There’s an extensive new conversation that is happening around the idea of marriage and the unmarried.
- “Where have the good men gone,” Kay Hymowitz, Wall Street Journal, 2/19/2011. Argues that “too many men in their 20s are living in a new kind of extended adolescence.”
- “The new normal demographic: unmarried twentysomethings,” David Kinnaman, 10/4/2011.
- “The decline of marriage and rise of new families,” Pew Research, 11/18/2010: from 72% married in 1960 to 52% in 2008. Those with college degrees more likely to be married than those with high school diplomas.
- “Barely half of US adults are married, a record low,” Pew Research, 12/14/2011: median age of first marriage (26.5 female, 28.7 male) has never been higher. Share of adults who are currently married will drop below half in a few years if the current trend continues.
- “For Millennials, parenthood trumps marriage,” Pew Research, 2010: “52% of Millennials say being a good parent is one of the most important things; just 30% say the same about a successful marriage”
- “Traditional marriage declines in US, study shows,” SF Gate.com, 12/15/2011: “same trend has taken hold in most other advanced postindustrial societies…”
- “Is the falling US marriage rate a bad thing? Some find positives in the data,” Christian Science Monitor, 12/14/2011
To be unmarried is not necessarily a “failure to launch,” as some might put it–even though many might view it as such. It solely depends on the motivations.
Paul himself advocated people remain unmarried, in perhaps one of his more controversial sections of Scripture. He spoke “without a direct command from the Lord” yet he didn’t outright condemn remaining unmarried. Clearly there are many people in the world who choose to remain unmarried and devote the whole of their lives to their singular purpose, whatever it might be.
I don’t think, therefore, that we should automatically assume that every unmarried individual is a “failure to launch.” There are many people involved in missions, for example, who have intentionally decided to remain single so as to maintain their flexibility and maximum ministry impact. Indeed, it seems to me that equating singlehood with failure is a gross assumption on our part that can lead to significant error.
The current demographic trend is wider than just ministry, of course. Yet perhaps we ought to stop considering whether this is a trend that absolutely needs to be reversed–and instead consider what it means for the changing nature of the church.
1. It will impact, for example, our interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2, which says an elder must be the husband of one wife. Does this mean that only marrieds-with-children are qualified to be elders in the church?
2. It is perhaps better to remain unmarried than to nonchalantly and irresponsibly enter into marriage only later to divorce. If you want to do your own thing the rest of your life, best to accept the fact that you’ll be doing it by yourself. It’s a self-centered life.
3. Perhaps a reduction in the marriage rate correlates to an increase in the seriousness with which one or both spouses are taking marriage? The studies simply show that the rate is dropping–but they do not generally show the causes.
4. One area the church needs to embrace and engage is teaching the responsibilities of singlehood.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
While many churches and ministries attempt to correct perceived attacks on marriage and family, sometimes this means excluding or discriminating against singles and I think that’s too bad. Perhaps if we did have more single people in Christian leadership some of the blind spots would reduced? I’ve noticed how, when I meet someone new at church and ask about their family, they describe the success of their grown children in terms of whether they are married and have had children of their own. I’m also concerned about the frequent emphasis in our youth ministries on “waiting for marriage” as if being married is a given. I wonder what it would look like if, as you say, churches taught about the responsibilities, e.g., opportunities to serve with greater flexibility, that often come with singleness?
I would think that city centre urban churches often have a different constituent community of believers. Suburban churches would have greater percentage of married couples/ families. Many singles not yet settled down find downtown churches more sympathetic to their situation, or at least, other people in similar situations.
What’s the context in your church?
I’m not so sure about that, but it’s possible, I guess. Churches definitely need to facilitate the whole meet/marry/have children thing, while balancing this with the possibility that some will choose not to be married. The ratios are probably different, as you point out, between inner city and suburban churches. But I would think the tension would be felt more where there are a greater number of people outside the norm (e.g. unmarrieds will find they fit in less in suburban churches than in inner city churches–perhaps). Would be interesting to see if there are any studies on the topic but I rather doubt there are