Daily Archives: December 27, 2008

The Cost of Delaying Marriage

Young adults today, in general, tend to delay marriage much more than young adults in ages past. The median age of first marriages has risen a little more than 5 years in the last 30 years.

thenewsmanual.net

photo credit: thenewsmanual.net

For some of us, marrying later is not a choice.  We try to pursue marriage, but it takes two to tango, as the saying goes.

A guy asks a girl out, but gets turned down, because the girl either has astronomically high expectations that not even Jesus would satisfy or she’s waiting until her 30s to get married, wanting to “have fun” first.

A girl earnestly desires to be a wife and raise a family, and she prays earnestly to that effect. If a guys asks, she’ll accept his invitation (as long as he doesn’t smell like fish, drive a windowless black van, live with his mom, and have that creepy cross-eyed look). But the guys–who want a girlfriend with the spirituality of Beth Moore, the voice of Rebecca St. James, and the looks of J.Lo–aren’t paying attention.

Can I get an amen!?

But, for countless twenty-somethings, marrying later is a conscious choice. More than any other generation, for various reasons, we delay marriage until our late twenties or thirties.

At first glance, those who adopt this lifestyle seem to get the best of both worlds. Build career now, travel, live in the city, go to Vegas every now and then, see the world, maybe serve the Lord in unique ways, get some extra education, then settle down, marry, and have kids. You can have it all!

But I gotta ask: is this wise? Is there a hidden cost to needlessly delaying marriage that we are blind to?

Well…yes.

The first one is perhaps the most obvious, and it is geared mostly towards women: ye olde ’biological clock.’ Sociologist Jean Twenge jokes about what she calls “women math:” “If we get married next year, I’ll be 32; we’ll want a year or two to be married without kids and it might take a year to get pregnant, so I’ll be 34 or 35 before I’m pregnant and probably 36 when the child is born. Then if we wait until the first kid is two years old before we try for another one, I’ll be trying to get pregnant at 38. Crap.”

The other reasons are not so obvious, and they pertain to both genders.

You’d think that the longer you delay marriage, the happier you’ll be once you are married. We think this because we assume we mature as we get older in singleness. We think that singleness is a sort of “marriage incubator.” But really, it’s not. Extended singleness can give wisdom to a select few, but research shows that as far as marriage happiness is concerned, the sweet spot for getting married is between 24 and 27. After that, happiness declines steadily with each year. Of course you can beat the odds…I’m just giving you the trend.

Mainly, we pretend that years of single living where we call the shots ultimately won’t have an effect on us. When we want, we’ll be able to settle down and love sacrificially just fine.

When you are single, even if you have roommates, and even if you serve the Lord in many ministries, its nothing compared to marriage (so I’ve heard). When a friendship gets uncomfortable or inconvenient, or you just don’t like the person anymore, you can avoid them or stop hanging out with them. You can leave your roommates behind. You can change ministries. But you can’t run from your spouse! You simply cannot live as an “independent, free” individual in a marriage.

Lemme put it straight: The longer you live “independent and free,” the harder it will be for you to adjust to a marriage. I’m finding this true even in dating. It’s a HUGE adjustment to me to think about another person to the degree I need to in this relationship. This will exponentially increase when I’m married. The thought patterns and life habits I’m struggling with are just the ones that I’ve ingrained in myself as a single man.

Ladies: age doesn’t necessarily guarantee maturity in a man. Yes, sometimes it does, but if you needlessly delay marriage, you might turn 30 or 35 only to find out many men your age have been hugely affected by their years of playing the field, going dirt biking with the bros on the weekends, and playing video games. That’s not a good formula for a husband. The ones who are good husbands now took that vocation seriously in their early 20s and got down to business. Sometimes, the guys who are still single are passive when it comes to marriage and they have been allowed to be that way.

Don’t misread me: I’m not saying that if you are single in your late 20s or 30s that it’s your fault or that you are immature (see the paragraph about marrying later not being a choice for some for evidence of this!)….someone is bound to twist my words–always happens–but, hey, I’m almost 30, and I’m single, so be realistic in interpreting my words.

All I’m suggesting is that you can’t just turn off the independent living switch when you get married. It takes work, and turning off the switch is much, much harder when it’s all you’ve known for an extended period of time.

Bottom line: We are moldable when young, but as we age, we become “set in our ways.” Many of these ways are antithetical to a happy marriage, and they become harder to shake off the longer we live in them.

So save yourself the grief…get going!

So, how do you “get going” without overdoing it? Tune in Monday for some suggestions.

Be sure to check out the following related posts:

Top 5 Things Women Find Attractive in Men

The Dating List

Redefining the Family

If you like what you read, then please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar).

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

The Gospel of Will Smith

I really like Will Smith. He’s one of my favorite actors, and I almost always dig movies in which he appears. The Pursuit of Hapyness and I am Legend were both good films. His latest, Seven Pounds, is a movie I will probably go see.

Therefore, I read his recent interview in Newsweek with great interest.  He said some very intriguing things.

vibe.com

photo credit: vibe.com

For one, I really appreciate it that he acknowledges suffering in this life. It’s so easy to brush it off, blind yourself to it, and adopt a surfacy, self-help, motivational guru approach to life. I didn’t see that in this interview. Seems like he tries to wrestle with loss and suffering, rather than deny and run from it. For instance, he says:

“I love the origins of a story and have always been intrigued with the idea of trauma—emotional trauma and loss. Life is all about death and rebirth and how do we manage to deal with those things when they happen. And not just death in terms of life. You know when you lose your job or your house—that’s a death of something that is a part of your life. How do you manage that? What do you do the next day after it happens? How do you go on? With these characters, they’ve all experienced traumas that have changed their lives. I like that this film (Seven Pounds) shows you the options in life for redemption and finding yourself again.”

After that, however, the interview takes a strange turn. He starts commenting on religion. Though he makes some spot-on remarks about service and leading an others-centered life, most of his comments on faith and spirituality reveal a profound misunderstanding.

In response to the question, “Are you a Scientologist,” he replies:

“I love the nature of humanity’s search for meaning. For me I’m certain about my relationship with the model of perfection of human life that’s laid out with the life of Jesus Christ. I’m certain of that.”

Wow…that’s a mouthful. “I’m certain about my relationship with the model of perfection of human life that’s laid out with the life of Jesus Christ.” If nothing else, that’s an interesting way to phrase it. Hmm.

He continues:

“So I’m at home and not fearful when I sit in a mosque or a synagogue or a Buddhist temple, the same way that I’m home in the Church of Scientology. I like anywhere people are searching for the truth, and I respect their path and I’m intrigued by their path. I think when you are certain in and of what you believe in, you can open your mind to seeing the ways of others. I’m not bothered when someone says “Allah” because they’re talking about God—we are talking about the same person. I was in India recently and my hotel was near the Taj Mahal. Five times a day there would be a call for prayer, and it was the most beautiful thing. I was lying in my bed thinking, no matter what your religion is, it would be great to have that reminder five times a day to remember your Lord and savior.”

This reflects an “any old god will do” approach to spirituality. What matters is not that its True in the objective sense–he might not even think objective religious truth exists–but that your beliefs are your choice, they make you happy and help you live life to the fullest. If a certain path brings you peace, then that path is “right for you.”

This is what Greg Koukl labels the “ice cream” approach to spirituality: beliefs are neither true nor false. They are a matter of personal taste and choice. It would be silly for me, a rocky road fan, to say to a vanilla fan, “You are wrong. Repent, sinner!” Just the same, its silly and “narrow-minded” for someone to criticize another’s choice of spiritual paths, especially if that path is helping that person “get along” in life.
Hence the popular phrase, “true for you but not for me.”

Many if not most religious claims and “paths,” however, simply don’t fit into that box. Its rather absurd to think that God pops into existence “for” a Christian, but suddenly pops out of existence “for” an atheist. Many religions make historical, scientific, and metaphysical claims.

Did Jesus rise from the dead or not? If not, then Paul himself admits Christianity is for suckers.

Did Muhammad really receive revelation straight from Allah? Did God really create the world?

These claims aren’t simply matters of taste. Rather, they can be evidentially investigated.

Plus, as Koukl says, when you die, you either are reincarnated, you go to heaven, hell, you rot in the grave, you catch a flight on the back of a comet, or, none of the above, or, or…but you can’t do them all!

Secondly, all religions aren’t morally neutral. Some–like the Jim Jones cult or the Branch Davidians of the 90′s–are outright crazy. Others–like Islam, advocate killing the infidel (that’d be you and me). Am I supposed to give a nod to something like that?

Thirdly, I honestly don’t know how he could say “Allah” and “God” are the same person. Yes, the words translate the same, but I’m talking about the concepts of God in Islam and Christianity. Has Will Smith actually read the Koran?

Most importantly, however, he misunderstands that religions aren’t equal on a more fundamental scale. Every religion I know of

a) attempts to diagnose what the problem is with humanity, and

b) offers a solution, or “cure” to it.

Now this is serious business. If a doctor in medicine misdiagnoses a patient and/or gives an inadequate cure, that doctor is no doctor at all. We call him a “crackpot.” If that’s the way we think about our physical bodies, why should we all of a sudden shrug our shoulders and go “whatever floats your boat” when it comes to our souls? The soul is with you forever!

The stakes are high: getting it wrong brings both temporal and eternal consequences.

Given this, Smith is asking the wrong questions. He should be asking “what religion is true?” not “what religion gives me personal meaning?” Every religion is about something. Does it accurately describe reality?

Can we all agree that Jesus was a smart man? He knew a thing or two about humanity and spirituality. He had a perspective on things that all before and since Him lack. He had real authority. Even the most ardent skeptic can acknowledge this. Any person desiring wisdom would give his perspective some thought.

What was His take? His diagnosis was that every human being sins. We are infected through and through with it. Even the best of the best sin….often. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that we fall woefully short in word, thought, and deed. We each have acquired quite a lengthy rap sheet. Because God is fully loving and just, this rap sheet separates us from Him.

This, then, is the problem…sin…and its a problem that Muhammad, Gautama Buddha, Oprah, or L. Ron Hubbard can’t solve.

Oh, yes, those others might make you feel better. They might make you behave better. They might bring satisfaction and peace. But they are only curing the external symptoms, not the fundamental disease, if you will.

Only Jesus has the goods. God, in His mercy, has given us the solution: forgiveness. It is on His terms, not ours, though. His terms? Forgiveness through Christ. Take it or leave it.

So, Will: “do-gooding” is part of it. Finding satisfaction and meaning is part of it. But that’s the surface, not the fundamentals. Thinking that all religions basically teach the same thing (I don’t know if Will Smith actually believes this, but given what he said in the interview, sounds like he might) is like saying that aspirin and arsenic are the same because they both come in tablet form. It’s the differences that matter; it’s the differences that bring eternal life, or eternal death.

If you like what you read, please subscribe to my RSS feed (RSS button is at the top right in the sidebar.).

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook