This weekend my wife and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary. Had we chosen to cohabit rather than marry, would the forty years have been the same? According to the Pew Research Center (“The Decline of Marriage and the Rise of New Families”, November 2010), “since 1960, the number of cohabiting couples in the United States has increased fifteen-fold.” In other words, more than 70% of couples in the United States now cohabit before marriage.
I understand some persons choose to cohabit because they fear failure in marriage – hence the need to get to know each other better and to see whether they get along well enough to embark on marriage. Others believe, because of the cost of hosting a wedding, it is more practical to begin to share life with a loving companion. Some even believe since it is only a legal document that makes the difference, they could opt for cohabiting.
Forty years ago we did not have enough money for the wedding of our dreams – we both graduated from college the day before we got married. We did not have enough time to become familiar with our differing cultures –we were from two different countries and got to know each other during our undergrad studies. Based on the rational used in some circles today, we seemed ideally poised to cohabit, as a way to prepare for marriage.
Research data indicate that some 62% of young adults believe that “living together with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid an eventual divorce.” However, people today don’t have to wonder how living together might work out, because we can learn from the experiences of those who have already tried.
For instance, research confirms that cohabiting lacks meaningful mutual commitment. The absence of meaningful commitment produces insecurity, a critical ingredient in any trusting relationship. When relationships lack commitment, extended family members are reluctant to provide caring and meaningful support.
Veteran social scientist James Wilson was correct when he said that “marriage requires more up-front and ongoing investment from the spouses and their extended families – neither the man nor the woman has any strong incentive to invest heavily in the union.” In essence, marriage is a commitment to longevity, built on mutual trust. So unlike cohabiting, which is built on expedience.
In his book, The Ring Makes All the Difference, Glen Stanton contends that “according to the best research on the subject, cohabiting relationships are far less healthy than marital relationships.” Jan Stets concurs. As one of the first scholars to make a serious study of cohabiting relationships, Stets observed that “cohabiting couples, compared to married couples, have lower relationship quality, lower stability and a higher level of disagreements.”
Interestingly, cohabiting couples report more fights or violence, as well as lower levels of fairness in their relationships and happiness with them. Researchers also confirm that cohabiting couples have breakup rates five times higher than those who are married. Actually, cohabiting couples who marry have a 50-80% higher likelihood of divorcing that married couples who never cohabited (Demography 29 [1992]).
Most couples, married or not, expect sexual faithfulness for themselves and their partners. However, the National Sex Survey reports that live-in boyfriends are nearly four times more likely than husbands to cheat on their partners. And while women are generally more faithful, cohabiting women are eight times more likely than wives to cheat (Journal of Marriage and Family 62 [2000]).
Let’s talk money – research over the past few decades consistently finds that marriage is a wealth-building institution. Married people typically earn and save more than their cohabiting counterparts. For instance, The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6%, it jumps to 31% for children with a cohabiting mother and father. Actually, cohabiting couples act more like roommates than as a team in handling finances. This is obvious when one considers the experimental nature of cohabiting relationships.
Long before the findings of social scientists on cohabiting relationships, the Bible spoke strongly against familial relationships that were not built on mutual trust and honor. The frequent references to adultery and fornication speak volumes. The idea is to avoid illicit sexual relationships. Both in Old and New Testaments, the terms are never associated with desirable behavior. The consequences are always disastrous to all the parties involved.
The truth is, cohabitation puts adults at risk for marital failure, and puts children at risk for neglect and abuse. Interestingly, both science and the Bible agree that marriage is good and cohabitation is never a good idea.
SUGGESTED READING:
The Ring Makes All the Difference – Glenn Stanton
The Power of Commitment – Scott Stanley
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Lessons for Dad from the Kids
When invited to have breakfast with me some ten years ago, my son replied, “Me and you alone? What is there to talk about?” However, some years later, after having breakfast with him alone, he phoned his mother to report that he had just experienced the best two hours of his life.
A few weeks ago, another invitation was extended to my son – he was asked to be my associate in a team-teaching experiment for the Father’s Day service at church – to this invitation he eagerly answered in the affirmative. What made the difference ten years later? Many things, and this Father’s Day weekend affords me the opportunity to reflect on some of them. In other words, here are some lessons to a father from a son.
Much of the literature available on fathers, deal with the impact of fathers on children. One of the few resources that challenge us to hear from the children was written by Yale University researcher, Dr. Kyle Pruett. In his book Fatherneed, Pruett addresses the reciprocal benefits of father-child relationships.
Pruett contends that “research from the child’s side of the aisle shows that kids yearn deeply for dads. Infants in the first months of life can tell the differences between a mother’s and a father’s style of care. Furthermore, children thrive when they experience those different styles throughout all the developmental stages of life. Children and fathers hunger for each other early, often, and for a very long time.”
Much of this I took for granted until I read this recent birthday card from my son: “You are the only example of a godly man I’ve ever been able to follow my whole life. You’ve consistently been a source of encouragement, support, honesty and more to me and that’s something I can’t replace.”
“I still remember,” he wrote, “how you’d sneak-in to my games to support me, and though I wasn’t mature enough at the time to appreciate it, your coming meant the world to me.”
Interestingly, my son’s reflections were not based on the sermons and speeches he heard, but rather the visible acts he saw. Although frightening, it is true, our audiences remember more of who we are than what we say.
I pray that my son will continue to be aware of this as he fathers his two-year old son. Although there are areas of similarity, fathers make a different impact on children than mothers do. Studies confirm that as early as eight weeks of age, kids can anticipate the complex differences in their mother’s and father’s caretaking and handling styles.
In addressing the subject of adaptive and problem-solving abilities of children, Dr. Pruett argued that “infants who have been well fathered during the first eighteen to twenty-four months of life, are more secure than those who were not in exploring the world around them, and they do so with vigor and interest.”
That interest to explore I already see with my two-year old grandson. I believe much of it comes from the hours my son invests playing and working with him. Interestingly, in displaying his language skills, one of the first words our grandson attempted was “ball”. He is not intimidated by electronic gadgets – he handles controls just like his dad. As we attempt to child-proof our home we are having to secure many of the items his dad uses.
We often wondered though, about our grandson’s eagerness to care and participate in projects around the house. At his age, these skills would not have been overtly taught. However, researchers are now telling us that “the strongest predictor of a child’s empathic concern for others in adult life is a high level of paternal child care.”
Ross Parke, a preeminent fatherhood researcher from California, studied how a child’s physical development responds to involved fathering. “An infant’s scores on assessments of intellectual and motor, or physical competencies are higher if fathers are actively involved during the first six months of the child’s life. The father’s tendency to activate his child in their interactions encourages and supports the child’s pleasurable discovery of his own body.”
Although much of this commentary is on the father-son relationship, one should not think that that is the extent of a father’s influence. Because of space limitations and the occasion of Father’s Day, the father-son emphasis becomes obvious.
However, what is also obvious and frightening, is the great impact fathers have on their children. The apostle Paul was correct, Fathers should not exasperate their children, “instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). When viewed positively, the biblical text is acknowledging the extent of the father’s influence to encourage and empower children. What an awesome responsibility.
On this Father’s Day, it is my prayer that God would bless every man who has had the opportunity to play the role of father in another’s life.
A few weeks ago, another invitation was extended to my son – he was asked to be my associate in a team-teaching experiment for the Father’s Day service at church – to this invitation he eagerly answered in the affirmative. What made the difference ten years later? Many things, and this Father’s Day weekend affords me the opportunity to reflect on some of them. In other words, here are some lessons to a father from a son.
Much of the literature available on fathers, deal with the impact of fathers on children. One of the few resources that challenge us to hear from the children was written by Yale University researcher, Dr. Kyle Pruett. In his book Fatherneed, Pruett addresses the reciprocal benefits of father-child relationships.
Pruett contends that “research from the child’s side of the aisle shows that kids yearn deeply for dads. Infants in the first months of life can tell the differences between a mother’s and a father’s style of care. Furthermore, children thrive when they experience those different styles throughout all the developmental stages of life. Children and fathers hunger for each other early, often, and for a very long time.”
Much of this I took for granted until I read this recent birthday card from my son: “You are the only example of a godly man I’ve ever been able to follow my whole life. You’ve consistently been a source of encouragement, support, honesty and more to me and that’s something I can’t replace.”
“I still remember,” he wrote, “how you’d sneak-in to my games to support me, and though I wasn’t mature enough at the time to appreciate it, your coming meant the world to me.”
Interestingly, my son’s reflections were not based on the sermons and speeches he heard, but rather the visible acts he saw. Although frightening, it is true, our audiences remember more of who we are than what we say.
I pray that my son will continue to be aware of this as he fathers his two-year old son. Although there are areas of similarity, fathers make a different impact on children than mothers do. Studies confirm that as early as eight weeks of age, kids can anticipate the complex differences in their mother’s and father’s caretaking and handling styles.
In addressing the subject of adaptive and problem-solving abilities of children, Dr. Pruett argued that “infants who have been well fathered during the first eighteen to twenty-four months of life, are more secure than those who were not in exploring the world around them, and they do so with vigor and interest.”
That interest to explore I already see with my two-year old grandson. I believe much of it comes from the hours my son invests playing and working with him. Interestingly, in displaying his language skills, one of the first words our grandson attempted was “ball”. He is not intimidated by electronic gadgets – he handles controls just like his dad. As we attempt to child-proof our home we are having to secure many of the items his dad uses.
We often wondered though, about our grandson’s eagerness to care and participate in projects around the house. At his age, these skills would not have been overtly taught. However, researchers are now telling us that “the strongest predictor of a child’s empathic concern for others in adult life is a high level of paternal child care.”
Ross Parke, a preeminent fatherhood researcher from California, studied how a child’s physical development responds to involved fathering. “An infant’s scores on assessments of intellectual and motor, or physical competencies are higher if fathers are actively involved during the first six months of the child’s life. The father’s tendency to activate his child in their interactions encourages and supports the child’s pleasurable discovery of his own body.”
Although much of this commentary is on the father-son relationship, one should not think that that is the extent of a father’s influence. Because of space limitations and the occasion of Father’s Day, the father-son emphasis becomes obvious.
However, what is also obvious and frightening, is the great impact fathers have on their children. The apostle Paul was correct, Fathers should not exasperate their children, “instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). When viewed positively, the biblical text is acknowledging the extent of the father’s influence to encourage and empower children. What an awesome responsibility.
On this Father’s Day, it is my prayer that God would bless every man who has had the opportunity to play the role of father in another’s life.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Marriage in Crisis: Why the Silence?
In February, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Chicago about strengthening the middle class. He stated that rebuilding “the ladders of opportunity for everybody willing to climb them” does not start with the White House, the States, or the Public Schools – rebuilding “starts at home.”
“There’s no more important ingredient for success,” the President suggested, “nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families – which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”
The President is correct - there is a correlation between stable homes and stable societies. This truth is strongly supported in research done by The National Marriage Project (NMP), a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and interdisciplinary initiative located at the University of Virginia.
The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cultural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to increase marital quality and stability. In preparing this commentary, I depended heavily on NMP data.
Annual surveys continue to report that high schoolers plan to marry one day and that having a good marriage is “extremely important” to them.
At the same time, we recognize the signs of change. The rising median age of first marriage, now 27 for women and 29 for men, is linked to a rapid rise in cohabitation prior to marriage and a dramatic increase in the number of children born outside of marriage. A growing number of couples, both young and old, now live together with no plans to marry eventually.
For first marriages recently formed, between 40 and 50 percent are likely to end in divorce. The divorce rate for remarriages is higher than that for first marriages. Yet amid these familiar trends, something astonishing has happened.
In “Middle America,” defined here as the nearly 60 percent of Americans aged 25 to 60 who have a high school but not a four-year college degree, marriage is rapidly slipping away. As historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead recently wrote, “Four decades ago, these moderately educated Americans led the kind of family lives that looked much like the family lives of the more highly educated. They were just as likely to be happily married, and just as likely to be in first marriages. Today, they are significantly less likely to achieve a stable marriage, or even to form one in the first place.”
The plight of this population who once married in high proportions and formed families within marriage—and who still aspire to marriage but increasingly are unable to achieve it—is the social challenge for our times. And virtually no one is talking about it.
How dramatic is the change? As recently as the 1980s, only 13% of the children of moderately-educated mothers were born outside of marriage - by the late 2000s, that figure had risen to 44%. And earlier this year, a striking threshold was crossed. Based on a recent Child Trends analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics, a front-page story in the New York Times revealed that in the U.S. today among women under 30, more than half of births—53% - now occur outside of marriage.
As a nation we know of the benefits of marriage. We are inundated with statistics confirming that marriage sets the stage for happier, healthier and more stable living. The benefits of marriage are not only personal, they facilitate better societies. Then, “why is no one talking about it?”
Within recent years we have spent more time talking about redefining marriage rather than strengthening what we know works. We need more than the media to participate in the process of restoring rather than redefining marriage.
In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama talked about ending marriage penalties for low-income couples. Actually, there are numerous disincentives to marriage for people who receive public benefits such as food stamps and housing allowances, sending the wrong message about marriage to low-income Americans.
In addition, we need to create a waiting period for divorcing couples combined with education about the option of reconciliation; and building upon marriage and relationship skills curricula. We’ve got to be more intentional if we sincerely believe a broad and sustainable middle class begins at home.
Interestingly, long before social scientists discovered the value of marriage in society, the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes concluded, “...two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work...” (4:9).
(I deeply regret my long absence from this weekly commentary. Thanks so much for your patience and expressions of concern.)
“There’s no more important ingredient for success,” the President suggested, “nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families – which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood.”
The President is correct - there is a correlation between stable homes and stable societies. This truth is strongly supported in research done by The National Marriage Project (NMP), a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and interdisciplinary initiative located at the University of Virginia.
The Project’s mission is to provide research and analysis on the health of marriage in America, to analyze the social and cultural forces shaping contemporary marriage, and to identify strategies to increase marital quality and stability. In preparing this commentary, I depended heavily on NMP data.
Annual surveys continue to report that high schoolers plan to marry one day and that having a good marriage is “extremely important” to them.
At the same time, we recognize the signs of change. The rising median age of first marriage, now 27 for women and 29 for men, is linked to a rapid rise in cohabitation prior to marriage and a dramatic increase in the number of children born outside of marriage. A growing number of couples, both young and old, now live together with no plans to marry eventually.
For first marriages recently formed, between 40 and 50 percent are likely to end in divorce. The divorce rate for remarriages is higher than that for first marriages. Yet amid these familiar trends, something astonishing has happened.
In “Middle America,” defined here as the nearly 60 percent of Americans aged 25 to 60 who have a high school but not a four-year college degree, marriage is rapidly slipping away. As historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead recently wrote, “Four decades ago, these moderately educated Americans led the kind of family lives that looked much like the family lives of the more highly educated. They were just as likely to be happily married, and just as likely to be in first marriages. Today, they are significantly less likely to achieve a stable marriage, or even to form one in the first place.”
The plight of this population who once married in high proportions and formed families within marriage—and who still aspire to marriage but increasingly are unable to achieve it—is the social challenge for our times. And virtually no one is talking about it.
How dramatic is the change? As recently as the 1980s, only 13% of the children of moderately-educated mothers were born outside of marriage - by the late 2000s, that figure had risen to 44%. And earlier this year, a striking threshold was crossed. Based on a recent Child Trends analysis of data from the National Center for Health Statistics, a front-page story in the New York Times revealed that in the U.S. today among women under 30, more than half of births—53% - now occur outside of marriage.
As a nation we know of the benefits of marriage. We are inundated with statistics confirming that marriage sets the stage for happier, healthier and more stable living. The benefits of marriage are not only personal, they facilitate better societies. Then, “why is no one talking about it?”
Within recent years we have spent more time talking about redefining marriage rather than strengthening what we know works. We need more than the media to participate in the process of restoring rather than redefining marriage.
In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama talked about ending marriage penalties for low-income couples. Actually, there are numerous disincentives to marriage for people who receive public benefits such as food stamps and housing allowances, sending the wrong message about marriage to low-income Americans.
In addition, we need to create a waiting period for divorcing couples combined with education about the option of reconciliation; and building upon marriage and relationship skills curricula. We’ve got to be more intentional if we sincerely believe a broad and sustainable middle class begins at home.
Interestingly, long before social scientists discovered the value of marriage in society, the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes concluded, “...two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work...” (4:9).
(I deeply regret my long absence from this weekly commentary. Thanks so much for your patience and expressions of concern.)