscuous" or etc.

---

I'm sorry, I don't see what I've said that is 'stereotyping' people in the same way as someone stereotyping gay people as promiscuous. Evangelical churches ARE overwhelmingly middle-class in the UK, because the church as a whole in the UK is mostly middle-class. I am also failing to see how being called middle-class is an insult.
 

---

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Which is a very good reason for avoiding all this premature matrimony. Try out some boundaries, find yourself, take some risks - but then I suppose that if you're inclined to do that sort of thing, you're unlikely to be moving in these GLE circles in the first place.

---

quote:

---

I am also failing to see how being called middle-class is an insult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:

quote:

---

I am also failing to see how being called middle-class is an insult.

---

'Middle-class' has been used as an insult for decades - nay, centuries, ever since Karl Marx declared open season on the bourgeoisie. It is used in a purely descriptive sense by social scientists, but we are not all social scientists here.

Ecumaniac makes a good point about wives' careers being subordinated to their husbands', but you don't need to be married for this to happen. If you have a Significant Other and want to spend a lot of time with them, you will concentrate on looking for jobs in the same area as theirs.

And it's not always the wife who has to give up what she wants to do. My own Other Half supported me in making a career change; luckily he didn't have to give up his own job to do so because I was able to find a job in my new field within commuting distance of his work, but if he had he'd have done it because he could see my old job was making me miserable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:

quote:

---

I am also failing to see how being called middle-class is an insult.

---

'Middle-class' has been used as an insult for decades - nay, centuries, ever since Karl Marx declared open season on the bourgeoisie. It is used in a purely descriptive sense by social scientists, but we are not all social scientists here.

---

In that case, by what name do you refer to the group of people that social scientists describe as "middle-class" in order to avoid being insulting?

In the States this is pretty much a non-issue. In fact, many people stretch the parameters of middle-class-dom to include anyone who is basically financially solvent with a respectable income on up to a suburban home-owner who also might have a summer property at the lake or beach, and takes non-extravagant vacations over seas most years. And a person does not have to be well-educated to bear the label. A construction worker who has managed to start a prosperous contracting firm may be called "middle-class".

Here, middle-class is an honorable label in most instances. Perhaps unless said sneeringly by a young, artsy type person.

[ 30. June 2014, 21:01: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Lyda Rose:

quote:

---

In that case, by what name do you refer to the group of people that social scientists describe as "middle-class" in order to avoid being insulting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
You might also find AC ordinands insisting on getting married before ordination, in line with wider Catholic/Orthodox discipline - I did, unfortunately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IME, conservative evangelicalism (as opposed to charismatic evangelicalism) tends to be strongly middle-class in the UK and so most young con-evos will go to university or at least some other kind of higher education (Bible college for instance, which I would class separately to standard universities).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IME, conservative evangelicalism (as opposed to charismatic evangelicalism) tends to be strongly middle-class in the UK and so most young con-evos will go to university or at least some other kind of higher education (Bible college for instance, which I would class separately to standard universities).

---

I'm curious about the distinction between conservative and charismatic evangelicalism. Those I would define as charismatic evangelicals tend to be incredibly conservative in their views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
You might also find AC ordinands insisting on getting married before ordination, in line with wider Catholic/Orthodox discipline - I did, unfortunately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

Have I missed something or have I been moving in the wrong circles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3M Matt:
I'm now 33, and, despite a couple of close calls, I'm still single...

For whatever reason the "meet nice Christian girl at CU and get married after graduation" cliche didn't quite happen for me.

However, that does seem to be the Evangelical "norm", I have a funny feeling that will have changed in the last 10 years.

I went to uni in 2000, and it is stunning to me how much church culture has changed in the 15 years since. I have a feeling that, amongst Evangelicals under the age of 25 there is a quiet, largely unspoken acceptance of pre-marital sex, so long as it's not gratutously in-your-face or promiscuous then it's become something of a non-issue to young evangelicals.

I suspect that the result is that the days of GLEs getting married at 21 the summer they graduate from uni are fading out.

Speaking as someone who missed all that and has ended up, a few relationships later, still single at 33, I'm really not sure if I think that's a good or bad thing.

On the one hand, knowing the person I was at 21 I'm terrified at the prospect I might have made a decision as big as marriage at that age....on the other hand, at age 33, do I wish things had all panned out easier and more straightforward? Probably.

The older I get, the better able I think i am to make that kind of decision, and yet also it becomes harder because the sheer arrogance of youth allows you to make snap committment decisions far more easily...the older you get the more you second guess yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I haven't seen those changes within my university's CU. I have seen it with open evangelicals - I know the CU here is at the very conservative (cessationist, Calvinist - mostly) end of things so perhaps that's why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Yes, as always, there is a counter-reaction to any action. A radically conservative/calvanist wing of young evangelicals is definitely springing up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
TRR as a phenomena is now several years old and you are already getting a backlash to it. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
TRR as a phenomena is now several years old and you are already getting a backlash to it. ...

---

What does TRR stand for please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Sorry .. The Restless Reformed, or the Young Restless Reformed (most of whom are in their 40s by now ..).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I married on the last day of term (Sadly didn't last but that was for many other reasons) and uite a few of our friends married withint he year.

Strict evo world, no sex before marriage, not much point in dating unless thinking long term, encouragement to marry and settle down etc. Sigh.

I don't want the same for my daughters but haven't had much of the real world modelled to me. I hope to God they don't get involved in uni CUs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe someone from a MOTR mainstream religious background is disadvantaged in this situation, because they assume that their tradition of theological breadth is normative and can be accommodated anywhere (even in the CU!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, but of course that has to be set in a wider cultural background: the C19 understood the concept of the life-long bachelor rather better than we do, and of course many of them were or had been Fellows of collegs in the ancient universities, which were until, what, 1880-ish, bodies of unmarried (and one might hope celibate or at least chaste) men.
Keble and Manning were married, but whether before or after ordination I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Also, young Christians from some independent evangelical set-ups will have more experience at leading a fellowship group, whereas more mainstream Christians, usually from much smaller churches, are probably used to leaving this sort of thing to the clergy (or possibly to a much older authorised layperson). This being the case, it's hard to imagine that university CUs are likely to be in the hands of MOTR leaders (and hence in the grip of MOTR tolerant theololgy) in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Also, young Christians from some independent evangelical set-ups will have more experience at leading a fellowship group, whereas more mainstream Christians, usually from much smaller churches, are probably used to leaving this sort of thing to the clergy (or possibly to a much older authorised layperson). This being the case, it's hard to imagine that university CUs are likely to be in the hands of MOTR leaders (and hence in the grip of MOTR tolerant theololgy) in the future.

---

This is only tangentially true. The CU student leaders are appointed by their predecessors (I've never heard of a vote), and are 'supported' by UCCF regional workers who are, AIUI, at the more conservative end of evangelicalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Not least because, in order to join your average CU, you have to sign up to a set of doctrinal statements (including, in particular, Biblical infallibility). Besides, if my university experience is anything to go by, the chaplaincy teams and other Christian societies make joining the CU an irrelevance, except for needing to remind folk constantly that no, not all Christians are like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Also, young Christians from some independent evangelical set-ups will have more experience at leading a fellowship group, whereas more mainstream Christians, usually from much smaller churches, are probably used to leaving this sort of thing to the clergy (or possibly to a much older authorised layperson). This being the case, it's hard to imagine that university CUs are likely to be in the hands of MOTR leaders (and hence in the grip of MOTR tolerant theololgy) in the future.

---

This is only tangentially true. The CU student leaders are appointed by their predecessors (I've never heard of a vote), and are 'supported' by UCCF regional workers who are, AIUI, at the more conservative end of evangelicalism.

I very much doubt whether a group of MOTR Anglican/Methodist/URC students could actually seize control of a university CU, simply because the CU's constitution doesn't allow for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Maybe someone from a MOTR mainstream background makes a stronger assumption - that the CU will be "normal MOTR". After all, why wouldn't a student society for Christians reflect "normal Christianity"?

Certainly when I was a student, my expectation was that the CU would be, well, a "Christian Union" - a broad-based group of Christians from all backgrounds, putting on interesting and educational theological discussions. A bit like the Ship, but in meatspace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Maybe someone from a MOTR mainstream background makes a stronger assumption - that the CU will be "normal MOTR". After all, why wouldn't a student society for Christians reflect "normal Christianity"?

Certainly when I was a student, my expectation was that the CU would be, well, a "Christian Union" - a broad-based group of Christians from all backgrounds, putting on interesting and educational theological discussions. A bit like the Ship, but in meatspace.

---

It's because young British Christians aren't found equally in all types of church. If CUs are dominated by evangelicalism it's because that's where the majority of young, practicing Christian students are coming from, and that's why the doctrinal statements for the leaders/participants to sign are evangelical in tone.

Still, the universities I know have a range of Christian groups, even if the CU is numerically dominant. At unis without other groups it's up to the few non-evangelical Christians present to be proactive and start their own!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I married on the last day of term (Sadly didn't last but that was for many other reasons) and uite a few of our friends married withint he year.

Strict evo world, no sex before marriage, not much point in dating unless thinking long term, encouragement to marry and settle down etc. Sigh.

I don't want the same for my daughters but haven't had much of the real world modelled to me. I hope to God they don't get involved in uni CUs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm sure you're right. And some unis have more active Muslim gatherings now than Christians ones, so I've read.

Still, not every gathering of students needs to be something official, does it? A simple note up in the chaplaincy (if there is one) should bring some like-minded students together. If it's just not possible then maybe the uni in question simply isn't the place for someone who wants a certain type of spiritual companionship and support from their peers. This is the sort of thing that could be established on an open day visit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's because young British Christians aren't found equally in all types of church. If CUs are dominated by evangelicalism it's because that's where the majority of young, practicing Christian students are coming from, and that's why the doctrinal statements for the leaders/participants to sign are evangelical in tone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That looks like circular reasoning to me. Most Christians I encountered at university avoided the ECU (who repeatedly and dishonestly dropped the E when postering around campus) like the plague, and both the Catholic Society and Anglican/Methodist society were well attended, and large numbers attended services at the university chapels. The ECU remained evangelical because it was a self-perpetuating oligarchy that naturally repelled anyone who disagreed with its conservative attitudes - including not having female speakers or allowing a female president. You cannot infer anything from that about the proportion of students Christians who may or may not be evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's because young British Christians aren't found equally in all types of church. If CUs are dominated by evangelicalism it's because that's where the majority of young, practicing Christian students are coming from, and that's why the doctrinal statements for the leaders/participants to sign are evangelical in tone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's because young British Christians aren't found equally in all types of church. If CUs are dominated by evangelicalism it's because that's where the majority of young, practicing Christian students are coming from, and that's why the doctrinal statements for the leaders/participants to sign are evangelical in tone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
ECUs are evangelical, the DB is evangelical, UCCF is evangelical, and that has been the situation for a long time. ECUs exist for a specific purpose, and it's a different one from the chaplaincies.

Chaplaincies exist to provide a place of worship, pastoral support etc within a denominational structure. They are effectively churches, in many cases the chaplaincy will be a local church (especially for non-Anglican and non-RC chaplaincies), providing services including Communion etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
ECUs are evangelical, the DB is evangelical, UCCF is evangelical, and that has been the situation for a long time. ECUs exist for a specific purpose, and it's a different one from the chaplaincies.

Chaplaincies exist to provide a place of worship, pastoral support etc within a denominational structure. They are effectively churches, in many cases the chaplaincy will be a local church (especially for non-Anglican and non-RC chaplaincies), providing services including Communion etc.

---

If this is the case, then chaplaincies need to be proactive about offering easily accessible information to new students. Otherwise, the students will turn to the CU for general advice, unaware that the CU's remit is to direct everyone to CU-approved churches and meetings, regardless of whether or not this is what the individual wants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If this is the case, then chaplaincies need to be proactive about offering easily accessible information to new students. Otherwise, the students will turn to the CU for general advice, unaware that the CU's remit is to direct everyone to CU-approved churches and meetings, regardless of whether or not this is what the individual wants.

---

ECUs will encourage members to be active in a local church, because the CU does not exist as a substitute for church. Some chaplaincies do exist as a substitute for church (as an example, when I was a student the Catholic chaplaincy held a mass on Sunday morning, and quite a few students went there and didn't attend mass at any of the local Catholic churches). Other chaplaincies operate out of a local church, often with a meeting Sunday evening following an evening service, and naturally students involved in that chaplaincy would tend to attend that church. Because ECUs are not based in a local congregation and have members from a range of different denominations (and independent churches) their members would usually attend several local churches. Naturally, the ECU would want to put people in touch with local churches, but usually those contacts exist only if ECU members attend those churches. You will get events in Freshers Week where at ECU meetings members will stand up and say a bit about the church they attend, and offer to take people along. Naturally, such events can't have people stand up and say "I can take you" for churches no one in the ECU attends. Depending on how well organised people are, and Student Union policy, there may be a list of churches with contact details which might include churches current members don't attend (I got such a list in the pile of information sent from the SU before I arrived at uni, having already said I was interested in Christian Societies - I expect these days ECU webpages will be able to carry that sort of information, though SU policy may prevent it). ECUs don't (or, shouldn't have) a remit to decide whether a given church is "sound", though it does happen - both informally with members expressing personal opinion, and sometimes more formally with "officially endorsed" churches.

Whether chaplaincies need to offer such a list of churches as well will depend on the chaplaincy. As mentioned, some will be effectively substitute churches. For groups like the Methodists, Baptists, URC there's not going to be a substantial range in worship style and most students from those backgrounds would find the church the chaplaincy is based in familiar. Anglican chaplaincies would have a harder time given the wider range of worship style within the CofE. A chaplaincy based in a MOTR church may not suit students looking an Anglo-Catholic church, or a very evangelical one. Catholic students may also find a chaplaincy doesn't meet their needs, with a similar range of worship styles.

Then, of course, there's the students who decide to try a completely different church to their home congregation. A list of churches with description and contact details, and maybe name(s) of student(s) willing to take people along for the first couple of Sundays in the year, would be useful then as well.

When I was at university we had a Christian Magazine. Our Freshers Fair issue always included descriptions of each of the Christian student groups and a paragraph on as many local churches as we could include - but that depended on a student going to those churches to write such a paragraph, although we did re-use material from the previous year unless we had good reason to think the details were incorrect.
 

---

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
In my teens, I was a member of a con-evo-fundie-type Baptist youth group that was pretty well attended. We're now all in our mid-twenties, and I'm pretty sure that there are only two of us left unmarried, at least out of those that I was close to - there's me, as I ran away to be a bisexual polyamorous Anglo-Catholic pagan witch, and my friend L who ran away to be an agnostic lesbian.

L and I are still close, but not really in touch with any of the others any longer because, you know, we're not really their favourite kinds of people. One picks things up on Facebook, though, and that lot (perhaps unsurprisingly) seem to have more time for her than they do for me so she passes things on. They mostly married each other, and I don't think any of them have split up yet. Many of them married very young indeed - before twenty.

[ 16. July 2014, 11:54: Message edited by: Persephone Hazard ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Then most of them haven't passed the dreaded seven-year-itch. hmm
 

---

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Then most of them haven't passed the dreaded seven-year-itch. hmm

---

quote:

---

Our strategy in UCCF is to resource CUs as student societies with the focus of giving every student an opportunity to hear about Jesus. We value good partnership with local churches, where life-long discipleship and ministry take place. It wouldn’t be wise for us to make a blanket statement on perceived general trends, when each person’s circumstances are different.

---

…which I interpret as slopey shoulders
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Amir had made enquiries with UCCF, as indicated here and has now got a response. I'm not very surprised at the response to be honest. I don't expect UCCF to be keeping track of which churches students go to (if any) nor details of specific teaching at those churches (eg: on relationships and marriage). At a local level, the UCCF staff members working with particular CUs may know more, but are unlikely to feel the need to pass that information on to Leicester in anything other than the most unusual circumstances (eg: seeking advice relating to a particular church that appears to be going off the rails).

So all UCCF can give is a rather generic answer. Restate their policy, which is to encourage students to be active members of local churches.'

I'm not sure about the "sloping shoulders" bit, I took that as a local phrase which I have not come across. But, it didn't seem necessary to enquire further.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Aka UCCF feels no need to take any kind of pastoral responsibility for the damage that CU church culture does to young Christians. It's a pretty shitty response for a so-called Christian organisation to trot out.
 

---

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :
 
Sorry about the obscure vernacular and lack of recap. Jade Constable translated it correctly.

From what I have heard, and what can be read on the thread, this situation is common across CUs in the UK - CUs being the common thread, not individual churches or denominations. Therefore I agree with Jade Constable that it is beholden on the UCCF to formulate some sort of pastoral response, in alliance with university-town churches.

I almost replied to challenge the UCCF staffer who sent the explanation, but then I thought "What's the point?". As long as the precious darlings stay "pure" for now, UCCF has no motive to challenge the situation; in fact, their passivity strongly implies approval. Just leave it to Relate/local churches/divorce courts to pick up the pieces years down the line. Shameful.
 

---

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :
 
BTW, interesting to come across another article this week by ex-Christian atheist declaiming "Christians marry young, to legitimise sex!"
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
British evangelicals have been going to university for decades now, so if they were all getting married at graduation and having disastrous marriages they'd presumably be resigned to the fact by this point. The American ones seem to have accepted divorce as a fact of life. In the long run it means there'll be fewer evangelicals, which some cynics will see as a good thing.

As for the chap in that link, his story goes to show that a dose of childhood Christianity, especially of the strenuous kind, is always useful to the nascent writer.

[ 26. September 2014, 22:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Aka UCCF feels no need to take any kind of pastoral responsibility for the damage that CU church culture does to young Christians. It's a pretty shitty response for a so-called Christian organisation to trot out.

---

I can't see how UCCF can take pastoral responsibility for (supposed) damage caused by local churches. It, to me, seems entirely right for Christians to join and be actively involved in local churches, and for that to be their main port of call for pastoral support. Which is, and always has been, the position UCCF promote. CUs are groups with very limited roles, summarised by that response from UCCF, of witness and evangelism in universities. They are mission organisations, not churches. Though some CUs may take on teaching and pastoral roles, I would stand with UCCF and say this is ill-advised since in the vast majority of cases CU leaders are ill equipped for such roles.

The pressures on young adults are substantial. And, it would probably be very useful for churches to have access to resources to help young adults. It's been 30 years since I was in that age group, but I know there were plenty of relevant books available then, several of them were always present on the bookstall at our CU meetings and in the libraries of local churches. I'm sure they've been updated since then, and books may no longer be as appropriate a medium today (I've noticed a reluctance among students to read books ).
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's been 30 years since I was in that age group, but I know there were plenty of relevant books available then, several of them were always present on the bookstall at our CU meetings and in the libraries of local churches.

---

Was Joyce Huggett's "Going Out" ever relevant?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Maybe, just maybe, 30 years before she wrote it?

Yes, there are some pretty awful resources out there. I don't think we can do much about that.
 

---

Posted by jpm (# 14389) on :
 
>> a strong expectation on "Good Christians" that they will settle down quickly, get married and have children and be a model family

But that is a modern aberration - for the first 15 centuries of Christianity, the aspirational ideal for serious Christians was to stay single, and there is a great body of Christian writing about marriage being a second-best choice.

Early marriage is now a key part of the natalist agenda. Steve Watters, the (former) Director of Young Adults at "Focus on the Family" (a big U.S. ministry) in the book "Start Your Family!" urged couples to seek “children in your youth, the spring season of life” citing Psalm 127 "sons born in one's YOUTH" and also (weirdly) “a time to be born” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). He commends this “prime time for having babies, a window of opportunity”.

Another book, by Nancy Campbell also cites Psalm 127 and concludes “God wants children to be born in our youth”. She (and others) also exaggerate the health risks of delayed childbearing, warning readers of the risk of heart attacks and other illnesses unless they start childbearing young, contrasted with divine protection- citing “none of these diseases” (Exodus 15:26) for those who obey God, whose first command is supposed to be reproduction (Genesis 1:28).

Books and sermons promoting youthful early marriage as natural and normative have proliferated among some types of conservative Evangelical since the 1990s.

best wishes, JPM
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Oh dear there's some memories of long ago and far away in this thread. Yes: 1980s, and as an evangelical Christian undergraduate I knew that I had to be married to have sex. Which seemed a Nice Thing to do at 19, 20, 21. That is to say to put that in there. Other things could happen, but always on the assumption that the practitioners would soon get married and then put that in there. Not before, of course. If that wasn't the unforgiveable sin it was at the very least the Inescapable Shame.

I had a torrid stormy relationship in my first year at uni during which that didn't go in there but most things went somewhere so we had to get engaged. We broke up over and again - probably from unrequited sexual tension! - and eventually she left the campus (and the faith - now a millionaire several times over, hiding from the Japanese business mafia because she swindled then $40 million about 7 years ago. But I digress).

So I had a year off women, even considered the evils of catholic priesthood, before falling in lust with the vicar's daughter - who was four years younger than me and still in her final year at school when we first teamed up (to be honest she was a substitute for another girl who wasn't interested). The Vicar and Mrs Vicar were not impressed, and on again off again was on again, and out of sheer bloody-mindedness we got married so that could go there.

Apparently it did, because we had six children before the marriage died. She wanted children, for she had no career and children were her authentication. I wanted children because by then that was the only basis on which that could go there.

I simply had not known what relationship and marriage was all about, and despite six wonderful daughters I and my good evo wife ended up bitterly unhappy. Actually we were bitterly unhappy almost as soon as we tied the knot. Or before.

It is a cautionary tale. My advice to the person that was me then would be to have it off (with appropriate precautions) and get over it. The me then thought God had given me a wonderful bride, pretty and faithful, who would love and obey and serve me and God for evermore as long as we didn't put that in there at the wrong time. For some unknown reason that attitude did not enthuse said Pretty Woman™ Can't imagine why.

She has moved on to a much happier life, and so have I, and we share the six wonderful daughters. But I'm sure we both wish we hadn't believed that ghastly myth that you have to get married at 19 and 23 respectively before that can go there.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

She has moved on to a much happier life, and so have I, and we share the six wonderful daughters. But I'm sure we both wish we hadn't believed that ghastly myth that you have to get married at 19 and 23 respectively before that can go there.

---

God bless you Zappa

I couldn't agree more. It's time that the Church as a whole caught up with the fact that safe, consensual and kind (ie not cheating on anyone else) sex is a good thing for heart, mind and soul.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Of course you can also be in your 30s, and not know what sex and relationships are about and end up in an unhappy marriage.
 

---

Posted by Amir Emrra (# 18100) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't see how UCCF can take pastoral responsibility for (supposed) damage caused by local churches. It, to me, seems entirely right for Christians to join and be actively involved in local churches, and for that to be their main port of call for pastoral support. Which is, and always has been, the position UCCF promote. CUs are groups with very limited roles, summarised by that response from UCCF, of witness and evangelism in universities. They are mission organisations, not churches. Though some CUs may take on teaching and pastoral roles, I would stand with UCCF and say this is ill-advised since in the vast majority of cases CU leaders are ill equipped for such roles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Late Paul:
Seriously though, where's the evidence that "early" marriage is so damaging?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The discussion we're having here seems to assume, though, that if an early marriage fails that is a tragedy, even if there are no children involved-- but that a corresponding unmarried-but-cohabitating relationship that fails is no big deal. I'm curious as to why that would be.

I think looking at that might help us decide whether the real problem here is early marriage or something else altogether, or maybe even if there even is a problem.

---

I cross-posted obviously but -
 

---

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Late Paul:
Seriously though, where's the evidence that "early" marriage is so damaging?

---

There is plenty of evidence if you read people's comments on this thread, e.g. Zappa's - to whom my heart goes out.

---

quote:

---

Would Zappa's story be any less sad if he and the pretty girl had simply cohabitated for several decades, producing 6 children? I think not. (fwiw, I also married early as well, with similar aspects of evangelical abstinence values at play, and it also ended in divorce 11 years later after 1 child. I just don't think it would have been any less sad if we had been "only" cohabitating).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Would Zappa's story be any less sad if he and the pretty girl had simply cohabitated for several decades, producing 6 children? I think not. (fwiw, I also married early as well, with similar aspects of evangelical abstinence values at play, and it also ended in divorce 11 years later after 1 child. I just don't think it would have been any less sad if we had been "only" cohabitating).

---

I don't either. The whole idea of not counting failed relationships unless you got married first seems odd to me. Breaking up after however many years together is still painful even if you aren't married to each other and don't have any children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
[QB]The me then thought God had given me a wonderful bride, pretty and faithful, who would love and obey and serve me and God for evermore as long as we didn't put that in there at the wrong time.

---

I identify with this despite being a.) female, and b.) still married to the one I followed the prescribed pattern with. This is where an extra layer of bitterness comes into the whole thing, I think. It is not Christianity's fault, but there certainly was a sort of an underlying, unspoken, vibe in the evangelical circles we moved in, that as long as you followed all the rules, you would be guaranteed a successful and happy marriage. Which is a load of horseshit, to be frank. You may, possibly, slightly increase the chances - but if you have set up expectations of more than that, disappointment will follow. I can't comment, personally, on the level of pain involved in breaking up a cohabiting non-married relationship, because I haven't been there, but it seems to me that although it will come with pain, it may not have that sense of injustice - 'I did everything I was supposed to do, and still it didn't work!' - sort of thing.
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Obviously evangelical circles vary. Mine never sad anything other that marriage, whilst a (potential) blessing most of us wish for, is bloody hard work, requires commitment, communication and effort. That it is for better /and/ worse, good times /and/ bad. And that having a pounding frustration in your pants (UK) was not adequate reason or incentive.

Funnily enough, friends I have who shagged around fairly freely in their youth tend to say they would rather not have done, in hindsight. Those who didn't are occasionally wistful for missed opportunity (although usually idealised fantasy missed opportunity as far as I can tell). People are just contrary

I do think there are issues about how sex and relationships are/can be presented or taught, usually because we focus on the wrong things for a host of reasons. But we also set up false dichotomies as others have mentioned.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
]I don't disagree with this, but I think it may be missing the point slightly. What sang out to me from Zappa's post was this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
[QB]The me then thought God had given me a wonderful bride, pretty and faithful, who would love and obey and serve me and God for evermore as long as we didn't put that in there at the wrong time.

---

I identify with this despite being a.) female, and b.) still married to the one I followed the prescribed pattern with. This is where an extra layer of bitterness comes into the whole thing, I think. It is not Christianity's fault, but there certainly was a sort of an underlying, unspoken, vibe in the evangelical circles we moved in, that as long as you followed all the rules, you would be guaranteed a successful and happy marriage. Which is a load of horseshit, to be frank. You may, possibly, slightly increase the chances - but if you have set up expectations of more than that, disappointment will follow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
] I can't comment, personally, on the level of pain involved in breaking up a cohabiting non-married relationship, because I haven't been there, but it seems to me that although it will come with pain, it may not have that sense of injustice - 'I did everything I was supposed to do, and still it didn't work!' - sort of thing.

---

quote:

---

It is not Christianity's fault, but there certainly was a sort of an underlying, unspoken, vibe in the evangelical circles we moved in, that as long as you followed all the rules, you would be guaranteed a successful and happy marriage. Which is a load of horseshit, to be frank.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that has to do I think with a broader issue-- the prevalence (in evangelicalism, yes, but also pretty much every stream of Christianity) consumerism & prosperity gospel. We don't have an adequate theology of suffering, and so we tend to teach this sort of dribble-- that if you are "good" you will be rewarded. For evangelicals the "being good" part often gets tied up with being chaste, which, as others have noted, is far too narrow. But irregardless the fundamental problem is neither chastity nor early marriage, but rather the false teaching of a soft prosperity gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Late Paul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that has to do I think with a broader issue-- the prevalence (in evangelicalism, yes, but also pretty much every stream of Christianity) consumerism & prosperity gospel. We don't have an adequate theology of suffering, and so we tend to teach this sort of dribble-- that if you are "good" you will be rewarded. For evangelicals the "being good" part often gets tied up with being chaste, which, as others have noted, is far too narrow. But irregardless the fundamental problem is neither chastity nor early marriage, but rather the false teaching of a soft prosperity gospel.

---

I agree with this except that I don't think it's taught directly. It's more sort of implied and absorbed. It's rarely spoken in so many words. In fact if you did, in many Evo circles, it would be flatly denied - "God is not a slot machine" etc - but I think it's more the unspoken message, the actions speak louder than words about what the "normal course of events" is/should be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems to me that the co-habitation argument seems to suggest an equally hollow promise: that if you delay marriage, if you (to put it crudely) "try before you buy" thru co-habitation, you won't get your heart broken. Which is equally a load of horses**t.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
A few reflections on this thread, as it's a world I know quite well:

1) Marrying young has its problems undoubtedly. It is worth saying that for many the security of marriage is actually a much better place to work those out than in the constant uncertainty of a non-marriage relationship. I have seen many people flourish once married whose insecurity was paralysing before that. Marrying older has its own set of issues - fertility especially was a tricky one for us as we got married in our thirties (and of course those problems can crop up at any age, but much more likely the older you get.) Personally I think that if you are old enough to decide whether or not to have sex, you are old enough to decide whether or not to get married. YMMV.
2) In evo circles I did not find the romanticisation of marriage at all. Quite the opposite, a lot of "the first year's the worst" etc. So much so we were quite surprised that we enjoyed it. In intense con-evo circles I wonder if what is going on with early marriage as much as the desire to insert Tab A into slot B is a masochistic view of holiness - "we ought to get married because it will be really difficult and that is what God wants for us!"
3) I'm not quite sure what you expect UCCF to do about this. If one church or a group of churches is commending early marriage there is really nothing a staff worker, who often covers several cities can do. Honestly! In the one situation I have seen like this, where one church's early marriage view dominated a CU the staff worker offered gently questioning advice to anyone who asked, saying that marriage was not to be entered into lightly or to anyone else's timetable. But a national programme is pretty impossible to run on an issue like this when you are a mission agency.

Just some thoughts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Co-habiting seems like a better way to determine if you're suitable before bringing children into the picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Another problem with the evo view of the "normal course of events" is those who stay single can be looked down upon. This was a factor in my leaving a church some time ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
If kids aren't coming soon why marry? Especially when work or educational opportunities may pull people to different cities - is marriage early worth potentially giving up career goals? With the current economy that's debatable for many.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John D. Ward:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Another problem with the evo view of the "normal course of events" is those who stay single can be looked down upon. This was a factor in my leaving a church some time ago.

---

This is similar to my own experience in a Pentecostal church. It wasn't that I was looked down upon, but I was repeatedly assured that God's plan was for me to marry.

My disability (slight cerebral palsy) means that I am not physically attractive, and although I was earning my own living, I wasn't in the financial bracket where anyone would marry me for my money.

I was in a community where my own generation were married. and the younger generation were partnered, in the sense of having someone of the opposite sex to go out with.

The breaking point came when I was implicitly asked to approve the engagement of a member of my house group, a Teen Challenge inmate with a criminal record for drug-related and other offences.

I first raised the issue with his Teen Challenge "minder", and was told again that God's plan was for me to marry. I asked him if he had anyone in mind, and noted that he had no answer. If he had introduced me to a suitable single woman, it would have been a different matter. I then raised the issue with the senior pastor, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He understood the problems I was having, but I felt that the time had come for me to leave the church.

I am now worshiping in an Anglican church. It has an excellent community, whose friendship helped me during several years of unemployment. There is not the same feeling the everyone apart from myself is either married or about to be married.

---

Sorry, do I have your story right - your church expected you to get married and so your left? I'm slightly puzzled by the connection with the member of your house group - why did their engagement mean that you had to get married?

 

---

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sorry, do I have your story right - your church expected you to get married and so you left?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm slightly puzzled by the connection with the member of your house group - why did their engagement mean that you had to get married?

---

My apologies for my lack of clarity. Their engagement did not mean that I had to get married – it showed that I would not get married, despite what I was being told to the contrary. As I said in my previous post, this was the breaking point after I had been part of the church for ten years. It showed that I was in a community where a convicted criminal with a healthy body was regarded as a more desirable marriage partner than a man without any criminal background, a financially self-supporting houseowner, but with a physical disability. I admit to the sin of envy in this matter.

As I said to our senior pastor, who did not disagree with me on this point, it seemed to be an area where the difference between the church and the world was that the world was more honest about these issues.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
John, what a grim story
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I could really get what you're saying until we got to this point, which was a bit of a shock.

Anybody who would seriously consider breaking up in order to follow his/her own career goals is not ready for marriage. In marriage, the good of the couple (and any potential children) is paramount, and spouses negotiate and compromise as necessary to maintain that unity. Conflict over career goals happens. It happened to me and Mr. Lamb. But the discussion starts off with "how are we, as a couple, going to accommodate our different goals?" Breaking up is not even on the table as an option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
50 years ago when women were taught to prioritize family over any other goals, their husbands just dragged them to Kenya or Canada or Hong Kong whether they wanted to go or not.

---

quote:

---

If kids aren't coming soon why marry? Especially when work or educational opportunities may pull people to different cities - is marriage early worth potentially giving up career goals?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Possibly a generational gap, but I'm with Lamb Chopped on this question - if you are committed to each other and want to be together you will probably have to compromise sometimes on career goals, whether you are married or not. I have friends who have had to live apart several times due to the demands of their jobs - and they've been together as a couple for as long as we have, though they didn't get married until they were in their forties.

---

quote:

---

Lots of people get divorced, we know the statistics. Including Christians. Including people who went into marriage with the best intentions. Including people who genuinely believed they could compromise their dreams for their spouse. It doesn't always work out that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Aren't those stats American? and the OP is about the UK....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
There are no guarantees of anything; but the age of the bride and groom does not automatically mean the marriage will fail, and not getting married does not mean you won't be hurt if the relationship breaks up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
thank you
I don't suppose there are any stats comparing early-marrieds with same age cohabitors for relationship breakdown?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.

---

We have discussed this before. They do.
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.

---

We have discussed this before. They do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.

---

If that's how they would interpret what I'm saying, their choice I suppose.

My view is the following:
- early marriage is not a good idea and often fails, including among Christians
- parenthood without financial stability is not a good idea
- divorce, and a breakup of a relationship involving children, are far worse outcomes than pre-marital sex or pre-marital cohabitation in and of themselves

The Christian ideal of course is for two believing virgins to marry. If a young Christian came to me asking for advice on what to do because she wanted to live with her boyfriend before marriage, I'd tell her that as long as they had shared values, she should get long-term birth control with no possibility for user error (IUD, implant) and wish them the best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.

---

If that's how they would interpret what I'm saying, their choice I suppose.

My view is the following:
- early marriage is not a good idea and often fails, including among Christians
- parenthood without financial stability is not a good idea
- divorce, and a breakup of a relationship involving children, are far worse outcomes than pre-marital sex or pre-marital cohabitation in and of themselves

The Christian ideal of course is for two believing virgins to marry. If a young Christian came to me asking for advice on what to do because she wanted to live with her boyfriend before marriage, I'd tell her that as long as they had shared values, she should get long-term birth control with no possibility for user error (IUD, implant) and wish them the best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.

---

We have discussed this before. They do.

---

Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.

Why aren't there evangelical religious communities if evangelicals value celibacy? It's just not valued as a calling equal to the priesthood or the religious life or any other calling.

I know you see me as an Anglo-Catholic who doesn't know shit about evangelicals, but the vast majority of my Christian life was in evangelical churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What's still not clear to me is your response cliffdweller's point above - why is the break up of a co-habitation any less traumatic than that of a marriage? Plenty of people get married young and don't have children for a long while.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't help but feel that this is yet another reason for evangelicals to take celibacy seriously, and not just as a punishment for certain Dead Horse groups.

---

We have discussed this before. They do.

---

Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.

Why aren't there evangelical religious communities if evangelicals value celibacy? It's just not valued as a calling equal to the priesthood or the religious life or any other calling.

I know you see me as an Anglo-Catholic who doesn't know shit about evangelicals, but the vast majority of my Christian life was in evangelical churches.

---

Sorry to double post. I know of several evangelical religious communities, and as I have said before, several of the big heroes of conservative evangelicalism were/are single and celibate.

My experience is different than yours - many people claim to be "single for the Gospel" and in my uni days, people had a rather gnostic view of singleness. Which is not to say that you don't know shit, but that you shouldn't generalise from your own experience to huge, sweeping, and inaccurate statements about all evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
However, speaking about the CoE more specifically, there's a real lack of information about celibacy as vocation generally and not just in evo circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
However, speaking about the CoE more specifically, there's a real lack of information about celibacy as vocation generally and not just in evo circles.

---

Jade, thank you for your gracious and eirenic response. Sorry for being narky!

In terms of communities, evangelicals I know are doing it in a quite..well...evangelical way. So it's not "the Order of the Blessed Stott" or whatever. Rather long term shared houses of single people who share everything. Being evangelical they are often missional in character, and sometimes the community includes couples, families and singles. I can think of a setup something like this in many of the urban churches I know of. Maybe you wouldn't count this - for several people I know this has been a significant way of living in community without total withdrawal from the world.

I agree with you about the lack of teaching on celibacy as a significant calling outside of discussion of sexuality. Nevertheless, evangelicals being Bible people, the instruction that it's better to be single (whatever that means) eventually surfaces and is applied, albeit sometimes clumsily IME. And as I said, I feel like my university days at a flagship evangelical Anglican church were somewhat dominated by the whole discussion!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb] Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[qb] Except that they don't. Celibacy is viewed as the temporary blip before marriage unless you're unlucky enough to be gay. If celibacy was really valued as a calling from God (not to be applied to the whole of one group, and not to be forced or denied) then we'd be seeing an evangelical interpretation of the religious life.

---

But for people who desire marriage and children, celibacy is a temporary blip - or at least it's hoped to be temporary. I'm not sure that emphasizing the value of celibacy as a calling for some, helps those who wish to be married.

The thing I think evangelical Christianity in particular fails at, is being unwilling to deal in a mature fashion with the "gray" area of committed couples who want to be married but for personal/educational/career reasons need to delay it. In the US they tend to just push early marriage (and apparently at some UK universities as well according to this thread) which have a high failure rate in the long run. In my evo CoE world it's simply ignored. Certainly no one said anything to me when I started attending church even though I was living with my fiancé.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I guess in your church, your situation is "ignored" because by and large people don't like to comment on other people's sex lives unless invited to. I'm quite sure that there would be some advice proffered if you asked one of the clergy - or maybe you have done that?

---

quote:

---

Personally I just don't share your view that, in reality, living together is less commitment than being married. I see it as having all the risks of marriage without the promise of permanence. But I realise that our mileage varies at that point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I guess in your church, your situation is "ignored" because by and large people don't like to comment on other people's sex lives unless invited to. I'm quite sure that there would be some advice proffered if you asked one of the clergy - or maybe you have done that?

---

I came back to church six months before my wedding, so I didn't really think I needed advice. We had already taken the appropriate steps to "normalize" our situation.

---

quote:

---

Marriage is inherently more of a commitment because you have to file paperwork to enter into it and you have to do the same to get out of it. You have a ceremony in front of witnesses, so they are involved in it as well.

---

quote:

---

The thing I think evangelical Christianity in particular fails at, is being unwilling to deal in a mature fashion with the "gray" area of committed couples who want to be married but for personal/educational/career reasons need to delay it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.

---

It's pretty simple - the parties involve do not feel ready to be married! Perhaps for further education, or for work, or for fear of divorce. It doesn't really matter, does it? Why should people do something if they're not ready?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's better to be divorced in your early twenties than to be divorced in your early or mid-forties, like most people? More time to get over it and a bigger and more decent pool of potential new partners. Especially if you're a Christian woman.

---

quote:

---

I think it's ironic that in an era when most people simply want to follow their own council on these matters, young Christians are choosing to attend conservative churches that try to deny them that freedom - and then chafing against the restrictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well yes, clearly. But you seem to be saying the advice should be "well then, try living together." This is what is mysterious to me, not just from a Christian POV (although that is a factor TBH) but because there is no evidence living together before you are married helps your marriage be more successful.

---

quote:

---

A paper in the April issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, but presented early to the Council on Contemporary Families says that past studies have overstated the risk of divorce for cohabiting couples. Arielle Kuperberg, assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, says that the important characteristic is not whether people lived together first, but how old they were when they decided to share a front door.

“It turns out that cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce and probably never did,” says Kuperberg. “What leads to divorce is when people move in with someone – with or without a marriage license – before they have the maturity and experience to choose compatible partners and to conduct themselves in ways that can sustain a long-term relationship.”

So what’s the magic age? Kuperberg says it’s unwise to either move in or get married before the age of 23. But other family experts say that’s lowballing it. Economist Evelyn Lehrer (University of Illinois-Chicago) says the longer people wait past 23, the more likely a marriage is to stick. In fact, Lehrer’s analysis of longitudinal data shows that for every year a woman waits to get married, right up until her early 30s, she reduces her chances of divorce. It’s possible that woman may also be reducing her chances of marriage, but Lehrer’s research suggests later marriages, while less conventional, may be more robust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's better to be divorced in your early twenties than to be divorced in your early or mid-forties, like most people? More time to get over it and a bigger and more decent pool of potential new partners. Especially if you're a Christian woman.

---

It's better never to be divorced period.

---

quote:

---

I'm in a char-evo CoE network and as mentioned, no one ever had a word to say about my living situation before marriage. And I'm not the only one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.

---

quote:

---

There's already a more updated study from earlier this year showing that the previous link between premarital cohabitation and divorce was exaggerated, and that the real issues are age and socioeconomic status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well yes, clearly. But you seem to be saying the advice should be "well then, try living together." This is what is mysterious to me, not just from a Christian POV (although that is a factor TBH) but because there is no evidence living together before you are married helps your marriage be more successful.

---

I believe this to be generational and expect in 20 years among the university educated that there will be almost no difference in the divorce likelihood of couples based on premarital cohabitation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
The thing I'm still struggling with is why, if you want to get married and you're legally free to, you can't. Why you need to delay it.

---

It's pretty simple - the parties involve do not feel ready to be married! Perhaps for further education, or for work, or for fear of divorce. It doesn't really matter, does it? Why should people do something if they're not ready?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:


(Someone who suffered an over-long engagement because of Sensible Choices (that they wouldn't make again) writes)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe it's better to be divorced in your early twenties than to be divorced in your early or mid-forties, like most people? More time to get over it and a bigger and more decent pool of potential new partners. Especially if you're a Christian woman.

---

It's better never to be divorced period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's screwy, and it makes it hard to figure out how to engrave the ice cream forks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Right now it's hard to tell who's doing what.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sure. But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?

---

quote:

---

I mean, there are people who cohabit with the intent of permanence (sometimes only one of the couple has this intent)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.

---

The case is yet to be made (at least as far as I can see) that co-habiting is more ideal than either of these options.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.

---

The case is yet to be made (at least as far as I can see) that co-habiting is more ideal than either of these options.

---

There can't be a conclusive answer to this. But obviously for many people in many situations, co-habiting is more ideal than getting married to soon or living apart while dating for however long it takes to get to know the person well enough to be confident that marriage is the right choice (which could be years).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure this is obvious at all. Is the intimacy and sharing of marriage without the commitment of marriage really "obviously" better than saving the sharing of everything until you have actually decided you are able to do that? So it takes a long time? It should do to decide something with so much gravity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not sure this is obvious at all. Is the intimacy and sharing of marriage without the commitment of marriage really "obviously" better than saving the sharing of everything until you have actually decided you are able to do that? So it takes a long time? It should do to decide something with so much gravity.

---

For some people it must be, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

You seem to be saying that you can with certainty determine that co-habiting before marriage is bad for all couples in all situations. This can be a theological position of course, but practically I don't see how it works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I guess I'm saying both for theological reasons and those I have mentioned I don't think cohabiting is generally very good advice there. Of course lots of people do it - who can deny that - but I don't see any reason why recommending that over and above a long courtship or an "early" marriage is better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sure. But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?

---

I've not said anywhere that it's "no big deal."

When I got married around 200 people were there when we said vows. Such was not the case when we signed the lease to out first flat together. Those 200 people are witnesses to our promises and in our ceremony we had them all responding corporately that they would support us in our marriage.

This is a clear and obvious difference to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which basically leaves the option of a long courtship (without sharing homes) which may help clarify whether a relationship will work, but at the cost of additional housing expenses (which for recent graduates - just because it's the subject of the thread - may represent significant additional stresses on a relationship) and the frustration of limited opportunity for intimacy. Or, the option of jumping in with both feet and getting married. Probably neither are ideal.

---

The case is yet to be made (at least as far as I can see) that co-habiting is more ideal than either of these options.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think a long courtship (like ours) can also answer those questions for you, provided you are seeing one another in everyday humdrum settings. I mean, washing the car or pooper scooping the backyard, not just going out to eat or driving in for a weekend. We went grocery shopping together, co-taught classes, he taught me how to drive, i failed to teach him how to swim, we had huge fights over minor pissy things (like a purple stripe in my hair), I identified marijuana plants for him, etc. After three-four years we had a pretty clear understanding of what the problem areas were likely to be. And how NOT to handle them.

---

Four and a half years. I think probably the difference between my case and yours is that neither of us were 40 - we were both very young. Too young.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Nothing's fool proof. But for what little it's worth, I was eighteen when we began courting (he was just twice my age) and of the two of us, I suspect i was the more mature. Hope he isn't reading this!

But then, i was an eldest child of divorce and alcoholism. You grow up fast when you're responsible for the other kids. And you learn what you DON'T want in a spouse.

[ 03. October 2014, 04:48: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sure. But is it really SO MUCH worse for an early marriage to end in divorce than it is for an early co-habiting relationship to dissolve? Other than the legal entanglements of course. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why is one is considered SUCH a failure, but the other no big deal?

---

I've not said anywhere that it's "no big deal."

When I got married around 200 people were there when we said vows. Such was not the case when we signed the lease to out first flat together. Those 200 people are witnesses to our promises and in our ceremony we had them all responding corporately that they would support us in our marriage.

This is a clear and obvious difference to me.

---

I can't certainly see why that support might make the success of your relationship more likely. But that wasn't my question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:


In my social community anyway, the point when someone's significant other goes from romantic partner to "part of the family" is when they get married, or when they have a child together. Ending relationships like this therefore also tend to have a wider emotional effect among a family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:


In my social community anyway, the point when someone's significant other goes from romantic partner to "part of the family" is when they get married, or when they have a child together. Ending relationships like this therefore also tend to have a wider emotional effect among a family.

---

I think my view is that you have already effectively made the social contract without the legal bit by having a "marriage-like" relationship, hence the break up tends to be just as painful. Someone in my extended family just got married to their long term partner after several years of living together, shared care for his kids, coming together to family events, inclusion of her kids into family gatherings, etc. If they were to split up now it will be really devastating for the family - it would have been just as upsetting several months ago pre-marriage.

That's why I would struggle to commend co-habiting - because people tend to see it as "marriage-lite" - a step towards the commitment of marriage but not that committed. In fact you seem to get all the shared life but without the security - for you or the wider network of relationships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I feel like we are all talking at cross purposes.

No one can know if co-habiting is better or worse than marriage because it differs from couple to couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:


The answers I'm getting seem to be trying to "prove" that there is no material difference, but it's impossible to "prove" how people feel about their relationships.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0