Monday, August 17, 2009

The Marriage-able Age

The August edition of Christianity today contained an interesting article by Mark Regnerus - "The Case for Early Marriage". He begins by surveying our changing habits and conception of marriage, as well as the changing sexual, financial, and spiritual ethics that accompany it. Regnerus points out that the average age at first marriage has risen from 21/23 (women/men) in 1970 to 26/28. Meanwhile, he states that "over 90 percent of American adults experience sexual intercourse before marrying." (23) In other words, while young adults are waiting longer before getting married, they are not waiting longer before getting into bed together.

So, why are people waiting longer for marriage? And is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Finances: one of the changing ethics concerns financial stability. The prevailing ethic today, and I have heard it frequently myself, is that one should be financially stable and independent prior to marriage. As Regnerus says, "Marrying young can spell poverty, at least temporarily." This is pretty much true. But is this a legitimate reason to postpone marriage? I think not. Incidentally, if Vanessa and I had followed that advice, we would certainly not have married when we did. I was 20, she was 19, I was entering the last year of an Honors B.A., she was one year out of Dental Assisting and new in the workforce. Shortly after we were married, God called me to pastoral ministry - so we embarked (together) on another three-year educational process to complete a Masters of Divinity. Fast-forward another eight years (and three young children), and I am back as a full-time doctoral student, and our family lives in the States as "Non-Resident Aliens". We are not poster-children for financial stability - if we waited to have our economic portfolios together, we'd still be dating or engaged!

If I were to put it bluntly, I think many Christians have bought into a lie, a cultural myth, which professes that financial security is an imperative life goal, and a pre-requisite to a happy marriage. I am certainly not proposing that poverty or financial insecurity is a guaranteed recipe for marital bliss - I am simply insisting that the cultural value is an absolute lie. You do not need to be financially secure before getting married. You do not need to have your career launched prior to tying the knot. Marriage can come before, during, or after school; before, during, or after the launch of your career.

An interesting (and sad) sidenote is that often parents of college students will support their college age children either partially or totally while they are living at home (or in dorm) - but if their children get married while they are in college, they are on their own. I have to say that this makes little sense. Regnerus deplores the attitudes that some "well-meaning parents" convey by using "their resources as a threat, implying that if their children marry before the age at which their parents socially approve, they are on their own. No more car insurance. No help with tuition. No more rent." Again, I have seen this attitude conveyed - and it has a negative impact both on our view of marriage and on the resulting sexual practices of our Christian youth.

Sex: Regnerus reminds us that historically, young adults were often considered to have reached "marriage-able age" when they biologically became adults (let's not make me spell that out, shall we?). Consequently, girls were married as young as 14; boys as young as 16 or 18. Again, I am certainly not advocating child brides, but Regnerus makes a good point. Sexually speaking, boys and girls are becoming adults, complete with adult sex drive and desire, long before (an average of ten years before) they are marrying. Do we really expect that they are going to "wait" for ten years before seeking fulfillment of their natural sexual desires? Should we expect that? If a young man and woman (say right around 20 years old) are attracted to one another, desire to marry and spend their lives together, are committed to their relationship with one another - should they be asked to wait another six years before getting married, and to abstain from sex until they are "stable" or "mature" enough? Or should they be encouraged to enter into the God-ordained covenant of marriage, and explore the full wonders of human sexuality that God opens to them? I think my bias shows through.

A final reason that perhaps people are postponing marriage is an unhealthy, idealistic vision of marriage partners. Some young Christians (perhaps encouraged by well-intentioned pastors like myself) have the idea that there is one (and only one) person out there whom God has prepared as their future spouse. This conception (which I insist is entirely un-biblical [not anti-biblical, but un-biblical in that it has no warrant from God's Word]) makes them exceedingly fearful (usually unconsciously so) of marrying "the wrong person". Reality is that no matter who you marry, it will require hard work, communication, and compromise throughout your married life. Regnerus suggests that although "it may be nice to find an optimal match in marriage, it cannot hold a candle to sharing a mental and spiritual commitment to the enduring covenant between God, man, and woman." Why? Simply because the person you marry will change over time, as will you! "People change. Chemistry wanes. Covenants don't."

Which brings us full circle to a Christian conception of marriage, as a life-long covenant between a man and a woman in the sight of God; the two becoming one united flesh (and spirit), guided and led by the Holy Spirit. The individuals will change, often dramatically, over time. Vanessa and I are both incredibly different people now than we were when we got married thirteen years ago. But our commitment to one another, expressed through our covenant vows many years ago, stand unchanged, and so does the God in whose name we promised our lives to one another. If this is how we see marriage - a life-long covenant based on more than financial security, sexual desire, and personal compatibility - then we are doing our young adults a disservice when we discourage them from marrying "young".

From personal experience, and with the confidence that it lines up with (although is not required by) a biblical ethic of marriage - I agree wholeheartedly with Regnerus: the case for early marriage is strong, and growing stronger by the year.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Journey back South

Well, here we are - back in Louisville, Kentucky. After spending June and July in Edmonton, we left August 3 to return home to Louisville for another year of doctoral studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Here are a few thoughts from our journey.

1. Subjecting three young children to 36 hours in a van together is nasty business, even if you spread it over five days of driving. Our poor kids - they did great, but it's such a long time to be cooped up.

2. The drive through southern Saskatchewan and North Dakota is ... empty. It's absolutely beautiful country (to me, anyway) - flowing fields of grain, endless horizon. But when your youngest says, "I have to pee" ... well, the options are few and far between! On the bright side, we now know that a little 4-year-old girl with a small bladder can in fact pee on the side of the road when push comes to shove. It sure beats having wet clothes and carseats.

3. Wisconsin has a fascinating highway system. We're accustomed to named or numbered highways. But not Wisconsin. Apparently cheese fans are more (or less, depending on your perspective) creative than that. While some of their highways are numbered (including the Interstates, of course), the majority that we drove past were "lettered" - e.g. Highway T, Highway I, etc. This results in some absolutely fascinating highways ...

a) Highway ET - I think this highway takes you home.
b) Highway OO - particularly interesting because it was immediately followed by Highway PP (that's an interesting combination when you're driving past them with three young children).
c) Highway Q - leading me to expect the sudden appearance of an inter-dimensional being, or the discovery of an ancient biblical document.
d) Highway J - followed immediately by Highway K, leading me to look for aliens or men in dark suits with sunglasses and a cool flashy thingy.

4. Chicago is huge. For a guy from the Western Canadian prairies, Edmonton is the big city - just over a million population in the greater metro area. Chicago seems absolutely massive - easily the biggest city I've ever driven through and stayed in. Crazy roads. At least this year we didn't sit on the interstate for three hours because of accidents ...

5. Louisville feels more like home now than it did in May when we left. This will be our second year here. Last year I continually referred to Edmonton as home. In May, when we drove back to Edmonton, I felt like we were going "home." After the summer in Edmonton, which was incredible, fulfilling, and very much appreciated, driving back to Louisville felt like coming home. For this season of our lives, Louisville is indeed home.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?

How would you answer that question in 300 words or less? Here is my take on it ...

Simpy put, we are fallen people living in a fallen world. There are four sources of our suffering in the world.

1. Our own sins or bad decisions. If you pick a fight with a guy twice your size, God will generally allow you to suffer the consequences of your choice.
2. Other people's sins or bad decisions. Someone broke into our van and tried to steal it two years ago - we suffered the consequences of their sin.
3. The general fallenness of our world. Sickness and disease are (usually) not the consequence of sin or poor choices - but rather a feature of our fallen world.
4. God testing or refining us. (E.g. Job 1-2; 1 Peter 1:6-7)

Bad things will happen to the righteous and the unrighteous alike. God grieves for our pain along with us (John 11:35); but His primary concern is how we deal with trials. In the midst of suffering, how should we respond?

1. Continue to glorify God. (Job 1:20-22) Praise God for the life and salvation He grants; be thankful that even amidst suffering, God is sovereign.
2. Search your heart, and confess any hidden sin. (Psalm 139)
3. Examine and imitate Christ's example. Jesus walked the road of suffering before us (Matthew 26:31-46; 27:11-56), and warned that His followers would also face trials (Matthew 5:10-12).
4. Meditate on the eternal promises of God. Fix your eyes on the eternal life that God promises through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).
5. Remember that God walks through suffering with you, and you are never left on your own in the midst of hurt (Hebrews 13:5; Psalm 23:4).
6. Cherish God's assurance that one day, all will be set right. When God recreates the heavens and the earth (Revelation 21:1-5; 22:1-5), the sickness, pain and death that mar our fallen world will be forever removed. Then bad things will no longer happen to God's people.

To read more ... check out C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain; and Philip Yancey, Where is God When It Hurts?

Monday, July 6, 2009

What Can Parents Teach Their Kids?

I heard an hour-long radio commentary on an interesting court case in Winnipeg about a month ago. Here are the bare-bones of the case.

A 7-year-old girl went to school with neo-Nazi drawings and slogans drawn and painted all over her body. Provincial social services apprehended the girl that day, and put her into foster care.

In a court case now going on, the province is seeking to gain permanent custody of the girl on the basis that the parents are unfit to care for the girl - as demonstrated by the white supremacist body-work.

While the entire court case is fascinating, and raises several important questions, the key concern which I want to address is this: what are parents allowed to teach their children at home? So far as I can ascertain, neither the 7-year-old girl nor her parents (mother and step-father) have ever threatened members of other races or religions with physical harm, beyond the generic "go back to your own country" vitriol.

What I find interesting is that the province is arguing that the content of the parents' teaching at home is sufficient grounds to permanently remove the children (there is also a 2-year-old son involved) from the racist home. There has been (to my knowledge) no accusations that the mother or step-father physically, mentally, or verbally abused the girl - the accusation is that the indoctrination in white supremacy amounts to a form of verbal or mental abuse.

I would agree with the province in this: teaching your children to hate others is despicable. Teaching your children that other races are inferior, is despicable. Drawing neo-Nazi artwork and slogans on your children is both idiotic and, again, despicable. I deplore the beliefs of the parents, and their choice to display their beliefs on their daughter's body. I find it appalling.

But, I do not believe that this serves as sufficient cause to remove children from the home. IF there are other things going on, and the province can demonstrate parental negligence, or physical abuse, or that threats were being made against other people as a result of the parents' racist beliefs - then perhaps there are grounds for state intervention.

But if all the province has to go on is: "the beliefs the girl was being taught at home are deplorable and amount to mental abuse," then I'm afraid I have to strongly protest. Since when has the government taken upon itself the right (or duty) to determine what parents can and cannot teach their children? If a precedent is set with this young girl, where does it logically end?

Is it mental abuse to teach your children to believe in Santa Claus? After all, there is no such person, and teaching your children to believe in a lie could be construed as mental abuse.

Is the province justified in removing children from a home where children are taught that there is no God, that only idiots believe in Christianity, and that they should stay away from other children who go to church and talk about Jesus?

Should the province remove children from homes where they are taught to trust in a loving, redemptive God who created them and desires to be in relationship with them?

Is the province justified in removing children from Muslim homes where children are taught that non-Muslims are infidels and will burn in hell?

Should the province apprehend children whose parents teach them that God designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman?

Does the state have the right to mandate the beliefs of parents, and what beliefs can be taught to their children at home? I sure hope not.

I may agree that parents should not teach their children the hate-filled drivel of white supremacy. I may agree that such parents are bad parents. But the government does not have the right to determine what morals and values parents can teach their children. So unless they have some other grounds on which to take permanent state guardianship of these two children, I reluctantly hope the children are given back to their parents (or parent singular, as apparently mom and step-dad are now estranged).

Introducing Tawapologetics

Well, this morning marks my introduction to the blogosphere. I enter with a sense of trepidation, hopeful that I will have the time and discipline to make it worthwhile, fearful that there's nothing worthwhile to say!

Tawapologetics is dedicated to the explanation and defence of the historic Christian faith - the belief that there is a God, who has revealed Himself in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, died for us and for our salvation, and rose again on the third day; and that the only path to forgiveness of sin and eternal life in God's presence is a personal faith in Jesus. I am passionate about God; passionate about defending the Christian faith; passionate about seeing others come to know God.

And, well, now I've posted my first blog.