13 page paper on Healthy Sexuality Topic, see description

Authentic_Human_Sexuality_An_Integrated_Christian_..._----_Chapter_8.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >13 page paper on Healthy Sexuality Topic, see description

Premarital Cohabitation Cautions and Concerns

Few developments have been as dramatic as the rise of premarital cohab- itation—couples not married to each other but living together as sexual partners who share a household. According to recent surveys, the num- ber of unmarried cohabiting couples has increased more than twelvefold between 1960 and 2006 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2007:19). In 2000, Simmons and O’Connell reported that four out ten unmarried-couple households included one or more children under age 18 (Poponoe and Whitehead 2002). It appears that today a majority of young adults cohabit before marriage, and nearly half of all out-of-wedlock births are born to cohabiting mothers (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004:1215; Bumpass and Lu 2000).

In addition to the fact that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, a majority of couples who cohabit split up before marriage. As might be expected, people who cohabited before their first marriage have a greater propensity to cohabit with another person after they divorce (Wu 1995). Those who lived together before marriage had a 50 percent higher hazard rate of divorcing after marriage than couples who had not cohabited.

Our goal in this chapter is to develop a Christian perspective on the topic. We draw on existing research, mainly self-reported responses to

Balswick, Judith K., and Jack O. Balswick. Authentic Human Sexuality : An Integrated Christian Approach, InterVarsity Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316493. Created from liberty on 2017-11-14 06:52:04.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 6 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

survey research questionnaires or interviews, to address the question “Why do people choose to cohabit?” We then examine the effect of this trend and give a response to cohabitation that is informed by both biblical and social-scientific literature.

Why cOhaBitatiOn? The best way to address this question is to ask, Is cohabiting an alterna- tive to being single or an alternative to being married? Premarital cohabita- tion is actually not a new idea. As early as 1966 anthropologist Margaret Mead tried to address the situation by propos ing a two-step plan for single adults. The first step would be a “trial mar riage,” in which the couple would determine whether they were compatible. The second step would be taken by couples who wanted to legalize the union when they had children. Taking it a step further, Scriven (1968) proposed a three-stage plan whereby a relationship progressed from sexual satisfaction, to social security, to sensible spawning. Cadwallader (1966) believed that cohabit- ing would free couples from feeling “trapped for life.” He liked the idea that couples could establish contracts for stated periods of time and peri- odically renew them as they saw fit.

These views stretched trial marriage about as far as it could go, even- tually leading to the concept of premarital cohabitation. It has only been within the past forty years that cohabitation has become popu lar among the middle classes, having originated among lower-class and disadvan- taged youth.

By examining cohabitation in sixteen industrial societies, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) identify several conceptually distinct statuses given to cohabitation with respect to family formation. In some societies, cohabitation is marginal since it is culturally rejected or even penalized. In more accepting cultures it can be viewed as a prelude to marriage status, where legal marriage is expected before childbearing. A similar status is referred to as a stage in the marriage process. McRae (1997) suggests that cohabitation serves as a type of marriage preparation, as the stage that occurs between courtship (mate selection) and marriage. In this case, co- habiting gives the couple a chance to test the degree of compatibility in the relationship. If the partners conclude that their personalities “fit,” they proceed to marriage.

Cohabitation is usully viewed as an alternative for persons who want a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 5

sexual and compansionship living arrangement, but are not ready to form a family. In more accepting cultures, cohabitation is distinquished from marriage as an alternative to marriage. Last, in cultures with high ac- ceptance, cohabitation is indistinguishable from marriage. For instance, in places like Northern European countries and New Zealand, cohabitation is viewed as if the couple is married (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004).

The above types of cohabitiation can be depicted as ranging on a con- tinuum from the least to the most acceptable status in a modern societies. Given the state of cohabitation in North America, cohabitation is viewed by some as an alternative to single life and for others an alternative to be- ing married.

Based on a study of 1,293 Canadian adolescents, Manning, Longmore and Giordano (2007) report that for most, cohabitation has become part of the pathway toward marriage. As such, most youth “are not replacing marriage with cohabitation, but instead cohabit and then marry” (p. 559). Based on their study of cohabitation in the United States, King and Scott (2005:271) suggest that “older cohabitors are more likely to view their re- lationship as an alternative to marriage, whereas younger cohabitors tend to view their relationship as a prelude to it.” In general, the more accepting a society’s attitude toward cohabitation, the more cohabitation is defined as an alternative to marriage.

Many couples admittedly decide to cohabit for the conven ience and companionship of being in an exclusive sexual relationship with a chosen partner, whether there is or is not an intention to marry. By its very na- ture, a cohabiting relationship is one in which commitment is ambiguous. Smock (2000) finds that cohabiting men and women differ in the way they conceptualize commitment. She finds that women perceive cohabita- tion as a step prior to marriage, whereas men are inclined to view cohabi- tation as a step prior to making a commitment.

Marriage researcher and Christian therapist Scott Stanley (2005) de- scribes cohabiting as “relationship inertia,” in which cohabitors are “slid- ing” rather than “deciding” on a marital partner. He found that men who live with women they eventually marry are not as committed to the union as those who did not live with their mates before marriage.

The partner’s and/or couple’s view and understanding of their unique cohabitation agreement is certainly an important factor in the eventual outcome of marriage or no marriage. Given the present state of knowl-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 6 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

edge, it is probably wise to recognize that for some couples, cohabitation is an alternative to marriage, and for other couples it is a stage in a relation- ship that leads to marriage. Each interpretation might be true of different individuals, and both might be true of the same individuals at different times in their life.

What does love have to do with it? This rather detached analysis of the function of cohabitation causes us to ask, “What does love have to do with it?” What distinguishes modern forms of mate selection from the past is the greater freedom young adults have to pursue sexual/romantic relation- ships without parental involvement. No longer is marriage an economic arrangement, controlled and arranged by parents, but a participant-run system in which the concept of love drives the relationship.

Romantic love had its beginnings in European societies dur ing the eleventh century. At that time, “courtly love” became well known among the privileged class. Courtly love usually involved a romantic relationship between a married aristocratic lady and an unmarried knight or trouba- dour. As portrayed in literature, the stereo typical courtly love involved a dramatic story in which the knight goes forth into battle motivated by the love of his lady, or a mandolin-playing troubadour sings love songs to a young lady in a balcony on a moonlit night. In this early version of romantic love, it was believed that true love is free of the restrictions of sex or marriage.

The development of courtly love relationships served to introduce ten- derness and affection into male-female relationships. “Being in love” be- gan to carry a variety of meanings such as mutual attrac tion, strong sexual feelings, commitment and enjoying each other’s company. This was an uncommon experience for most married persons, who were usually united in marriage for economic reasons.

From the eleventh to the six teenth century, the nature of these love relationships changed to include sexual involvement between the lady of nobility and her “true” love. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- ries, the middle classes of European society came to value romantic love but still held to faithful ness in marriage. This dilemma was solved when the love object of the single male changed from the married woman to the single woman. For a period of time during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, parental-arranged marriage and romantic love existed side by side. As Western societies moved into the twentieth century, the custom

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 7

of a man asking the father for his daughter’s hand became a formality. During the first half of the twentieth century, the irrational “head-

over-heels” concept of romantic love reached its zenith. Confusion over the exact meaning of romantic love made it difficult for persons to really know if true love was present in their relationship.

Psychiatrist Erich Fromm recognized this fact when he wrote The Art of Loving (1956). Fromm observed that most people see love primarily as that of being loved, rather than loving the other. He argued that modern persons need to learn how to love in the same way they learn how to play a musical instrument. Fromm contended that love is an art to be practiced, and it requires discipline, concentration, patience and supreme concern. When people start “working at love,” the noticeable active elements will include behaviors like giving, car ing, responsibility, respect and knowl- edge.

During the 1950s the mate-selection process in Western societies moved to a new stage, referred to as rational/romantic love. This type of love included a strong dose of the participants’ rational consider ation of their compatibility with their true love. Although few people would marry someone they did not love, it is now true that few people will marry only on the basis of love. Rational/romantic love is especially common among college-educated persons who decide to marry after their educa- tion is completed. Today marriage is as much a ratio nal decision as it is a head-over-heels response to the partner.

When you link romantic love to erotic love, Henry Grunebaum (1997:296) proposes three identifiable features: First, there is the longing for and desire to be sexually and psychologically intimate with a particu- lar person. Second, the person is not only idealized but also regarded as necessary for one’s happiness. Finally, being preoccupied with the person often results in an overestimation of that person.

Dramatic changes in each partner can be observed during the romantic period of courtship. Current research concludes that an area of the brain known as the caudate is associated with romantic passion. Brain scan im- ages during the fevered activity during courtship reveals the “lighting up” of certain areas of the brain. Fisher (2004) believes that romantic love de- velops over three sequential stages: lust (sexual drive), attraction and emo- tional attachment. For instance, “falling in love” is a time of attachment that is different from normal relationships with family or friends. During

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 6 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

the intense romantic love, disparate emotions may quickly go from eupho- ria to anger to anxiety, especially if the partner withdraws. However, as a relationship deepens, the neural activity associated with romantic love alters to long-term attachment. The production of hormones and chemi- cal substances known as peptides, vasopressin and oxytocin are activated (Fisher 2004), which contributes to an ongoing, stable love that maintains relationships.

It behooves persons in the romantic stage of love to be cautious since committed love is about faithfulness and loyalty rather than the mushy feelings one becomes caught up with during the “in love” stage.

Developing a relationship beyond initial attraction, however wonder- ful that feels, demands so much more than being focused on each other. Commitment now includes the hard work of relationship building and making plans for a future life together.

Three kinds of love. Roger Sternberg, back in 1987, tried to sort out the complexity of romantic love. Based on research, he noted three dimen- sions of love: commitment, the cogni tive component of love; intimacy, the friendship factor and emotional component of love; and passion, the moti- vational component of love. We find these three ingredients of love to be quite similar to the three types of love known from Greek culture: agape 4, philia and eros (J. K. Balswick and J. O. Balswick 2007). C. S. Lewis (1963) has written eloquently about this in his wonderful little book The Four Loves. The self-giving agape 4 corresponds to commitment; philia, the brotherly/friendship love, corresponds to intimacy; eros, the love one feels for the beloved, corresponds to passion; and storge corresponds to affection.

The correspondence between these descriptions of love provides a basis from which to discuss the place of cohabitation in a mate-selection system. From a biblical perspective, we believe a complete love embraces all three loves; commitment/agape 4, intimacy/philia, and passion/eros. However, this is not always the case since any one of these types of love can domi- nate a relationship.

If only one type is to be dominant, it seems that it should be the self- giving, commitment/agape love. The vow to be faithful in marriage is the desired prerequisite in most societies, and commitment is consid ered a critical factor in arranged marriages. Observe that a lower proportion of arranged marriages end in divorce than those that are based on romantic

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 6 9

love. However, this should not imply that parent-arranged marriages are more likely than love-based marriages to achieve a Christian ideal. The strength of the courtship and premarital relation ship involves a commit- ment that can bring together friendship, emo tional intimacy and passion that grow into maturity in marriage.

While there may be a potential for intimacy and passion in arranged mar riages, the familial structure may actually hinder the formation of these relationship qualities. The commitment that keeps these marriages together may be less a self-giving commitment to one’s spouse than it is a commitment to the extended family and community.

The emergence of cohabitation may be symptomatic of a problem in Western-style mate-selection systems in which commitment is not given a primary place in defining love. In chapter four we asserted that uncon- ditional commitment is the foundation of a biblical under standing of love. Most typically in Western courtship systems, passion is likely to dominate at the beginning of a relationship, followed by emotional intimacy and finally commitment.

The least stable of all cohabiting relationships are likely those based on passion/eros. Most relationships get off to a passionate start out of physical attraction and sexual vibes. Such passionate impulses may over- ride the emotional core and commitment stability needed to sus tain a relationship. Since passion by itself cannot usually carry a relationship over time, the passionate relationship often burns out before a commit- ment occurs.

Other cohabiting relationships are based largely on friendship inti- macy. Although few relationships move into marriage on the basis of friendship alone, it has been found to be an essential factor in marital satisfaction. Persons often describe their spouse as their “best friend,” connoting a “soul-mate” connection and emotional companionship that they value.

Although cohabiting couples represent combinations of all types of love relationships, by its very nature premarital cohabitation is a rela tionship in which intimacy and passion rather than commitment are the strongest elements. Cohabitation conveniently allows for the fulfill ment of passion and intimacy, but commitment is often a low priority. This is verified by the fact that the majority of cohabiting relationships (70 percent) fail to culminate in marriage and end in a little over a year.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 7 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

dOeS Premarital cOhaBitatiOn lead tO Better marital adjuStment? When premarital cohabitation became fairly wide spread in the mid-1970s, social scientists predicted that premarital cohabitation would strengthen rather than weaken marriage (Trost 1975). Danzinger (1976) suggested that premarital cohabitation would serve as a screening device that would ensure the compatibility of pro spective spouses. Along this same line of thinking, Peterman (1975) believed that cohabitants would gain experi- ence in intimacy and therefore develop a greater degree of relational com- petence necessary for an enduring and fulfilling marriage.

However, a number of research studies conducted over the last thirty years have revealed a less optimistic picture of the effect of cohabitation on later marital adjustment. Among other things, it has been reported that married persons who had previously cohabited were more disagreeable about issues such as money, household duties and recreation; had a lower quality of communication; viewed marriage as less intrinsic to their lives and were less dependent upon each other; had lower marital satisfaction; and were more likely to divorce.

Booth and Johnson’s (1988) national random sample of over 2,000 mar ried persons who had cohabited, when compared to noncohabiting couples, had a lower level of marital success in the following four ways. First, they had less marital interaction, determined by spending time to- gether eating meals, shopping, visiting friends, working on projects or going out on lei surely or recreational activities. Second, they had more frequent and more serious marital disagreements, including behaviors like slapping, hitting, punching, kicking or throwing things at each other. Third, they were more prone to marital instability, shown through actions such as thinking the marriage was in trouble or considering the idea of getting a divorce; taking divorce action such as talking to friends or their spouse about the possibility of divorce, or consulting with clergy, coun- selor or attorney; or actually separating from the spouse or filing a peti tion for divorce. Fourth, these couples reported a higher incidence of divorce (Booth and Johnson 1988).

Research done in the 1990s continued to find that those who cohab- ited before marriage were more dissatisfied with the quality of their later mar riages when compared to couples who had not cohabited. However, Thomson and Colella (1992) interpreted the dissatisfaction in these mar-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 1

riages as having more to do with the unconventional attitudes and life- styles of these couples than the fact that they decided to cohabit. He con- cluded that their more liberal tendencies gave them the freedom to express dissatisfaction and split when things did not go well.

A comprehensive study done by DeMaris and MacDonald (1993) dis- agreed with this conclusion saying that “controlling for unconventionality had only a minimal impact on the cohabitation effect” (p. 406). These re- searchers made the point that “although family attitudes and beliefs tend to predict the attractiveness of a cohabiting lifestyle, they do not account for differences between cohabiters and non-cohabiters in instability” (p. 399).

Nock (1994) found that cohabiters expressed lower levels of com- mitment to and happiness with their relationships and had poorer rela- tionships with parents than did comparable married individuals.

In their analysis of over 12,000 responses to a national survey, Clark- berg, Stolzenberg and Waite concluded, “The choice between cohabita- tion and marriage is affected by attitudes and values toward work, family, use of leisure time, money, and sex roles, as well as toward marriage itself ” (1995:609).

In summary, research in the 1990s found that having cohabited with someone other than one’s spouse is predictive of lower marital adjustment. In a study of over 9,000 responses to a national sur vey, Stets concluded: “After controlling for other factors, results indicate that prior cohabiting relationships negatively influence current married and cohabiting rela- tionships” (1993:236). Stets speculated that those who had cohabited with some one other than the intended spouse are predisposed to problems in relationships that carry over to future relationships.

This was confirmed by a study indicating that cohabiting couples are more likely to experience infidelity (Treas 2000) and another study that found the cohabiting couples were more likely to separate and less likely to reconcile after a separation when compared to married couples (Binstock and Arland 2003).

On the other hand, a study based on a nationally representative sample of women by Teachman (2003) found that premarital sex and premarital cohabitation are predictive of marital dissolution, but only for those who had sex or cohabited with men other than their future husband. DeMaris and MacDonald in 1993 reported that especially among serial cohabiters,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 7 2 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

there is greater instability among first-married couples. Contributing fac- tors like these must be taken into account when making predictions and/ or generalizations about the future of cohabiters who marry.

A study based on over 6,000 respondents in Germany con cluded that the same “factors that increase divorce rates also increase premarital co- habitation rates” (Bruderl, Dickmann and Englehardt 1997:205). In sur- veying over 5,000 Canadian women, Hall concluded that the relationship between premarital cohabitation and divorce could be explained by the tendency for cohabitors to idealize a pure rela tionship in which one is self- actualized, which eventually “contami nates” marriage reality (1996:1).

Drawing a conclusion. Taking current findings into account, we can con- clude that contrary to predictions made in the 1970s, one’s participation in premarital cohabitation does not lead to better adjustment in marriage. In fact, evidence points to the contrary of this initial optimistic predic- tion. In McRae’s (1997) review of the relevant literature, she concludes: “The results of research suggest that a strong negative association exists between premarital cohabita tion and marital stability.” She finds that the link between premarital cohabitation and marriage dissolution is weaker among the younger generation, suggesting that “as cohabitation becomes the majority pattern before marriage, this link will become progressively weaker” (p. 159).

Is there a selective factor? While research continues to find that premari- tal cohabitation is generally predictive of lower marital adjustment after marriage, part of this might well be explained in terms of a selective factor. It is thought that certain characteristics in individuals (less traditional, more independent, less culturally constrained, and so forth) contribute to their decision to cohabit before marriage and put them at a higher risk for a divorce as well.

Indirect support for a self-selection explanation is given by Clark berg, Stolzenberg and Waite in their analysis of over 12,000 responses to a national survey. They concluded that “the choice between cohabitation and marriage is affected by attitudes and values toward work, family, use of leisure time, money, and sex roles, as well as toward marriage itself ” (1995:609).

Thus, the relationship between cohabiting and divorce is real, but one cannot say that cohabitation alone contributes to divorce. There are cer- tainly cohabiting couples who have been successful in forming quality

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 3

marriages. Brown, Sanchez, Nock and Wright (2006:454) conclude that “selection factors largely account for the deleterious effects of premarital cohabitation on marital success.”

While selection factors certainly have some influence on the high cor- relation between premarital cohabitation and lower marital adjust ment, the relationship between cohabitation and future marital quality is clearly a complex question.

For instance, research by Rhoades, Stanley and Markman indicates that “men who cohabited with their spouse before engagement were less dedicated than men who cohabited only after engagement or not at all be- fore marriage.” In addition, it seems these husbands were “less dedicated to their wives than their wives were to them” (2006:553). These research- ers reason that couples who otherwise would not have married end up married due to what they refer to as the inertia of cohabitation. In other words, the couple simply remains in a relationship regardless of quality or fit. The obvious implication is that persons do not make their expectations about marriage explicit before cohabiting, and that becomes a problem after they marry.

Phillips and Sweeney (2005) found that premarital cohabitation was positively associated with subsequent marital disruption among non- Hispanic white populations, but not among non-Hispanic black or Mexican Americans. In a similar vein, King and Scott (2005:271) discov- ered that “older cohabitors report significantly higher levels of relationship quality and stability than younger cohabitors, although they are less likely to have plans to marry their partners.”

Research on postdivorce cohabitation reveals that postdivorce in gen- eral, and cohabitiation with multiple partners in particular, delays remar- riage (Xu, Hudspeth and Bartkowski 2006). These researchers found that postdivorce cohabitation with a spouse is associated with lower levels of remarital happiness and higher levels of remarital instability.

iS cOhaBitatiOn gOOd FOr individualS and SOciety? Sociologists David Popenoe and Barbara Whitehead (2002) at Rutgers University have completed a comprehensive review of research on co- habitation before marriage. They caution young adults to think twice about cohabiting before marriage, offering four principles: First, consider not living together at all before marriage, since there is no evidence to support

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 7 4 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

the view that cohabiting will result in a stronger marriage. The evidence, they suggests, shows that living together before marriage increases the chance of divorcing after marriage. The exception may be for those couples who are committed to marriage, have formally announced their engagement, and have chosen a wedding date.

The second principle is not to make a habit of cohabiting. They see the evidence as refuting the popular myth that persons learn to develop bet- ter relationships from a number of failed cohabiting relationships. Rather, multiple cohabitation is repeatedly found to be a strong predictor of the failure of future relationships.

The third principle is to limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period of time. While the Christian community might question the wisdom of this third principle, we should at least understand the intent and spirit with which it is given. It is based on Poponoe and Whitehead’s (2002) conclu- sion that the longer one lives together with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold. This obviously is the very opposite of what is required for a successful marriage. Participation in a cohabiting relationship can have an eroding effect not only on the participants’ view of the importance of commit ment but also on societal ethics, which value unconditional commit ment as a basis for marriage. From a purely functional standpoint, Popenoe and Whitehead realize that a high-commitment ethic is neces sary for marital stability.

The fourth principle is Don’t cohabit when children are involved. The spirit of this principle is based on the value that children need and should have parents who are committed to staying together for them.

In their summary of research on cohabiting, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) cite studies estimating that between between 25 and 40 percent of all children spend some time with a parent in a cohabiting arrangement. Brown, Sanchez, Nock and Wright (2006) reports that when compared to children growing up with married couples, children growing up with cohabiting couples tend to have worse life outcomes. Since cohabiting par- ents break up at a much higher rate than married parents, the effect of cohabiting on children can be devastating.

Aronson and Huston (2004) report that among mothers with infants, those in cohabiting relationships tend to fare worse economically than married mothers. Popenoe and Whitehead (2002) point to evidence of higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence among children in co-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 5

habiting unions. DeLeire and Kalil (2005:286) report the rather sober- ing finding that “cohabiting-parent families, compared to married-parent families, spend a greater amount on 2 adult goods (alcohol and tobacco) and a smaller amount on education.” An interpretation of this finding might be that cohabiting parents invest less in the welfare of their children than married parents.

Although Popenoe and Whitehead write as social scientists, not as ad- vocates for a Christian view of mar riage, their advice certainly comports well with the biblical wis dom that marriage is to be based on lifelong covenant commitments. Those who make a marital covenant with their partner will have a better chance for marital stability and happiness than those who merely slide into marriage through default.

a chriStian reSPOnSe A Christian response to cohabitation needs to be formulated at several different levels. We will organize our response around four questions: (1) What is the nature of commitment in cohabiting relationships? (2) When are two people married in the sight of God? (3) Does cohabi tation pose a threat to the institution of marriage? and (4) How should the church respond to cohabiting couples?

Commitment in cohabiting relationships. The prominent reasons people enter cohabiting relationships include love, companionship, sexual exclu- sivity, economics, ambivalence toward marriage, loneliness and peer pres- sure. Though many of these are understandable reasons for living with a companion, the noticeable missing piece is covenant com mitment. There is no understanding that two persons make a vow before God to commit themselves to each other throughout a lifetime. The biblical concept of a “mysterious one-flesh union” that is blessed by God is the essential miss- ing piece in a cohabiting arrangement. Although an exclusive sexual union is an important aspect of cohabita tion, just as it is in marriage, the mutual covenant provides an endur ing, ongoing, faithful commitment through all aspects of marriage. It is hesed (the Hebrew root for “covenant”) love that promises a faithful giving of oneself to the other and keeping that best interest of the part ner in mind “for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and health, till death do us part.” Although humans cannot love uncondi tionally as God does, the model of unconditional commitment is a scriptural ideal for marriage.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 7 6 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

The cohabiting couple may have a difficult time grasping the value of covenant love. The desired independence that keeps one free from such a commitment places a limit on the deepening maturity of the relation ship. When partners are uncertain about permanent commitment, they will be prone to keep a distance and protect themselves from the uncer tainty of the future. A relationship of reluctance, a fear of becoming too involved or interdependent, keeps emotional barriers up rather than breaking them down. Thus one of the biggest problems with cohabita tion is that it can inhibit deeper levels of per sonal sharing and knowing. Holding oneself back limits growth in the relationship and keeps partners from developing the deepest capac ity for intimacy and loving.

It takes courage to know oneself and then reveal that self to a partner. A clarified sense of self allows a partner to surrender in self-giving ways. The “forever” covenant commitment gives a capacity to share with out fear. Differentiation gives partners freedom to express personal longings and fears as well as to respond to the partner’s thoughts, feelings, needs and desires.

Communicating covenant love through thought and action, regardless of obvious f laws and failures, means partners are able to be “naked and not ashamed.” There is no need to protect oneself from a deeper attachment. Grace-filled love gives partners the courage to risk letting themselves be known. Coveant, grace, empowerment and intimacy are the essential ingredients.

When are two people married before God? The covenantal basis for Chris- tian marriage is modeled after the covenant that God made with Israel. God is pictured as trustworthy and forever faithful in expressing uncondi- tional love to the people of God. The very foundation of cove nant love is permanence, upon which sexual and emotional intimacy are built. Trust- worthiness and faithfulness are the fruit of a forever love that establishes a solid foundation for secure connection. The deepening of love throughout the years expands into an even fuller and more complete covenant.

James Olthuis (1975) argues that Scripture calls for two main condi- tions to be present between two persons who want to join their lives to- gether: (1) The relationship is based upon a mutually shared covenantal commitment. (2) It is consummated through sex ual intercourse. This places the decision to marry squarely upon the two participants involved. If Olthuis’s understanding of Scripture is correct, there might be a variety

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 7

of ways a couple can cement their cov enant commitment without fulfill- ing all of the societal expectations for marriage. This leads to several im- portant questions.

First, does the couple need consent from parents or family before they can be considered married before God? While familial consent was part of Jewish marriage during biblical times, this was a cul tural practice based on the mate-selection process. Though parental consent is certainly desir- able, it would be difficult to find scriptural evidence requiring that for marriage.

Second, does a couple need to make their commitment before a com- munity of believers before they are married in God’s sight? One could argue that though it is wise to have support from a faith commu nity, it is not a scriptural directive. Reay Tannahill (1980) points out that ecclesi- astical consent to marry actually began in the twelfth century, when the Roman Catholic Church decreed that marriage could com mence only by consent of the church.

Third, is the consent of civil authorities needed? Those who believe that persons should have the consent of the civil authorities point to health concerns, such as blood tests for the Rh-negative factor or sex ually trans- mitted diseases, which have ramifications for each partner and their future children. Also, this gives the spouse certain legal, financial and property rights. Though there are excellent reasons to seek the consent of civil au- thorities, it would be difficult to support this as a scriptural mandate.

Following a letter-of-the-law interpretation of Scripture, one could argue that none of the above conditions are required to be married in God’s sight. At the same time, we think it is important to understand the spirit of the law, which recognizes family, community and civil structures that support marriage. Cohabiting couples who say they are married “be- fore God” because they have a mutual covenant commit ment, yet fail to make it public, miss out on a vital source of collective encouragement. The strength of a commitment is multiplied when it is made before a witness of believers who offer resources as well as a place of accountability. The wis- dom of making commitments within a believing community is especially noticeable during times of trouble. A couple depends on others to keep them resilient when life stresses come their way.

Partners who fail to legalize their “marriage” must often lose out on the government’s obligation to look out for the welfare of each part-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 7 8 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

ner, the couple and their children. This especially has ramifications for spouses and their children in regard to financial and property rights, benefits that occur when a relationship has the legal support of society. There is a sense in which a personal commitment is maintained through a sup portive community and society.

Some endorse a mutual covenant commitment made between an un- married man and woman before God and sealed through sexual inter- course as the minimal biblical standard; others believe there is a need for the commitment to be made in the presence of the Christian community and/or within the accepted formal structure of civil soci ety. The ceremony and the license are aspects that serve to integrate a couple into society. Ev- idence points to the fact that the individualistic ethic in our society keeps people from fully realizing the importance of personal commitments em- bedded in a community context.

Is cohabitation a threat to the institution of marriage? The church must make a distinction between how it responds to individuals who are in cohabiting relationships and how it responds to cohabitation as a prac tice. We advocate that Christians should offer grace over law. At the societal level we do believe that cohabitation poses a threat to marriage and family stability. In response, the church can offer an informed voice to support a societal practice that undergirds marriage and fam ily life. At present, marriage is institutionalized and cohabitation is not. This means that marriage in the United States is the accepted way of recognizing a social and legally binding relationship between a man and a woman. Attempts to deinstitutionalize marriage and institution alize cohabitation under- mine the institution of marriage and therefore pose a threat to marriage.

At stake is the unique institutionalized status granted to marriage by the founders of our country. Rather than being a passive agent, the church can be an active participant in the legal/political system. The move to give the same legal sanction to cohabitation as marriage is not an acceptable solution since research indicates that cohabitation weak ens rather than strengthens the marital bond. In Sweden, for example, 30 percent of all couples sharing a household are unmarried (Tomasson 1998). Since co- habitation there carries similar legal rights as marriage in regard to par- enting and economic rights and responsibility, it becomes a disincentive to marry. The legitimate con cern is the further erosion of marriage as an in- stitution in society due to shorter unions, a higher rate of breakups and an

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 7 9

increase in the number of children growing up in single-parent homes. The negative effect of cohabitation on children should be of espe cially

grave concern to the church. Children born to cohabiting couples are less likely to spend their childhood in a two-parent home than were chil- dren born to married couples. And since there is ample evidence that the economic and emotional stresses of divorce have deleterious effects on children, we are con cerned about the impact it has on the parent/child relationship.

How should the church respond to cohabiting couples? There are a vari ety of cohabiting situations, based upon a number of differing criteria for co- habitation: degree of commitment, age of cohabit ers, premarital versus postmarital cohabitation, the absence or pres ence of children, and the intent to have children or not. A detailed discussion of how the Chris- tian community can wisely respond to each of these cohabiting situations is beyond the limits of this paper. We do offer some general guidelines, however, about how the Christian com munity might best respond to these different situations:

1. The Christian community should uphold the biblical standard that sexual intercourse is meant to be part of a permanent covenant commit- ment between two people before God and present that stan dard to couples in a compelling way.

2. When a couple engages in sexual intercourse without sharing a mu- tual covenant commitment, the church should lovingly help them under- stand how the biblical concept of covenant commitment can enhance and bring depth and stability to their relationship.

3. When a cohabiting couple is pregnant, the Christian community should be compassionate and offer a church home to them, thereby giv- ing them a glimpse of the faithful presence of love and support of God’s people. By experiencing this love, the couple will be more compelled to consider the value of making a mutual covenant to each other and their children.

4. When a cohabiting couple makes a covenant commitment to each other, the church should offer a public ceremony within the commu nity of faith to celebrate the covenant union. There should be no stigma placed on a couple who is pregnant or already have children.

5. When a couple shares a mutual covenant commitment but still chooses a cohabiting arrangement, the Christian community should con-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

1 8 0 A u t h e n t i c H u m a n S e x u a l i t y

tinue to show love and grace. Unconditional love expressed through the faith community offers the best model of God as the Christ who accepts people as they are.

The Christian community can win trust by welcoming cohabiting couples into churches. The tragedy is that cohabiting couples who attend church usually stop coming because they feel condemned or unacceptable to the congregation. They turn away from the very body of believers who could surround them with loving support.

Cohabiting couples who have a mutual covenant commitment but fail to make it a public event miss out on the community celebration. Perhaps our society makes it more difficult for a couple to have a cere mony because of the elaborate and expensive weddings in our churches today. In the past, the wedding was a simple ceremony, with local congregation and family members gathered to witness the couple taking covenant vows.

Judy’s mother wore a simple gold dress for her wedding ceremony after the Sunday night church service. Her aunt and uncle stood with them, and the church provided cake and coffee for a small reception afterward. Jack’s parents had a similar ceremony after the Sunday morning church service. They invited the family and a few special friends over to the house for a light Sunday brunch reception. A wed ding was an occasion to sup- port the couple’s covenant commitment without all the fuss and flair of an expensive, elaborate wedding. Both pairs of our parents were married more than sixty years, a covenant commit ment that lasted over their long lives.

The challenge to the Christian community is to be big enough to hold the tension of all seekers who come to church to consider the claims of Christ. The church needs to hold forth biblically based mar riage and family norms, but at the same time show compassion and acceptance of persons who may not be living by these values. The dis couraging truth is that living outside of biblically based norms can negatively affect one’s attitudes toward those norms. Axinn and Bar ber found that “the more months of exposure to cohabitation that young people experienced, the less enthusiastic they were toward marriage and childbearing” and the more accepting of divorce (1997:608). Rather than reacting with anger or fear, the church should keep its doors wide open, welcoming all to come. We hope these couples will be drawn to such an embrace of grace.

In its stance toward the practice of cohabitation, we believe that the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

P r e m a r i t a l C o h a b i t a t i o n 1 8 1

church can err in two ways: either by compromising the truth of Scrip ture and failing to uphold the sacred purpose of marriage, or by con demning and shutting the doors to those who cohabit. In upholding marriage as God’s way with one hand, we should extend God’s grace with the other. Our gospel must be full of truth and grace. The church needs to be the very place that reaches out to seekers, both those living outside biblical norms and those for whom biblical behavior has not yet become part of their lives. The church will have a minimal influence on the lives of those who are cohabiting until it clearly offers the hands of both truth and grace.

A couple may be on Christ’s way without even knowing it. When a cohabiting couple establishes a covenant commitment, they have under- stood something essential about God’s way. The Christian com munity can nurture a couple’s natural inclination to continue to move in God’s way through patience, respect and love that point them in that direction. Being compassionate rather than judgmental comes out of the assurance that God, who is the final judge, is the one who loves most fully. “Christ’s love sees us with terrible clarity and sees us whole. Christ’s love so wishes our joy that it is ruthless against every thing in us that diminishes our joy” (Buechner 1992:58). The longing to help cohabiting couples find the joy of covenant love is a great privi lege. So, let the Christian community show forth God’s love in faithful, engaging ways that will draw those who co- habit closer to the way, the truth and the more abundant life.

FOr Further reading Popenoe, D., and B. Whitehead. 2002. Should we live together? What

young adults need to know about cohabitation before marriage. 2nd ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: The Natioanal Marriage Project, Rutgers University. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SWLT2%20TEXT.htm.

Lewis, C. S. 1963. The Four loves. London: Collins/Fontana. Stanley, S., and G. Smalley. 2005. The power of commitment: A guide to ac-

tive, lifelong love. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 00

1. In

te rV

ar si

ty P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .