status

Millennials and Marriage: a changing landscape

After starting the discussion about Millennials and Marriage with a view of the data, perhaps a good second step would be to consider some primary issues affecting how Millennials are viewing and experiencing marriage.

Driving the conversation about Millennials and marriage are two issues which must be handsrecognized at the beginning of any discussion, especially by older generations:

  • Almost near universality of sexual experience prior to marriage by Millennials in America
  • The explosion of cohabitation among Millennials

 

These two factors are influencing the understanding and experience of marriage that Millennials will have and are part of any realistic conversation. On the first point, it is reasonable to assert that 90% of Millennials will have sex prior to marriage, whether in a previous relationship or the existing relationship. Christian Millennials have no notable difference than their secular counterparts in this area.  So how does this compare with previous generation? One study has pointed out that premarital sex rates have always been high since the 1920s. In fact, as USAToday reported in 2006 (which is still accurate for historical numbers), the rate of premarital sex has been steadily rising since the post World War II times. Of course this surveys all races. The challenge for Christianity in the later half of the 20th century is that it primarily understands itself as white, middle class, educated Americans. When considering trends in that socio-economic class, the rates look entirely different than other classes and races. One could say the great white myth of 20th century America has tainted our understanding of the rest of America.

However, there is a difference rising in Millennials.

Millennials MarriageBetween the generational shifts in behavior the most notable change in categories is the number of sexual partners and how religiously faithful people have increasingly engaged in this behavior. In other words, the lines between those who are not Christians and those who are, and how they approach issues of sex and sexuality has disappeared. For Millennials, first time experiences of premarital sex are only delayed by religious adherence. There still is a movement towards sexual purity and abstinence among Millennials, but is given lip service and not validated by actual actions.

The heightened, and openness, about promiscuity among Millennials has led to the second factor that is changing the landscape of Millennials and marriage: cohabitation.

Since the 1950s, cohabitation has exploded by 900%. As of now, for Millennials, 75% will cohabit ate before they are married. (Of course that number might be soft and it could rise as high as 80%-85%)  There are plenty of reasons for increased cohabitation: lower financial achievement, increased student debts, social acceptability, and even a media saturated environment that promotes this lifestyle. It is likely a reasonable statement to point out that cohabitation is here to stay socially.

There are certainly drawbacks to cohabitation. I’ve listed these in the previous post and will simply refer you there. Many pastors and well meaning leaders will cite “studies” that say a cohabitating couple is 50% more likely to divorce than non-cohabitating couples. The challenge here is that too many of these studies reflect data from a time prior to social acceptance of cohabitation. Indeed, it is likely that over the next 5 years the commonality of cohabitation will effectively nullify its effects on divorce rates for Millennials.

What cohabitation does do that is a negative is it: delays marriage, increases the likelihood of childbirths out of wedlock, creates a negative emotional impact on the relationship, has negative developmental impacts on children, increased promiscuity outside the relationship, and other factors.

Along these lines, it is too early to tell at what rate Millennials will divorce and how often. Since the preceding generations, particularly their parents, divorced at a rate unseen in history, they have seen this situation. What does seem to be happening is that Millennials are not only delaying marriage, but also have a significantly lower view of marriage than previous generations. With first-time child births to unmarried mothers in their 20s exceeding 50%, there are many issues to deal with in this entire category.interest in marriage

It is a different conversation to have with Millennials about marriage than the generations before. Particularly in light of the rising post-Christian culture that has arrived, the Church stands at an odd crossroads where it needs to carefully choose its stance and approach.

There are opportunities though, and if we look carefully we can realize them and address them appropriately.

In the next post, we’ll take a some time to talk about what these opportunities are and some ways to initially address them.

26
Mar 2014
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Church

DISCUSSION No Comments
status

Millennials and Marriage: Part 1, the data

Having spent the better part of the last two weeks in preparation, delivery, and conversation about hefty theological papers, I’d like to turn to consider another conversation that is going on in some circles I’ve been working through. Specifically, this will be a few conversations about the trends of Millennials and marriage. I’ve previously discussed some of this in a post of the similar title.

Today, I’d like to begin by posting some of the best data that I’ve found in my work on First Time Marriageunderstanding this generation and our patterns for marriage.

Just today, over at the Families Studies Blog, I read about a paper that had come out recently that looked at generational differences in marriage trends. The paper was titled Breaking Up is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the United States, 1980-2010 by Sheela Kennedy and Steven Ruggles. The paper is quite good and, as the title suggests, underlines the difficulty of getting precise numbers about the nature of divorce rates and relationship changes sociologically.

This is their conclusion:

“Fewer young people are getting married: over 40 % of the population in 2008 had not married by their 30th birthday, marking a fourfold increase since 1980. With the rise of cohabitation, it is likely that many couples who would have been at the highest risk of divorce in the past—for example, those entering unions as teenagers as a result of an unplanned pregnancy, or with low levels of income and education—are forgoing marriage entirely (Cherlin 2004; Smock et al. 2005). As pressures to marry recede, people can be more selective about their partners; thus, it makes sense that marriages may become more stable. We do not, however, anticipate that a decline of divorce will lead to an increase in overall union stability. Because cohabitating unions are more unstable than marriages, we expect that the rapid rise of cohabitation among the young will neutralize any decline of divorce (Kennedy and Ruggles 2013; Raley and Bumpass 2003).”

The paper contains some of the best data I’ve seen on understanding the sociological impact of Millennials and marriage while also drawing informed conclusions on the topic. As someone who works in marriage ministry with, at this point primarily, Millennials, there are some big wins but just as many losses.

One of the more significant issues that I’ve encountered in the church, and broader society, is that the older generations are looking for isolated data points that can be boiled down to simple conclusions. However, Millennials aren’t simple and their patterns can’t easily be boiled down to simple soundbites.

So what is some of the best data I’ve found? One of the first places I begin is understanding how cohabitation has impacted Millennials.

CohabitationSince Millennials are, right now, aged 18-34, seeing how they are approaching relationships prior to marriage is a precursor to understanding their views, innate or explicit, about marriage. Millennials are cohabiting at a rate of about 75%. As a result, 60% of cohabiting couples end up getting married, but cohabitation delays marriage by 18-24 months.

For Millennials and marriage, they are approaching marriage differently not based on race or even religion, but on socio-economic and educational factors. Better educated, better off Millennials are delaying marriage by 6-10 years, and first time childbirths as well, while their less educated, lower income peers begin families and marriage in their early 20s. 

How do we come by this data?

The best resource that I’ve encountered is the Pew Research Study on cohabitation.

Also see this article from, I believe a secular viewpoint, that brings some good conclusions to the forefront.

The best data I’ve seen on cohabitation and its correlation to divorce is this study from the CDC.

One of the troubling trends is that Millennials (the group most likely to be cohabitating right now) are divorcing at a higher rate than other generations, well for those who choose to marry.

Even the New York Times thinks cohabitation is a bad idea.

Right now, and the data is hard to come by because you’re primarily seeing studies geared towards Gen-Xers and Boomers, cohabitation leads to higher rates of divorce.

In the United States, researchers estimate that 40%–50% of all first marriages, and 60% of second marriages, will end in divorce. This is primarily geared at folks in their 30s. Since marriage is being delayed until late 20s the picture is harder to get at for Millennials. Couples who get married in their early 20s are two to three times as likely to get divorced as couples who wait until their mid to late 20s. Education is also a significant factor.

The real challenge for cohabitation isn’t that it leads to divorce, but that is delays marriage and have become an alternative to marriage. Because cohabitation has become so common (up 900% in 50 years) the statistics correlating cohabitation to divorce are increasingly harder to come by. There is a trend, but you have to look at couples who do not ever cohabitate (or engage sexually) prior to marriage versus the rest of their peers. That number, of sexually pure and non-cohabitating couples is so small it is hard to track.

The biggest issue that affects marriage and divorce among adults aged 20-39: religious adherence.

It will be to some of these factors that we turn next in talking about Millennials and Marriage.

24
Mar 2014
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Church

DISCUSSION 1 Comment
status

Paul’s Ecclesiology and Second Temple Judaism

Apologies for the lack of posts, I have been working on several papers as well as additional dissertation research.

Here is the conference paper for my presentation at the Houston Baptist Theological Seminary Theology Conference. I’ll post an update later.

Second Temple Clerical Forms and Pauline Ecclesiology

19
Mar 2014
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Uncategorized

DISCUSSION No Comments
status

Luke’s Jewish-centric Ecclesiology

Combing through some research on an upcoming presentation on Second Temple clerical Lukan Jewishnessforms in early church ecclesiology, I came across two examples of existing leadership structures that caught me by surprise. As I’ve been working through the four unique ecclesiologies in the New Testament (Pauline, Lukan, Johannine, and Matthean) one of the points of differentiation between Pauline and Lukan, which are close, seems to be Luke’s abiding concern for locating the work of the burgeoning Christian communities within a Jewish context. (There are other points of difference though.)

Perhaps this is why, at the end of Acts we are left with church communities focused around rising presbyteries (though what happens after CE 70 is a mystery.) Yet I was taken aback in noting two forms of leadership structures in the Essene communities of Qumran. Specifically:

1. The necessity of having at least 120 families in a community to allow for it to have its own council which is seen in Mishnah Sanhedrin 1.6. It is peculiar that, in Acts 1:15, Luke points out that 120 people (though the Greek here, ἀδελφῶν, literally means “brothers” indicating households) were present with Peter as the first meeting of the followers of Jesus takes place. Why would Luke use this rather precise number when, only one chapter later, he approximates the number added to the Church to some 3,000?

2. Later on in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas go before the Jerusalem Council (a scene which corresponds to Paul’s retelling in Galatians 1-2.) This council is reported to have three principal leaders by Paul (who cites them as “pillars”) in Galatians 2:9. In Luke’s recording of the events he notes that Peter is present and that James, the brother of Jesus, is occupying a leadership role over the elders. Now, if the council in Jerusalem corresponds to the council regulations laid out in Qumran (1 QS 8:1f) this would indicate an additional connection with the Jewish context out of which the earliest communities arose. If Paul’s observation is correct, that James is included with the other two apostles, perhaps the three apostles were serving alongside twelve elders in a kind of early Christian Council.

It is curious, given the two examples above, that Luke’s ecclesiology wouldn’t have been embedded in a specifically Jewish context. Perhaps more than any other of the above four ecclesiologies, Luke best represents the Jewish context out of which the earliest Christian communities arose. As a result, Luke’s understanding of ecclesiology, which gives more of a leadership role to the twelve disciples, then Apostles, in his Gospel and initial portion of Acts. This describes how the earliest communities considered themselves a natural extension of the Jewish communities in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora.

Of course Luke also is the final historical discussion that places the worship patterns of the earliest communities in the Temple of Jerusalem (and also the Diaspora synagogues.)  Paul only references them as places where the Jews, or historic Israel, conduct their cultic worship.

Just a few thoughts. The developing ecclesiologies that are cast across the New Testament provide a healthy picture of the natural development which was occurring in these diverse communities. Perhaps Luke’s ecclesiology does represent more of a Jewish focus than the others. More studies to follow.

12
Mar 2014
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Theology

DISCUSSION No Comments
status

The Miracles of Jesus and Vespasian

This weekend, I was honored to be able to present a paper at the Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society which was held at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is the first formal conference paper I’ve presented and it was a tremendous experience.

The title for the paper was, Evaluating the Healing Miracles of Vespasian and Jesus – Garet Robinson.

Vespasian To summarize the point of the paper, too often we hear a criticism that the authors of the New Testament simply drew on contemporary myths and stories to frame their various presentations of Jesus’ life and ministry. Especially when it comes to Jesus’ miraculous works, other examples stand as common stories out of which the Gospel writers framed and enhanced the historical Jesus.

One of the contemporary counter-examples is Vespasian, who rose to power at the end the year of four emperors in CE 69 and established the Flavian dynasty in Rome. Vespasian, for his many conquests and dramatic rise to power, also had some healing miracles attributed to him in the mid-60s during his time in Alexandria. Of his popular biographers, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio all describe these healing miracles.

As part of the method to evaluate the different healing miracles of Jesus and Vespasian, for Jesus’ part I used the data available from the Gospel of Mark and the six healing miracles which the Jesus Seminar has agreed are the most historically attested. (That will draw the ire of some for sure, but as this is a critical inquiry for apologetic purposes the method is to use the most critical scholarship to establish and evaluate the miracles regardless of my personal position.) The six hearings considered are: Peter’s mother-in-law (GMk 1:29ff); the leper (GMk 1:40-45); the paralytic (GMk 2:1-12); the hemorrhaging woman (GMk 5:24b-34); the blind man of Bethsaida (GMk 8:22-26); Blind Bartimaeus (GMk 10:46-52.)

Essentially what this boils down to is, that Vespasian has healing miracles of at least two men before a crowd in Alexandria of varying ailments after consulting some medical professionals and being assured of the successfulness of his venture. As his biographers note, because of this feat Vespasian was able to enlist the support of the Roman legion and add to his credentials (divine sanction being a plus) in the quest to become emperor of Rome.

Jesus, on the other hand, heals individuals who either seek him out or are brought to his attention, mostly in private and in the region where he was conducting most of his ministry. In each of the episodes Jesus is the only agent healing and does so without assistance from anyone else. These miracles, except Blind Bartimaeus, are attested to by the other Synoptic authors.

There are points of similarity between Jesus and Vespasian’s healing miracles:

  • They are effective to heal the individuals completely at their completion.
  • The agent (Jesus or Vespasian) is able to heal on their own without any additional assistance from someone else.
  • In the biographical accounts of the agent, there is somewhat close proximity to their life of these miracles. The Synoptics are written, by the latest account within 50 years of Jesus’ life; Vespasian’s biographies are dated later but still within 40 years at the earliest and 150 years at the latest.
  • Some aspects of the healing, spitting on the eyes or touching the individual needing to be healed, are similar between Jesus and Vespasian.

However, some differences to exist between the two story lines:

  • For those being healed by Jesus, they are beyond medical assistance and have been suffering with these ailments for quite some time. Those in Vespasian’s stories are not entirely beyond medical aid, as recorded by his biographers, and seem to only have been suffering for some short time.
  • Jesus’ healing miracles occur in the region of Galilee where he is conducting his initial ministry. Vespasian’s healing miracles occur in Alexandria, a major city for certain, but one that is far removed from the final seat of power in Rome. If Jesus’ healing miracles had been false they would have been easily seen as frauds and he would have been discredited whereas for Vespasian, only the most eager critic would have both the means and time to travel far to Alexandria and check his story out.
  • Vespasian’s healings appear to be limited to this one account, with some variance in the attestation by his biographers. Jesus’ healing miracles are multiple attested and Christus_Bartimaeus_Johann_Heinrich_Stoever_Erbach_Rheingauuniformly carry the same features. However, Jesus’ healing miracles are more numerous, even in this critical recounting, and across a wider breadth of his ministry.
  • Finally, Jesus seems to welcome those seeking healing without question of their motives or chastisement. Vespasian, however, mocks those coming and, only after being assured of his successfulness in performing the miracle, does he step forward to complete the task.

 

In the end, there is some similarity and some difference between Jesus and Vespasian’s healing miracles. Being able to consider them alongside each other is a helpful venture for apologetic and historical purposes.

As one of the observers to my session pointed out, it would be fascinating to consider if Jesus’ healing miracles stood as the example for the historical figures of antiquity (following Jesus’ life) to borrow from or mold their stories around. Usually we only hear about how the Gospel and NT writers drew from their surroundings and, as best I can surmise, we never hear about the reverse.

Hopefully, this is a step towards another discussion. The historical Jesus is an intriguing field of study and setting him alongside his contemporaries and near messianic rivals is worth our time and effort. It might be concerning for some, but in the end, with the proper methodology, I believe we reinforce the historical Jesus in such exercises.

status

Staffing like the Pros

staffingAs the NFL season turns the corner towards free agency and the draft, we’ve passed by a fairly common post-season where suffering teams have fired their coaching staffs and replaced them with new ones.

Every year we watch as the coach carousel inevitably turns another round. Some names are constantly in the mix for jobs and past successes, or failures, are talked about by news anchors and sports show hosts. Then when it comes to the interview process some will be brought in and given the requisite tours, dinners, and sit downs only to be flown back and never heard from again. Occasionally you’ll also hear about a team that interviews someone purely for perspective.

The challenge of hiring for any NFL team, and really any organization, is two fold: you have to get the right person with the right giftings in place, and you have to understand your needs and the reality of your situation.

Finding talent is one thing, knowing your situation is another. Perhaps this is why some of the best NFL teams go out and interview coaches they have no actual desire of hiring.

One if the syndromes any organization can drift into is being unable to see the reality of the whole field because of a kind of tunnel vision that naturally sets in. We can’t properly evaluate all our talent because we have been stuck in a specific system or process so long that we’ve lost the ability to see our organization objectively.

That is why it is helpful for an owner to go out and interview someone for a head coaching job that he or she has no plans on hiring. It is a discussion about the organization from an expert level perspective outside the organization.

For instance, say a beleaguered NFL team was projected to have a playoff contending season only to go 3-13. The defense has some key players in place, as does the offense, so it doesn’t make sense why such a let down occurred. A wise owner will go out and sit down with a defensive minded head coach candidate to get his perspective. Likewise for offensive struggles or even just to get an analysis of a quarterback situation.

So, what can we learn from this: for our churches and organizations when it comes to hiring a key position, perhaps it is best to find the three or four best leaders in the nation who work in that specific field and call them up for an “interview” where they can provide much needed perspective.

Maybe talking with someone who is at another organization or church in the same area who is seeing success and talking with them about the perceptions and reality of doing your work in that area.

Also, bringing in a candidate who you both understand is likely not going to be hired to walk around the organization, talk with key leaders, and see your processes with fresh eyes allows you to valued feedback on things that might be missed.

Having a plan for staffing your church or organization that takes into account the reality of organizational myopia will ultimately help you fill your position and strengthen your organization. As a leader too often any of us can take for granted our situation and miss opportunities to leverage strengths that we’ve forgotten. Allowing someone from the outside to come in, look at our situation, and provide their analysis will aid our hiring process and help adjust our plans to the reality of a situation.

Staffing like the pros means we are willing to realize we’re not always the best experts for assessing our own situation and that we’re at least willing to talk with, but not necessarily hire, someone with a better perspective.

06
Mar 2014
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Leadership

DISCUSSION No Comments
UA-40705812-1