Divorce effect on evolving attitudes of never-married singles

I have a stack of books on my desk at the office that came out in the 1980s and ‘90s for churches trying to address the growing singles population in their church. In these books I see the beginnings of the ideas on singleness and marriage that have become today’s conventional wisdom. Ideas such as:

• Single people can be more spiritual because they don’t have the distraction of family responsibilities
• Singles shouldn’t feel pressured into marriage
• Marriage can’t complete you
• Churches shouldn’t be so family-centric
• Singleness is a gift that is scripturally-affirmed, reasonable alternative to marriage

All these concepts have elements of truth. But I believe they’ve now been taken too far. Consider, we have people believing:

• Single people are actually spiritually superior to married people—a boast that Paul refuted in his day
• That any encouragement or motivation for singles to consider marriage is undue pressure
• That marriage does not play a God-given role in meeting some of our primary needs
• That any effort to hold up God’s plan for family in a church is a slam on singles
• That all singles have the "gift of singleness" and can carry around a spiritual trump card excusing them of any and all lifestyle choices and attitudes against marriage on the basis of the affirmation afforded to them by the Christian community

How did we get to this point?

How did we get to such a standoff between singles and families in churches? A key thing to remember is that the spike in singleness over the past 30 years came not only from a delay in marriage by young adults, but also by a spike in singleness due to an explosion in divorce.

Churches crafting messages to singles during the ‘80s and ‘90s were most often trying to respond to both categories of singles: divorced singles and never marrieds. My concern is that the needs of young adults who have never married have often been addressed with a script too similar to the one prepared for those who were “single again.” In too many circles the script for those who are single again include negative comments about marriage that create an extra level of anxiety and skepticism among never marrieds.

I’m having a hard time tracking it down, but I read an article by a twentysomething girl in Australia a while back who said she and her friends were hopeful about marriage but felt that her parents’ generation was trying to weigh them down with all kinds of warnings and weariness about marriage based on the hurt and bitterness they experienced from divorce.

While it’s understandable that parents would feel the need to warn young adults about the pain that can come from failed marriages (as if the kids of these breakups don’t already feel it), you almost get the sense that some are turning the old cliché on its head and saying that it’s best to never love at all than to go through the experience of love and loss.

Singles who are already surrounded by an anti-marriage culture and anxious because of the divorces they grew up around are finding even more pessimism and caution from churches who are aching from divorce wounds and don’t want to risk the hope that their young adults just might have the potential to forge good marriages.

More on Celibacy

Thanks to Jake for pointing out that the link to MacArthur's teaching on 1 Corinthians 7 was incomplete. Following are the links to the rest of the series:

1 Corinthians 7:8-16
1 Corinthians 7:17-24
1 Corinthians 7:25-31
1 Corinthians 7:32-40

I think you'll see from the full series that the verse explaining why every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband ("since there is so much immorality," v. 2) is at least as strong as the reason young virgins should remain that way.

One look at our culture is weighty confirmation that the immorality problem remains.

Also, a word about gortexgrrl's exegesis. This is the first I have heard about the word idios in the context of 1 Corinthians 7. I have previously only heard the Greek word charisma. Not being a biblical scholar myself, I tend to defer to trustworthy experts or tools. For the sake of clarity and accuracy, it would help to know the origins of your interpretation on this one.

I did do a quick search in a Greek Lexicon for the word gift. There are nine versions in the New Testament. Though none of them are idios.

Finally, a word about the question of whether a gift of celibacy equals the cessation, or at least significant lessening, of sexual desire. It's incomplete to read 1 Corinthians 7 without also studying what Jesus said in Matthew 19. It seems to me that His choice of the word eunuch is so graphic as to be significant. If being celibate was not dependent on some lessening of the sex drive, why use a word that means "to castrate or neuter a man." He's talking about being cut off (literally or figuratively) from the sex drive.

This is a reminder that we all drift toward proof-texting -- it's just easy to stop searching the Scriptures and be satisfied when we find a passage that proves our point. What's needed is the full counsel of God's revealed Word.

Unpacking Celibacy

It's great to see such a lively and engaging discussion going on among our faithful blog community. Thank you for taking the time to think deeply about these important issues and for contributing thoughtful comments. It's too bad you don't all live in the same city -- these conversations would be even better, I suspect, over coffee.

Now for the recent debate about what Paul really meant in 1 Corinthians 7. It's not surprising to see so many opinions on this passage. It's one that remains hotly debated. And why shouldn't it? There's a lot at stake based on how you interpret what he wrote.

I'd like to recommend the transcript of a CD set that we listened to recently by John MacArthur. This well-respected Bible scholar provides the valuable service of explaining what it was Paul was reacting to (1 Corinthians 7:1 begins, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote ..."). The church at Corinth had rasied some questions and concerns to which Paul was responding. That's helpful to know when trying to make sense of what's better, celibacy or marriage. And what's the gift. And who should stay single. And what being single is for. These are important things to know given the state of our culture when it comes to marriage.

Even though I hold strong opinions on these matters, I'm prayerful that God will continue to broaden my understanding of what's true. The goal, afterall, is His perspective. MacArthur's teachings are a part of that process.

Difference between believers and unbelievers?

Commenting on the post about the "Test driving" article, one reader wondered if Candice and I have a tendency to generalize--assuming Christians are guilty of actions and attitudes that are primarily problems among non-believers. This is a reasonable concern. It's something that often happens in an environment where there's not a broad range of research available differentiating Christian men and women from their secular peers.

I will say that research by Dr. Brad Wilcox at the University of Virginia and past research by The National Marriage Projet (see the 2004 State of Our Unions report with the essay "The Marrying Kind: Which Men Marry and Why") do make it clear that religious men are more likely to commit and marry well than non-relgious men. This truth is not adequately appreciated or sufficiently encouraged.

Our concern, however, is for the men (and women) who say Christ is the Lord of their lives but still have actions and attitudes that are not very different from what Paul describes in the book of Romans as "the pattern of this world." This is a theme Paul reiterates in several of his letters to fellow believers.

While it's a hopeful sign that Christians are not identical to the world on many key issues, it's still troubling how they seem so close behind in problems such as pornography, divorce, sexual activity and cohabitation (I have studies for each of these on my desk at the office showing gaps between Christians and non-Christians anywhere between 50% difference and neck-and-neck).

Perhaps the most troubling comparison stat is the one George Barna captured showing only 8% of Protestants have a Biblical worldview compared to 5% of the adult general population (see study at Barna Website). This is the most likely reason that Christians are so similar to their secular peers in many studies. It's evidence of a lack of solid Biblical teaching in many of our churches these days.

Even while we wait for better research to help us gauge whether secular problems are also significant within the Christian community, I still think it's fair to start by confronting the individual actions that we do see popping up in the category we call "anecdotal." I know Michael Lawrence's examples come from numerous real stories he has encountered among Christians in Washington, D.C. Candice and I come across the stories we do among friends and Bible studies, but also from the emails coming into Boundless.org over the past 8 years. For each and every issue we've addressed, we've been personally animated by the specific Christian men and women we know who illustrate them.

I appreciate the reminder to recognize the many Christians who are working to resist the incredible inertia of our popular culture in order to be obedient to God's word. I also hope, however, we can find it constructive to be diligent in addressing the problems that still surface among Christians. I'm curious if any other readers see the problems we're mentioned among Christians in their lives or if you also are concerned that we are making unfair generalizations about fellow believers.

How to know if she's the one

Over the past few years, we've heard numerous stories of guys who are having a hard time taking a dating relationship to the next level—even after a couple of years. Some stories are from the girls who are starting to feel frustrated and even taken advantage of. Others are from the guys who are genuinely wrestling with the question, “Is this the girl I should marry?”

A new article posted on Boundless called "Stop Test Driving Your Girlfriend" is a must read for those who are either in this situation or know someone who is. It was written by Dr. Michael Lawrence who has seen this storyline numerous times in his pastoral work in the nation’s capital. As an associate pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Michael developed a seminar for singles in which he provides Biblical principles to guide a young man to make a wise and timely decision about the potential for the relationship he’s in. This article reflects several key principles from that seminar.

We’re excited about the bold challenge this message brings to young men who often just don’t know how to appropriately guide a relationship. It’s our hope this article will start a much needed conversation among young men and women and that it can encourage more accountability and ultimately more good marriages.

Here's one of the best passages:

Too often in dating relationships we think and act like consumers rather than servants. And not very good consumers at that. After all, no one would ever go down to his local car dealership, take a car out for an extended test drive, park it in his garage, drive it back and forth to work for several weeks, maybe take it on vacation, having put lots of miles on it, and then take it back to the dealer and say, "I'm just not ready to buy a new car."

But so often, that's exactly the way men treat the women they're dating. Endlessly "test driving" the relationship, without any real regard for the spiritual and emotional wear and tear they're putting her through, all the while keeping their eyes out for a better model.

Read the whole article at http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001306.cfm.

State of our Unions

Every Summer for the past few years, I've looked forward to the latest State of Our Unions report produced by David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead with the National Marriage Project. Their research is solid, objective and very readable. Over the past few years, they have produced something of a family report card on topics such as marriage, divorce, cohabitation, parenting, etc. In addition, they have offered essays examining trends such as the quest for soul mates, reasons why men won't commit and a description of men who are "the marrying kind." This year, their essay is called "Life Without Children."

It's a troubling picture of where family fits into our current (and future) culture. Below, I've excerpted a large portion of the conclusion of this essay. This portion summarizes compellingly one of the driving issues for this blog.

We are in the midst of a profound change in American life. Demographically, socially and culturally, the nation is shifting from a society of child-rearing families to a society of child-free adults. The percentage of households with children has declined from half of all households in 1960 to less than one-third today—the lowest percentage in the nation’s history. Indeed, if the twentieth century aspired to become the “century of the child,” the twenty-first may well become the century of the child-free.

The repercussions of this change are apparent in nearly every domain of American life.

The physical landscape of communities is changing to fit the lifestyle of the non-child-rearing population. Private housing developers are building condos with health clubs, golf courses, and other adult-only amenities for the growing population of affluent singles, childless couples, and empty nesters. Big cities and small college towns, with a cosmopolitan mix of educational and recreational attractions, are becoming magnets for the childless young and empty-nest old while the child-rearing population is migrating to the exurbs in search of affordable housing, safe streets, and decent schools.
....

Likewise, the popular culture is increasingly oriented to fulfilling the X-rated fantasies and desires of adults. The “adult entertainment industry,” which includes gambling, pornography and sex, is one of the fastest growing and most lucrative sectors of the consumer economy. Not only has this multibillion dollar industry gained respectability and power in the corridors of Washington, it has used its power to defeat every effort to restrict the access of underage children to its most misogynistic and hyperviolent products.

More generally and pervasively, the expressive values of the adult-only world are at odds with the values of the child-rearing world. Indeed, child-rearing values—sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity—seem stale and musty by comparison. Nor does the bone-wearying and time-consuming work of the child-rearing years comport with a culture of fun and freedom. Indeed, what it takes to raise children is almost the opposite of what popularly defines a satisfying adult life.

The cultural devaluation of child rearing is especially harmful in the American context. In other advanced western societies, parents’ contributions are recognized and compensated with tangible work and family benefits. In American society, the form of compensation has been mainly cultural. Parents have been rewarded (many would argue inadequately) for the unpaid work of caring for children with respect, support and recognition from the larger society. Now this cultural compensation is disappearing. Indeed, in recent years, the entire child-rearing enterprise has been subject to a ruthless debunking. Most notably, the choice of motherhood is now contested terrain, with some critics arguing that the tasks of mothering are unworthy of educated women’s time and talents. Along with the critique of parenthood, a small but aggressively vocal “childfree” movement is organizing to represent the interests of nonparents.

It is hard enough to rear children in a society that is organized to support that essential social task. Consider how much more difficult it becomes when a society is indifferent at best, and hostile, at worst, to those who are caring for the next generation.

Read the entire report at http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2006.htm.

Family mentions at bluegrass concert

Thanks to the growing community of commenters on this site for keeping an interesting conversation going while we've been between posts. It's nice to have such intelligent and well-spoken men and women dropping by.

Over the weekend, Candice and I sat through the rain for an outdoor concert with Ricky Skaggs and the Kentucky Thunder. We like a pretty eclectic range of music, but over the past couple of years we've grown to especially appreciate the sound, conventions and heritage of bluegrass. Another thing that jumped out at the Ricky Skaggs concert was a pervasive sense of family and community. Throughout the concert, Skaggs talked about his family and band member's families. In a song called the "Simple Life" he slipped in the line, "My favorite thing to hear is, 'Daddy, I'm so glad you're home." In "Black-Eyed Suzie" he sang, "All I need to make me happy is four little kids to call me pappy."

These are the kinds of comments and song lines that make some people groan and complain of sentimentalism. For me, they were refreshing surprises after years of going to concerts where artists find interesting things to say and sing about everything other than the fundamental life relationships that most of us end up experiencing (90% of men and women end up marrying and nearly three-quarters of all marriages include kids).

Is it because artists often suppose people want to transcend mundane things like family that they find so little to sing about it? Does it affect our perception of the value of pursuing family if we have scores of songs in our MP3 players that celebrate sexual energy, romantic pursuits and high jinx, but little that tie those themes to the dailiness of marriage and parenting?

I read an article recently about MP3 players giving people the opportunity to give their lives a soundtrack. Any favorite suggestions out there for soundtrack entries that celebrate marriage and kids?