Who Is Getting Married Today?

wedding ringsMarriage rates are rising according to an article published in USA Today this week. They report about an expected rise in marriage rates over the next few years after a progressive decline since the recession. The report from Demographic Intelligence of Charlottesville, VA, predicts a 4% rise in the number of weddings over the low point in 2009. From 2007 to 2009, the number of marriages in the United States dropped from 2.197 million to 2.080 million. Demographic Intelligence projects that the number of marriages will rise to 2.208 million by 2015.

While the article analyzes the total number of marriages per year, I think the more interesting details involve the types of people who are getting married. The study notes that the boost in marriages will come mostly among “the better-educated and affluent and women ages 25-34.”

It is no secret that marriage is quickly becoming the domain of those with higher levels of education. Education also generally brings with it a certain level of affluence. Therefore, it is no surprise that these two demographics factor into the rising marriage rate.

Unfortunately, those with lower levels of education–and typically less likely to marry–do not realize that marriage is one of the most effective routes to increasing affluence and higher education levels among subsequent generations. Thus, the ones who can benefit the most from marriage are still retreating.

It is also interesting to note that the age demographic of 25-34 year old women is part of the increase. The average age of first marriage for American women has increased to nearly 27 years old (29 for men). The fact that the younger generation is driving the increase is also good news.

One of the most direct impacts of delayed marriage is fertility, and it seems this has caught the attention of younger women. Andrew Cherlin, director of the Hopkins Population Center at Johns Hopkins University, states, “If you’re going to get married in time to have kids, you can’t wait forever, so they may be saying that the postponement of marriages is running its course, and a backlog of young adults is about to schedule their weddings.”

So why should we care about this? How does it affect the church? The delay in marriage has not left the church unscathed. Many of our young people have adopted the same philosophy of the culture and have delayed marriage. As a result there are fewer children in our congregations.

In addition, a rising rate of cohabitation has accompanied the decline in marriage. Many Christian young people have also adopted this “trial run” for marriage approach. It has begun to create a crisis of morality in our churches as fewer young men and women view pre-marital sex as a violation of biblical sexual ethics. For this reason, we should be grateful for an increase in marriage rates.

However, this good news should not make us complacent. Marriage is a fundamental building block of society. We should encourage and promote it. Each generation faces its own challenge to marriage, and we need to prepare this and subsequent generations of Christians to view marriage as the gift that God has given us to build society, bear children, and rear the future generations.

_________________________

Sharon Jayson, “Marriage rate may be low, but more weddings predicted,” USA Today, June 17, 2013.

Anonymous Parenthood: The Brave New World of Childbearing

This semester I have been watching a series of lectures from Michael Sandel, professor of government at Harvard, on the issue of justice. In one of those lectures, he referenced advertisements that ran in the Harvard Crimson seeking egg and sperm donors for infertile couples. In the course of the lecture Dr. Sandel raised the moral question of whether it is right to pay anonymous donors for their eggs and sperm for the purpose of creating life. Sandel’s concern is that egg and sperm donors are merely being used as a means to an end rather than being treated as ends in themselves. While Sandel’s concern is certainly valid, I believe an underlying theological issue rests beneath the surface.

In the world of reproductive donation, most donors remain anonymous by working through fertility clinics. The donors receive payment for their reproductive materials and go on with their lives with no knowledge of any subsequent offspring. The theological question this raises is that of parenthood. Does the anonymous donation of eggs and sperm undermine the biblical concept of parenthood?

Read the rest of my article here.

*I have the privilege of being a contributor to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Public Square Channel. I will be writing articles for them periodically and linking back to their page from here. Find out more about CBMW at www.cbmw.org.

Murder or Abortion: What’s the Difference?

CNN reported on a tragic story about a woman whose boyfriend tricked her into taking an abortion-inducing drug after she told him she was pregnant. The boyfriend, John Andrew Welden, is now facing first-degree murder charges for killing the unborn child. Welden told his girlfriend that his father, a doctor, had prescribed her an antibiotic for an infection. In reality, Welden gave her an abortion-inducing drug, and the pregnancy was terminated.

This story is undoubtedly tragic, and Welden deserves to face punishment for first-degree murder. However, the undercurrent of this story is working against the tide of abortion-rights advocates. Note with me the inconsistency of the logic of our laws and of abortion advocates.

The pregnancy of Remee Lee was terminated by her boyfriend, the supposed father of the child. Since it was against the will of the mother, Welden is being charged with first-degree murder. However, if Lee had terminated the pregnancy herself, it would have been perfectly legal and perhaps even applauded by abortion advocates. Even if the abortion had been against the will of the father, the mother would have been within her legal rights to have an abortion.

Why is this a problem? The charge of first-degree murder implies the pre-meditated killing of innocent human life. It implies value in the life that is lost. In this case, it is the life of an unborn child.

What makes an abortion elected by the mother any different? The charge of first-degree murder cannot be levied against Welden for any physical harm incurred by Ms. Lee. Instead, it is directly centered upon the loss of life for the baby. The attorneys may even argue that the life was taken against the will and rights of the unborn child. In the same way, abortions performed according to the will of the mother take the life of an unborn child against his/her will and rights. Why is it murder for the boyfriend to induce an abortion and not when a woman chooses it on her own?

The inconsistency is glaring but unspoken in our culture.

Can a Man Give Birth?

News out of Santiago, Chile reports than the first recorded male pregnancy in the nation’s history has officially resulted in the birth of a child. Male pregnancy? Did I read that correctly? Here’s the opening paragraph from The Santiago Times:

A transgender man in Chile’s northernmost city of Arica gave birth late last week. The birth marked the first recorded male pregnancy in Chile’s history.

Read the rest of my article here.

*I have the privilege of now being a contributor to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Public Square Channel. I will be writing articles for them periodically and linking back to their page from here. Find out more about CBMW at www.cbmw.org.

Good Reading: Founding Virtues and Class Divisions in America

I have been reading a book that was recommended to me on a number of occasions because of my interest in marriage, family, and culture. The book is Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 by Charles Murray. I am about two-thirds of the way through the book, but I have come across a few interesting nuggets that I would like to share.

Without going into the entire premise of the book, I need to set the stage. Murray tracks the changes in “White America” (excluding all minorities) to see if such changes reflect similar changes in the minority populations. While much sociological research typically compares minority populations to whites with the understanding that a white majority is a fairly static baseline, Murray seeks to demonstrate the vast changes in white America that have taken place in the last 50 years.

The second section of his book addresses four “founding virtues” that he deems critical to the American experiment for the first 185 years of the nation’s existence. These virtues are marriage, industriousness, honesty, and religiosity. Let me share a few of his observations on these virtues, specifically as they relate to “white America.”

Marriage

It’s even worse than it looks. The pessimistic title of this section springs from my belief that families with children are the core around which American communities must be organized–must, because families with children have always been, and still are, the engine that makes American communities work–and from my conclusion that the family in Fishtown [bottom 30% in education, bottom 50% in income, typically blue-collar or low-skill white collar jobs, working class] is approaching a point of no return.

Industriousness

In 1960, 81 percent of Fishtown households had someone working at least 40 hours per week, with Belmont [upper 20% in education, affluent, white-collar jobs, upper-middle class] at 90percent. by 2008, Belmont had barely changed at all, at 87 percent, while Fishtown had dropped to 60 percent. And that was before the 2008 recession began. As of March 2010, Belmont was still at 87 percent. Fishtown was down to 53 percent.

Honesty

I am not arguing that people of integrity never declare bankruptcy. Rather, I am arguing that there are always temptations to get into debt and always patches in life where finances become dicey. In a nation where integrity is strong, the effects of temptations and of rough patches are damped down. That trendline . . . showing a quadrupling of personal bankruptcies over a period that included one of the most prosperous decades in American history, looks suspiciously like a decline in personal integrity.

Religiosity

Many Americans still feel that they are supposed to be religious, and so they tend to tell interviewers that they profess a religion even if they haven’t attended a worship service for years. They also tend to tell interviewers that they attend worship services more often than they actually do. In the GSS, about a third of all whites who say they profess a religion also acknowledge that they attend no more than once a year. It seems reasonable to assume that, for practical purposes, these people are as little involved in religious activity as those who profess no religion. . . . If we think in terms of disengagement from religion, Fishtown led the way, and the divergence was significant. In the first half of the 1970s, about 10 percentage points separated Belmont from Fishtown. Over the next three decades, disengagement increased in Belmont to 41 percent in the last half of the 2000s. In Fishtown, the religiously disengaged became a majority amounting to 59 percent.

So far, Murray’s book is an interesting read. The impact of these societal trends on the church is also an intriguing question. Do you think they are having an impact?