|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evangelical students & early marriage
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
Absolutely. 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 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.
I can't comment on it either, but am going to dare to speculate, with the recognition it is just that and offer to be corrected by those more knowledgable.
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.
There may or may not be some difference in the degree to which the victims of either teaching suffer feelings of "injustice"-- there's probably so much variation there it would be impossible to generalize. But I'm guessing the feeling of loss and grief would be comparable (having only known the one-- early marriage followed by divorce-- but not the other-- co-habitation dissolution).
Either way, I think wat is needed is a more robust theology of suffering, where we're not expecting a good (as in pleasant, happy) life in return for obedience (in whatever form) OR in return for "smart choices". As you suggested, both those things probably increase your odds, but neither is a guarantee. I'd like to see us offering a good, robust sexuality that recognizes the intricacies of intimacy, the emotional and spiritual risks as well as physical, and doesn't promise an easy path but gives young people the tools to navigate the trial-and-error process of forming long-term relationships.
[ 27. September 2014, 21:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm thinking that a person who marries before they're mature enough to realize that marriage is bloody hard work--well, that person is not old enough to get married, period. Whether they're eighteen or eighty-five.
I married at 22, though I knew we were headed that way from age 19 at least. I don't think I was too young. My husband was 40.
And yes, we desperately wanted to put That There, but refrained from doing so, and more importantly, refrained from thinking that marriage was all about simply having the permission slip to put That There.
By the time we married, we had a good foundation laid. And we were both old enough not to think ourselves entitled to a happy ending just because we did X or Y. Twenty-five years later, things are good. Thank God.
[ 27. September 2014, 21:17: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
anoesis: 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.
I don't think it's just confined to evangelical circles. I suspect it's one of the things driving the whole overblown 'wedding industry' - only for non-churchgoers it seems to be more a case of 'If we get this one day perfect our marriage will be perfect too.'
I agree it's horseshit.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
Yes, I agree. It's not intentional on anyone's part-- consumerism and individualism are just so much a part of our culture, the air we breathe, that it influences everything, including the way we read Scripture and talk about marriage & sexuality and just about everything. Which only makes it all the more insidious.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
This is not the co-habitation argument - at least not among my group of friends, the majority of whom lived with exactly one person before marriage and then married said person, before having children. This is the analogue for non-CU people as among the university-educated this is fairly typical.
(Just to clarify as I'm not speaking about couples who purposely eschew marriage - I can't speak to their logic.)
The ending of a marriage doesn't just break the hearts of the couple involved - there were witnesses to the wedding and family connections made that are also broken upon divorce.
Additionally most of the reason we millenials delay marriage is that we can't afford to have children. Once couples are ready for children they tend to marry. I lived with seekingmister for 3 years before we got engaged and as soon as the ring was on my finger relatives began pressuring us for children. This is not something co-habiters tend to experience in the same way. 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.
And among my generation there are a lot of emotional scars from the fallout of divorced parents who married young and after a few kids realized they hated each other. Co-habiting seems like a better way to determine if you're suitable before bringing children into the picture.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
I think I have mentioned this before - in my own con-evo experience (suburban, lots of young families - not a student church really though had plenty of student-age people) the pressure to marry was more about having a family and children. Or at least, it seemed that way to me. There is definitely a pairing-up culture within con-evo churches, both charismatic and conservative/Reformed.
Picking up on what St Punk said, as a young person in such a church there was no support for anyone choosing to stay single in the long-term - singleness was framed as short-term chastity before marriage, rather than something people could choose as a legitimate alternative to marriage. It caused me a lot of unhappiness because it made me think that I should be in a relationship, but at the same time confused me because deep down I knew I didn't really want that.
But then, similar things happened re me thinking about what I wanted to do in life - I wanted to work for the church but didn't want to be a youth worker (the job of choice for Good Evangelical Girls), so I was utterly confused as to what I wanted. The issue isn't that the 'normal course of events' is bad, it's that it's such a narrow range of options that are presented as being 'correct' choices. I see a reluctance to think outside the box.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Co-habiting seems like a better way to determine if you're suitable before bringing children into the picture.
This seems reasonable, but stats seem to show that couples who co-habit first don't, in general, have more stable marriages. (Some do, of course.)
Whether Christian cohabitation-to-marriage unions are more likely to last than those entered into by the population in general is an interesting question. It's possible that Christians co-habit with the goal of marriage in mind, whereas other couples are more likely to see co-habitation as an end in itself, and only consider marriage later down the line, if at all. I don't know.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
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.
Anybody who does see it as an option had better stay with cohabitation. They clearly aren't ready for a permanent commitment. Their priorities are still with the self, not the couple.
[And before anybody yells at me, I know perfectly well that self-fulfillment and all that is important. And that there needs to be give-and-take between both partners. But a marriage ought not to be disposable, like an apartment in the wrong city when a great job pops up 500 miles away. It's worth more than that.]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sorry, do I have your story right - your church expected you to get married and so you left?
Over the ten years I worshiped there, I was in a community where where marriage was implicitly seen as the norm for adult Christians - this was not a matter of formal teaching, but of social expectations. I wanted to marry and would have done if I had had the opportunity. Over those ten years, I was repeatedly told by married members of the congregation that it was God's plan for me to marry, but the congregation's single women were not interested in me.
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.
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
John, what a grim story ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
I agree with you - which is why these people aren't getting married! They don't know what their futures hold and so getting married is not the right choice for them.
I've seen marriages in which couples who were perfectly aligned were stressed to the core - and in some cases ended - when someone had a career opportunity in another country. In some cases the "trailing spouse" is bitter that he/she had to give up their friends, family, career. In other cases they try long-distance marriages and drift apart. A colleague of mine was offered an extension to a 2-year posting abroad and his wife said she would divorce him if he accepted it because she was so miserable.
So I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking "It might be wrong to marry this person if I'm thinking about doing a PhD in California while he is an EU-regulation specialist (or some other job that is tied to Europe)." For couples who meet in university this is an increasingly common situation. 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.
Couples can plan and discuss in advance all they want before marriage. The test comes when it actually happens. And you can't fail the test if you don't take it at all - hence delaying marriage.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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.
Or left them in the homeland for long periods, separated by weeks-long sea voyages and a slow postal service.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: 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?
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. They are atheists and have no plans to have children; their reason for getting married was that it made their lives easier. They became each other's next of kin, for example.
As for the pressure from family and friends to have children... well, that's not the fault of marriage itself. It's a natural consequence of the fact that most couples nowadays don't bother to get married until they start planning to have children.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Not a generational gap. A relative in my parents' generation lived apart from her husband for work, and when she went to visit him in his posting found that a mistress had moved in.
In my own generation I saw two Christian couples I was at college with - in both cases the wife was a student at the university and the husband moved along with her and worked while she studied. And in both cases they were divorced by graduation. So despite an initial willingness to move across the country to be with their wives, the marriages still broke down.
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The problem is we're dealing with anecdotes. For every marriage that's broken down under a set of circumstances there are others that have succeeded. Of course, we can't run parallel histories and ask if the marriage that broke down would have stayed together if the couple had spent more time together before getting married, made different decisions about career compromises etc. Maybe those marriage were simply never going to work, no matter what.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
But we do have data:
CDC
On page 16 you can see the stats.
The probability of a marriage's survival based on the age of the bride after 15 years is:
Under 20: 46%
20-24: 60%
25 and older: 73%
For men it's similar:
Under 20: 46%
20-24: 60%
25 and older: 68%
This is a pretty clear indication that young marriages have a much higher failure rates.
I gave some reasons why I think this is the case - fear of divorce among young generations, economic uncertainty meaning one has to be flexible for job/educational opportunities, view that marriage = children and no one under 30 with student debt can afford children - but the stats bear out that something doesn't work well in those marriages.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
Aren't those stats American? and the OP is about the UK....
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: 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.
What did I say that sounded as if I believed it did?
I know couples who got married when they were in their early 20s and are still together*. I know couples who seem like they're joined at the hip and others who appear to have very little in common. I know two other couples besides the one I mentioned who had to live apart temporarily for work reasons and ended up divorced, so yes it is a difficult situation; but not impossible to survive.
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.
*my own marriage probably doesn't count; Other Half was over 25 when we got married, although I wasn't.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Of course it doesn't mean the marriage will fail - but it's more likely to.
I cohabitated before marriage and the stats say my marriage is more likely to fail. While I don't think that applies to me personally I am not going to pretend the data doesn't say otherwise.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
thank you
I don't suppose there are any stats comparing early-marrieds with same age cohabitors for relationship breakdown?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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?
Here's a paper regarding UK stats showing that married parents are more likely to be together at the child's 5th birthday than unmarried cohabiting parents.
IFS
The problem is that they use "cohabiting at time of birth" which doesn't speak to the length or seriousness of the relationship. They could have moved in together because of the pregnancy, for example.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
We have discussed this before. They do.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
Whoops - I wasn't referring to your post specifically, but the entire thread. Apologies.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
I thought I did - apologies. Marriage involves the state and community, the couple making promises in front of witnesses including loved ones and government-approved agents. Ending a marriage therefore has a wider impact than ending a non-marriage relationship.
It has no difference emotionally I'm sure - heartbreak is heartbreak - but it's inherently not the same to end a co-habiting relationship with no children, as it is to end a marriage with no children.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
Fair enough, I admit that I struggle not to generalise about evangelicals and I apologise. Which evangelical communities? I can only think of the Jesus Army (and I would call them a cult so not really a positive example) and the evangelical Anglican religious community.
I do think that how celibacy is viewed for Dead Horse issues harms how it's seen generally though - even when it is seen positively, it will still carry the baggage of the Dead Horse implications. For churches with a longer and more concrete history of celibacy and religious communities, I see this less. 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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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!
Oh I would totally count them - there are similar set ups in the Methodist church, for instance. I think they are good things and could do with more promotion (as could Protestant mainline ones and traditional religious communities), and inter-denominational promotion/dialogue at that.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
IIRC David Watson used to describe both marriage and celebacy as being spiritual gifts (not con evo but hey).
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
I'm not sure I would equate "calling to celibacy" to "not wishing to get married." But anyway...
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?
It also varies from couple to couple, so I'm not sure you can give general advice to people in this situation. 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.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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:
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.
I'm not sure what you are objecting to, exactly.
On an emotional level, any relationship is a commitment and the end of one can be extremely painful regardless of its length or status.
Practically, ending a marriage is more complicated than ending a non-marriage relationship when children are not involved. 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. If you belong to some churches a marriage is almost impossible to get out of (e.g. RCC) so that makes it even more of a commitment in that regard.
No one I know lives with someone without marrying them to avoid heartache. It's honestly not an idea I'd come across before reading it in this thread.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
Yes, sorry, I wasn't trying to pry or criticise, merely to say that church's perceived silence on this issue - what to say to committed couples who aren't married - is often because people don't want to ask impertinent questions about people's living situations.
On the living together thing - I think my view would be similar to Lamb Chopped's up the thread - that being in a relationship that is genuinely committed will mean one partner or the other, or both, making significant career sacrifices. Marriage is the vehicle for making that commitment with the security of someone else's commitment to you.
As you said, the break up of any relationship is painful. If that's so, I'm not sure what problem is solved by saying "Practical considerations rule out marriage so we'll just live together." Surely all this does is make the heartache more likely, because you haven't promised to be committed to each other, or to sacrifice other considerations to live in the same place?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: 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.
That's true. I think I understand where you're coming from now.
Of course, most of the above would also apply to buying a house together, but presumably if you are both expecting to move somewhere else in the not too distant future you'd be renting anyway.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
seekingsister:
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.
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.
I appreciate you'll find that frustrating, because you've given some examples up thread, but to me that just sounds like there's something more important to one person than the relationship (which is a reason not to get married), not that circumstances mean it's impossible. You might not be getting married in your perfect circumstances, but if you're so committed that you'll stay together through the whatever-means-you-can't-get-married then surely you can get married and still stay together. If you're not that committed, then you don't really want to get married.
At the very least you can get engaged ...
Or am I just suffering from a failure of imagination?
(Someone who suffered an over-long engagement because of Sensible Choices (that they wouldn't make again) writes)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, I don't really understand it either, though I've got as far as understanding that some people feel that way.
Every marriage is a leap in the dark. It's just easier in some cases than others to pretend that you know what you're doing.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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?
I have a problem with churches trying to tell couples who say "we love each other and are committed but feel like we need more time" that they should just bite the bullet and get married because they can sort it out as long as "Christ is at the center of the marriage." Because it's not true. God does not promise us that our marriages will last or be happy or healthy. There are evangelical churches out there peddling this nonsense and it leads to the marriages of my two friends that I mentioned, who ended up divorced by 22 thanks to the well-intentioned guidance of their pastors.
My opinion is that it's no more sinful to be intimate with a committed partner that you intend to marry, than it is to be divorced and remarried 2-3 times but be pure as driven snow prior to the wedding night. The latter seems to make a mockery of marriage in a way that the former doesn't.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Ah, OK. I can get with that. It's just that I would say those aren't people who want to be married, they are people who are thinking about and exploring whether they want to be married ("going out", "courting", "dating" whatever you want to label it).
So it's not about delaying getting married even though they want to, it's about not being sure in the first place. In which case yes, don't get married!
Unless (lightbulb) I'm mis-reading the thing about "want to get married" and you're meaning these are people who want to get married some day, to someone, as part of their desires for life, but don't necessarily want to get married right now, to this particular other?
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
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. Yet there are mainstream churches that welcome both evangelicals and non-evangelicals and make no attempt to lay down the law on when people should marry!
Interestingly, I understand that some of the black-led evangelical churches are more tolerant of cohabitation than some of the white ones are. There might be a lesson to be learnt here about flexibility and the need to understand the realities that people face. TBH, I think pragmatism plays a part in whether or how churches change the rules on these issues.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
