One of the brightest lights in America these days on issues of the
family is University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox. His latest article in the Wall Steet Journal addresses the "real pregnancy crisis" in America, and why the ongoing chatterings about Bristol Palin miss the point.
Wilcox shows there are other factors at work in out-of-wedlock births in this country, including a changing of the meaning of marriage. He writes:
"As sociologist Andrew Cherlin has noted, marriage used to be the
'foundation' for adulthood, sex, intimacy and childbearing. Now,
marriage is viewed by many Americans as a 'capstone' that signals that
a couple has arrived — financially, professionally and emotionally."
I think this is exactly right, and not just in "the culture" (which
is often Christian-speak for "not us"), but in even the most
conservative Christian congregations. A move toward Christian family
structures must start with this question, and that will take more
courage than we've seen in our pulpits and pews in a long, long time.
This would also have implications for how we view such phenomena as “out-of-wedlock births.” Anecdotally I’m sure many of us know couples who got together and stayed together after, not before, the baby.
First comes lust, then comes baby in the baby carriage, then comes marriage, then comes love.
Sometimes that happens, Jordan — but statistics are against it as a norm, at least these days. Couples who cohabit before marriage are at great risk for divorce, and having a child doesn’t tend to mitigate this. Rather, they feel forced into the marriage and — because we live in a culture that values autonomy above all else — they feel it’s their right to get back out of it when the going is tougher than they thought it would be. Sadly, I’ve seen this scenario in my children’s generation (20s-30s) far more than the other.
Beth,
You’re absolutely right. The best predictor of a lasting marriage is abstibence/celibacy/chastity before marriage. Interestingly, another good predictor is if both sets of parents think it is a good match.
Dr. Moore,
I’ve been a fan of Brad Wilcox ever since I saw him use my favored term – neotraditionalist – for “Complementarians”. He understands, and I think you do as well, that Evanglical use of such a disputed term creates confusion and far too much cover for “soft comps” who are really indifferentists hiding under a veneer of tradition.
Kamilla
“…marriage used to be the ‘foundation’ for adulthood, sex, intimacy and childbearing. Now, marriage is viewed by many Americans as a ‘capstone’ that signals that a couple has arrived — financially, professionally and emotionally.”
Ouch! I’m afraid that describes my otherwise wonderful Christian kids. They never wandered from the faith in their college years, but neither did they show much inclination to get married by graduation. They absorbed from the surrounding culture the “capstone” ethos. Come to think of it, my wife and I also absorbed the prevailing ethos when we got married out of college a generation ago, but fortunately for us, it pushed into, not away from, marriage.
There is a bizarre disconnect in most churches over this matter. You can’t be against homosexuality AND be comfortable with a couple living together. I have an acquaintance who is a self-described conservative Mennonite with a theologian as a father who lives with his girlfriend.
>>>There is a bizarre disconnect in most churches over this matter. You can’t be against homosexuality AND be comfortable with a couple living together. I have an acquaintance who is a self-described conservative Mennonite with a theologian as a father who lives with his girlfriend.<<<
It’s stangely easy so long as the focus is kept on the speck in the other person’s eye. The log in one’s own, of course, is of no consequence.
While I agree with the subject of the post, I feel it’s important to emphasize that marriage itself must be built on a strong foundation. What that foundation may be is open to debate ($100k salary? Paid-off house? No debt? One-year apartment lease? I know I’ve seen each of these as a prerequisite from various sources) but the fact remains that it is there.
“…marriage itself must be built on a strong foundation.”
That foundation is commitment to something other than yourself, namely your spouse, at the expense of your selfish desires.
I’m not sure that I quite agree that the postponement of marriage is the big problem. After all, there have been many other periods in history in which marriage has been viewed as a “capstone” on an already established adulthood, particularly for men — I’m thinking of Regency England, the Roman era, etc. Usually, men were expected to have the means of providing for a family before they married.
I think the greater trouble is the combination of this ethos with a disinclination to also delay the satisfaction of youthful sexual appetite. In those past eras, the stigma on premarital sexual activity meant that marriage served as a strong incentive to financial and social accomplishment (in general, of course; it’s always been quite possible to get around the system).
Now, since the value of marriage has been diminished and the stigma of non-marital sex has been extinguished, the postponement of marriage more easily lapses over into avoidance of marriage, and a perpetuation of adolescence. This is a product of the lack of cultural resistance to the greater irresponsibility that our technology allows us.
Ethan,
I think its reasonable to think that the median age would fluctuate. Stuart is probably right that in certain periods that the median age has been like it is now. However, we have seen a local trend of increasing age for entirely modern reasons. See pg 68 here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lEb-ic22xKwC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=age+of+first+marriage+historical+trends&source=bl&ots=IDCXQuVE-S&sig=TrPzW2XlJGt76RRWKI-qW5QmW_U&hl=en&ei=lVgcSrHSA5u6sgPojOTZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA68,M1