To Cohabit or Not to Cohabit Before Marriage

I recently read an article about Pastor Josh Howerton , who preached a “provocative” sermon in February called “3 Things That Will Kill Your Marriage.” In the process, he laid out some sociological statistics and a challenge. He later said, “What’s amazing is I love when sociology is always discovering what theology was already saying.”

One of the stats Howerton mentioned is that you’re 46% less likely to commit adultery if you believe in the infallible, inerrant Word of God. Another is that active conservative Protestants who attend church together regularly are 35% less likely to get divorced. He then challenged his congregation: “If you’re living with somebody that’s not your spouse, you’re sleeping with somebody that’s not your spouse, or you’ve actually already started a family and had kids with somebody that’s not your spouse, and you right now are coming under the loving conviction of the Holy Spirit that you need to honor God, bend your knee to Jesus.” He then added: “Put a ring on it and enter into a covenant with a person that you’re already acting like you’re in a covenant with.” Less than a month later, 52 couples did just that in a joint ceremony and celebration, witnessed–and cheered on–by more than a thousand people from the congregation.

This story brought great joy to my heart, and as I reflected on it, I realized it starts with the courage that Josh Howerton exhibited in preaching this kind of sermon. My family and I used to be part of a church whose leadership, over time, became less and less willing to preach about specific sins, especially of the sexual kind. In sharp contrast, the Lord honored Josh Howerton’s courage and used him to bring 52 sexually-involved couples to repentance, culminating in their tying the knot a couple weeks later.

If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you know that I like to do research related to sociological trends, including the kind that Josh Howerton laid out in his recent sermon. I think it’s especially instructive to compare changes in stats over a generation or more. In this case, I looked up some stats related to cohabiting, which Howerton referred to. First of all, a definition: cohabiting means living together and having a sexual relationship without being married; when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, this was called “shacking up.” Here are some stats related specifically to people aged 18 to 44:

  • In 2002, 54% had ever cohabited, while 60% had ever been married.
  • In 2019, 59% had ever cohabited, while 50% had ever been married.

Here are some more stats related to cohabiting vs. marrying, but not specific to any age group:

  • In 1996, cohabiting couples were 3.7% of the U.S. population, while married couples were 55.9%.
  • In 2023, cohabiting couples were 9.1% of the U.S. population, while married couples were 46.4%.

These stats are enough to show that cohabitation has been sharply on the rise since 1996, while marriage has significantly declined; in addition, whereas in 2002, more people had ever been married than had ever cohabited, that had reversed a generation later. A caveat: “ever been married” is not necessarily a positive sign; the American divorce rate is still high.

One might ask why these stats related to cohabitation are important. Here’s why: Studies indicate a 33% to 50% higher chance of divorce for those who lived together before marriage, particularly if they cohabited before becoming engaged. In other words, if you want to have a better chance of going the distance as a married couple, don’t live together before marriage. Along those lines, there are some other stats that encourage not living together until marriage. Couples reporting that things in their marriage are going fairly well or very well:

  • Cohabiting couples: 47% fairly well, 41% very well
  • Married couples: 37% fairly well, 58% very well

Notice that married couples are significantly more likely than cohabiting couples to have a positive view of how their marriage is going; this is especially obvious in the difference in those who responded “very well.” Some of the specifics cited by these couples include 1) the way household chores are divided between them and their spouse or partner; 2) how well their spouse or partner balances work and personal life; 3) how well they and their spouse or partner communicate; 4) their spouse’s or partner’s approach to parenting (among those with children younger than 18 in the household).

Here’s a list that should encourage couples to wait until marriage to live together. Married couples are more likely than cohabiting couples to have a great deal of trust in their spouse or partner to

  • be faithful to them;
  • act in their best interest;
  • always tell them the truth;
  • handle money responsibly.

When it comes to marriage, there are no guarantees, of course; there are plenty of couples who never cohabited but who divorced anyway. Even long-married couples who did not cohabit before marriage have gotten divorced when they became empty-nesters, for example. And even Christian couples don’t always go the distance.

However, these caveats don’t diminish what the stats indicate: If you don’t cohabit before marriage, you are significantly more likely to experience more marital satisfaction, and you and your spouse are more likely to stay together. In addition, as Josh Howerton brought out, if you believe in the infallible Word of God and you attend church regularly together, your marriage is significantly more likely to last a lifetime.

I feel very blessed to still be married after 37+ years. I believe that regardless of what stage of life you’re at, if you choose to get married, you can also experience marital satisfaction and go the distance. If you’re reading this and you don’t know the Lord, I pray that will change someday.

The Two Betrayers of Jesus

Last year I read a three-in-one (!) volume of books by R.C. Sproul, that theological giant of the later 20th century and on into the 21st before he went to heaven in 2017. The third book is called Chosen by God, which is about predestination. Regardless of what you may believe about this important doctrine, there is a great deal of richness on every page of this book–and it is written in language that is very easy to comprehend.

R.C. seamlessly mixes doctrine with examples from Scripture. Two that I’ve been thinking about this week, with Good Friday just three days away, are Peter and Judas. R.C. writes that both of them betrayed Jesus; I had never thought of Peter and Judas as having that similarity! But of course, R.C. is right. And in fact, Jesus also prophesied the betrayal of both of them. Beyond that fact, however, there are important differences between the two men, including how Jesus talked to them as well as what happened to them after the betrayals.

Let’s look at Peter first. Jesus told him in Luke 22: 31, 32: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Notice the word “when” here, not “if.” Jesus knew that Peter would “turn back,” meaning that he would repent after his betrayal, and notice that Jesus had prayed for Peter. We know that the night before Jesus was crucified, Peter denied three times that he even knew Jesus, just as Jesus had prophesied. Matthew 26: 74-75 tells us about Peter’s third denial: “Then he [Peter] began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, ‘I don’t know the man!’ Immediately a rooster crowed. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: ‘Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.’ And he went outside and wept bitterly.”

After Jesus’ resurrection, in John 21: 15-22, He reinstates Peter when he asks Peter (three times!) whether he loves Him. And then in the book of Acts, we see that Peter has become a fearless leader of the early church.

Regarding Judas: First of all, in Mark 14:21, when Jesus and His disciples were at the Last Supper, Jesus said to all of them, “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Then in John 13:27, we read: “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. ‘What you are about to do, do quickly,’ Jesus told him.” This was during the Last Supper, the night before Jesus’ crucifixion; Judas left, got “a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees” (John 18:3), and led them to the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus and the disciples had gone after supper. Notice that Satan had entered Judas, something that did not happen to Peter.

We might wonder if Judas had done anything which made it easier for Satan to take control of him. We are told something very important in John 12: 5, 6; after Mary had anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume, Judas asked, “‘Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.’ He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.” Just imagine: Judas had been with Jesus for three years, and yet he was an unrepentant thief. In addition, he was a liar, making it sound like he cared for the poor; the fact is, he only wanted to steal more money.

On the morning of Jesus’ crucifixion, Judas “was seized with remorse” (Matthew 27:3). He tried to return the thirty silver coins he had received for betraying Jesus, but the chief priests and elders refused it. “Then he went away and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5) Because of these verses about Judas’s remorse and his trying to return the blood money he had been paid, some have wondered whether Judas might be saved; in other words, is it possible we will see Judas in heaven?

First of all, remorse means regret, or guilt; this is not the same as repentance, which is “doing a 180” in terms of how you live your life. Second, as already mentioned, Jesus Himself said it would be better for the betrayer “if he had not been born.” Third, Jesus prayed this in John 17:12: “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” This phrase “the one doomed to destruction” clearly refers to Judas; it is used in only one other place in the New Testament, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, in reference to the “man of lawlessness,” meaning the Antichrist. The word “destruction” here means “eternal damnation.” Judas, like the Antichrist, will spend eternity in hell. The Bible answers the question of Judas’s eternal destination very clearly, so we don’t need to wonder.

In Acts 1:25, we have another reference to Judas, who “left to go where he belongs.” The ESV says, “to go to his own place.” I noticed some commentators have written that this may refer to the Potter’s Field, where Judas’s body ended up (Acts 1:18). Other commentators say this is a reference to hell, which is much more likely. Regardless, from John 17:12 (previous paragraph), it is clear we will not see Judas the betrayer in heaven. However, we will most definitely see Peter there–and I’m looking forward to meeting him! Unlike Judas, who committed suicide, Peter was a spiritual giant of the early church and died a martyr’s death.

In the stories of Judas and Peter, there are both warning and hope: warning that if a person professing the Name of Christ is living in persistent sin, s/he will be more likely to succumb to the devil. This doesn’t necessarily mean that s/he will become possessed, like Judas, but such a person’s heart will become more hardened to their own sin. On the other hand, there is hope for anyone who has strayed off the straight and narrow path, even denying Jesus, as Peter did. Regardless of what we’ve done, if we repent (which is not the same as remorse, like Judas) and ask the Lord for forgiveness, we will receive it.

May all of you who love the Lord have a most blessed Holy Week. I look forward to celebrating the resurrection of Jesus on Easter, the morning that it happened almost 2000 years ago! If you have not put your trust in Jesus Christ, my prayer is that you will do it this week. You will discover that Jesus is the only One Who can give you the peace and joy that your heart longs for.

Is Euthanasia Becoming Too Easy?

Two headlines about euthanasia in Canada recently caught my eye. One was about Jolene Van Alstine, a 45-year-old native of Saskatchewan suffering from a rare, but treatable, parathyroid disease that causes intense bone pain, among other things. There were no surgeons in Saskatchewan who were able to perform the required surgery, so she needed a referral from an endocrinologist in Saskatchewan; however, none of them were willing to take her on as a new patient. Various government officials that she contacted recommended Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program as a “solution,” even though her condition is not terminal. And best of all, the government would cover the cost!

Jolene was ready to end her life on January 7, but help and hope came from an unexpected source: Radio host Glenn Beck offered to cover all costs related to her care, including her transfer to the U.S. and whatever medical procedures might be necessary for her recovery. At last report, surgeons in Tampa, Ontario, and Saskatchewan had agreed on an alternative strategy involving high doses of calcium and vitamin D as a first step. Jolene and Glenn Beck remain in touch.

A second headline was about a story with a very different, and very disturbing, ending. An 80-something Canadian woman known as “Mrs. B” had initially requested euthanasia following her heart surgery (with complications), but then changed her mind; she cited her religious beliefs and requested admission to hospice, which was denied. Mrs. B’s first MAiD assessor “had warned of coercion, sudden changes in her wishes, and caregiver burnout as possible risks.” Although there were nursing visits following Mrs. B’s heart surgery, her primary caregiver was her husband, who requested a second assessment under the MAiD program, and this second assessor deemed Mrs. B “eligible” for euthanasia, overriding the concerns expressed by the first assessor. At this point, the first assessor then attempted to meet with Mrs. B again, but the request was refused on the grounds of “clinical circumstances necessitating same-day euthanasia.” A third assessor confirmed the second assessor’s “recommendation,” so Mrs. B’s life was taken “against her will,” in the words of Rachael Thomas, a Conservative member of Parliament in Canada. “That’s called murder,” she wrote.

One of the things that I find most disturbing about this story is that the first MAiD assessor’s attempt to meet a second time with Mrs. B was denied for bureaucratic reasons. Let me repeat from the previous paragraph: “clinical circumstances necessitating same-day euthanasia.” And what of Mrs. B’s husband, who, according to various reports, “pushed” for his wife to consent to euthanasia after their request for hospice and palliative care was denied? One can easily understand the difficulty an 80-something man would have, trying to care for his wife after complications following her heart surgery; he obviously needed help, which was denied. I can see how the very presence of an option like MAiD could be too tempting to pass up, and whether they had any children who could help is unknown. This is not meant to condone what the husband allowed, but to understand it.

Canada’s MAiD program allows a nurse practitioner or physician to actively end a person’s life by directly administering medication; this is a form of euthanasia. Alternatively, a nurse practitioner or physician can prescribe the person a “substance” to end his or her life, which is known as physician-assisted suicide. In actual fact, the vast majority of deaths under Canada’s MAiD program are euthanasia. As mentioned earlier, under this program it is “free;” that, combined with the fact that a physician or nurse can “take care of it,” makes it a comparatively “easy” option.

In the U.S., active euthanasia is illegal, thankfully; however, physician-assisted suicide is legal in ten states and D.C. Also thankfully, federal law does not permit the federal government to subsidize assisted suicide. On the other hand, Medi-Cal (CA’s version of Medicaid) covers the cost; I haven’t researched the other nine states where physician-assisted suicide is legal in terms of whether those states’ governments subsidize the cost.

I should add here that there is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate directives) are an example of the second type. My wife and I believe that passive euthanasia is Scripturally permissible, but active euthanasia is not. In fact, for most of recorded history, the kinds of extension-of-life options that are available now were not available. However, I know, and know of, plenty of people who have gone to great lengths to extend life in ways that were not available even 100 years ago.

One thing that helps in these complex issues is a Biblical understanding of suffering. Here are two verses that directly link suffering and hope: “Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” (Romans 5:3,4) Here’s another verse about suffering, which is part of a passage about the hope for all of creation: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” (Romans 8:18)

I don’t claim to have all of the answers to end-of-life and extension-of-life issues. In the end, each of us who claims the Name of Christ must ask for wisdom and make decisions about such matters before Him.

Volunteering, Snow Shoveling, and IDs

A couple of years after my parents retired in a snow-heavy area of Michigan, they had a neighbor with a snow blower who would usually clear not only his driveway, walkway, and sidewalk, but also those of my parents. Prior to that, either my dad did it, or I did it when I was home for Christmas. One winter break, it snowed every single day that I was home, and I enjoyed (!) going outside with my snow scoop and taking care of it. My parents had another neighbor whose area I also took care of; before I turned 16, I earned money in the winter (in Iowa) by scooping snow for a few neighbors, but as a young adult, I was doing it for the sheer enjoyment of it!

All of this came to mind last week when I read about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s call for emergency snow shovelers to help dig out the snow-blanketed city. Prior to that, there had been reports of volunteers who were snow-shoveling, along with the employed city workers tasked with it. The pay was initially reported to be about $19/hour, but it was quickly increased to a very generous $30/hour. However, there were a few catches: first of all, paid snow-shovelers had to be at least 18 and eligible to work in the U.S. Second, they had to show two original forms of ID plus copies; their social security card; and two small photos sized 1.5 square inches. (This is not the same as a passport-sized photo, by the way, which is 2 X 2 inches.) If you were a snowed-in New Yorker and you happened to have all of this documentation, you were good to go! However, notice that you had to show not just two IDs, but copies as well; for those without printers, that would require the extra step of heading out into the snow and finding a business that was open and could make copies. Notice also the size of the required photos; if you had a couple of extra passport-size photos lying around (which I do), you would have had to do a little cutting. If you didn’t have extras, you could try to do it yourself, or you could head out into the snow and, again, hopefully find an open business that would do it for you. When I looked online, I did find a site that provides you with passport-size photos (for a fee, of course), which you could then print (again, if you had a printer) and then cut to the appropriate size.

As you might expect, Mamdani and other city officials received backlash over these stringent requirements. In response, New York City Department of Sanitation press secretary Vincent Gragnani said, “As with any employer, the City of New York has a legal obligation under federal law to verify work authorization and maintain proper documentation before issuing payment. We are not legally permitted to hand out checks without completing that process.” It is not clear whether there could have been a suspension of at least some of these rigorous requirements; however, given that this was officially an “emergency shoveling program,” it seems that should have been possible. To be fair, in spite of all of these requirements, there were about 7600 people who met all of them and signed up; this is even more than ten years ago, when New York City had its worst snowstorm on record and 6454 people were recruited.

Mamdani and other city officials received additional backlash, however, because New York City does not require registered voters to show ID to vote. For first-time voters, even a driver’s license number or a social security number is not required when registering to vote; a current utility bill will do. And even if that fails, you can vote by affidavit ballot, which means that your eligibility to vote will (hopefully?) be checked before your ballot is counted.

In sum, if you want to earn money in NYC as an emergency snow shoveler, you have to meet several requirements; on the other hand, if you want to vote, a utility bill will do, and even if you don’t have that, you can still cast a ballot. This blog is focused on Biblical answers to current issues and questions, not political decisions, but it seems to me that there is something askew here.

If I were living in New York City, I would be more than willing to shovel snow for myself and a couple of neighbors for free; I might even shovel crosswalks. Admittedly, in this hypothetical situation, when I learned about the city offering money to remove snow and ice from public areas–specifically bus stops, crosswalks, fire hydrants and step streets–I might do that as well!

I don’t live in snow country anymore, but one place I enjoy volunteering is at my church; over the years, I have done some in my community at large as well. I would encourage you to do the same, as you are able. I hope volunteering is something that never grows out of fashion; it sounds a lot like what the Bible calls serving one another.

Are Pets Becoming the New Children?

Recently, I saw the following post on nextdoor.com: “Our boy Toby is missing!” I was genuinely concerned that a family’s son was missing, but I should have known better. When I scrolled down a bit, I saw that a modest reward was being offered, and there was a picture of a cat.

On a typical day, at least two of the top three-four trending posts on nextdoor.com in my city are about dogs; yesterday it was two out of three. These posts are typically about either a missing dog or a stray that someone saw. The dog names are typically ones that are also names for people, albeit ones that are currently not popular: the aforementioned “Toby” is one example; “Bernie” is another. When I was a boy in the 1960s, pets had names that most likely no one would ever name their child: my family had dogs that were named “Skip,” “Squirt,” and “Boots.” An elderly lady in my town had a dog named “Fifi.” My best friend had a dog named “Belford” which, although a given name for a boy, was and is a very uncommon one, at least in the U.S.

Another growing phenomenon I’ve noticed is that many people, both in writing and speaking, have come to refer to their pet(s) as part of their “family.” Sixty years ago, people sometimes referred to their pet as the “family dog,” for example, but that is obviously different from being a “member” of the “family.”

Pet owners have become increasingly willing to spend money on their pets as well. We can see this in the expected growth in employment for veterinarians over the next ten years in the U.S. This growth is expected to be, on average, 15%, which is significantly higher than the average expected occupational growth overall; it is increasingly common for people to take their ailing pet to a vet. Another example of extra money spent on pets is rather bizarre to me: A recent survey found that the majority of pet owners have birthday parties for their pets! I should also mention that pet “clothing” has become a burgeoning industry, along with pet toys, which have been around much longer.

When my wife and I take our daily morning walk, a rather common sight is a man or woman, of varying ages, walking a dog. The women that we see tend to be younger than the men. I don’t know how many of these dog-walkers are living with someone, but my impression is that at least some of them probably live alone.

All of this aroused my curiosity, so I dug further, asking the question in the title of this post. I was not surprised to get several hits. Psychologist Mark Travers, for example, after noting the free fall in birth and fertility rates (at least in North America and Europe), questions whether pets are replacing children in families. He writes that researchers Laura Gillet and Eniko Kubinyi have found three reasons why many couples find “raising” pets— particularly dogs—as meaningful as raising children.

1) Attachment. The emotional bond between people and pets mirrors the attachment between parents and children.

2) Parenting styles. Childless pet owners tend to “raise” their pets in ways similar to the ways parents raise children, including establishing routines and boundaries.

3) Cognition. Dogs are “emotionally intelligent, socially attuned, and remarkably responsive to human behavior,” say Gillet and Kubinyi.

Here are a few stats related specifically to millennials and Gen Z in regard to pets:

  • 61% of young people under 40 agree that “pets are the new kids.”
  • 70% of childless millennial women view their pets as their children.
  • 43% of millennials and Gen Z prefer having pets over children. Notice the word “over,” meaning “in the place of.”

Maybe these stats don’t bother you, but they do me. My concern is that our younger generations may find it increasingly preferable not to get married. There has been a precipitous drop in marriage rates; more specifically, it is projected that only about 62% of millennials will ever marry, compared with an even lower projection of 57% for Gen Z. This has implications for having kids, which the Bible tells us are a blessing; in Psalm 127:3, we read, “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him.” There will always be people who have children outside of marriage, but God’s design will always be the best: a husband and wife raising kids in a loving, stable, secure home.

I’m not down on having pets; far from it! As I mentioned earlier, I grew up with three dogs at different times, and I enjoyed them; however, I enjoyed my friends even more! Additionally, when my daughter was 10, we bought a rabbit (named Cosmo) that we let run free in our tiny backyard during the day–and then we chased him into his cage at night. When he died after a good long life, I cried even more than my daughter did.

I think what we need is a kind of balance. Especially for our younger generations, I hope that as time goes on, pets will not take the place of children but will instead become a joyful addition.