OPENING
SENTENCE: Back in my UPS days one of the workers who worked across the belt from me as we loaded package cars was a guy named Gary.
INTRODUCTION: Somehow we got on the topic of marriage and he told us that he saw no need for marriage or at least the publically recognized covenant we call marriage. He argued, “I don’t need a piece of paper to love one someone? That’s all it is, a piece of paper. All it does is complicates things.”
In those few words, Gary summarized the common contemporary view of marriage. In this view marriage is simply about two individuals who love each other- so why do you need a piece of paper to prove it. And, if this all that marriage is then who can argue with him? All the frills, responsibilities and expectations are not necessary.
TRANSITION
SENTENCE: But we might ask, “What is the difference between the marriage contract and the cohabitation deal and why does it really matter?”
TRANSITION: Linda Waite points out that the prime difference between marriage and cohabitation in contemporary North American culture has to do with time horizons and commitment. What makes marriage unique among emotional and financial relationships is the public vow of permanence. With marriage, partners publicly promise each other that neither one will be alone any longer. Cohabitation, by contrast, is seen by partners and society as a temporary arrangement. They want to leave the back door open should they decide to leave. For that reason, the majority of cohabiters either break up or marry within two years.
And, no wonder. The idea of permanence has been replaced with personal autonomy. For many cohabitors, the idea of a relatively easy exit with no well-defined responsibilities constitutes cohabitation’s biggest attraction. They view marriage as a bigger commitment than living together, and they do not feel ready at this time to take on the larger responsibilities to another person that marriage represents. Cohabitors, in other words, have a shorter time horizon than spouses do.
SAY WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY: Both biblical and empirical evidence shows that we can only form lasting healthy lasting relationships if both parties begin the relationship with the idea of permanence and as a commitment made before God and others. I want to look at the question, “Why should we value and protect the sacred covenant of marriage between a man and a woman?” and look at three responses.
TEXT: I Thessalonians 4:1-12
THEME: Building a healthy lasting relationship requires both parties to commit to permanent covenant relationship before God and others.
Why should we value and protect the sacred covenant of marriage between a man and a woman?
I. Evidence demonstrates that marriage is superior to cohabitation for the good of both the individual and society. (I Thessalonians 4:1-8)
The Bible never uses the word, “cohabitation” but that does not mean the practice is not recognized. Biblical sexuality can be summarized in six words, “Abstinence until marriage, fidelity within it.” Anything outside of that context is regarded as sexual immorality- that includes cohabitation. Notice what Paul says about this topic.
“As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact, you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure but to live a holy life.8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.” The point of this passage is that there are consequences for abandoning this principle and the evidence seems to bear this out.
A. Married people live happier lives than cohabiting couples.
The negative stereotype of marriage in our culture is misleading. We have all seen the rising divorces rates over the last five decades. We know that in 1970, 89 percent of all births were to married parents whereas today only 60 percent are. In 1960 72 percent of American adults were married but only 50 percent were in 2008. Young adults look at this are have become weary of marriage and believe their chances of having a good marriage are not great or may even lead to boredom. As comedian Chris Rock has asked, “Do you want to be single and lonely or married and bored?”
This prevailing negative perspective on marriage has led many young adults to see cohabitation as an option between two unpleasant options- marriage or mere sexual encounters. As a result, over half of all people now live together before getting married whereas in 1960 virtually no one did. One-quarter of all unmarried women between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-nine are currently living with a partner, and by their late thirties, over 60 percent will have done so. The overwhelming number of people want to be married they avoid it out of fear based on the information they have. But, this drive toward cohabitation is built on faulty information about marriage. The reality is that virtually every study done confirms that married people are happier, healthier, wealthier, and more productive that people who cohabit.
To cite just one of many sources a book, which we have in our library, by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher titled, “The Case For Marriage” concludes: “Most social scientists who have studied the data believe that marriage itself accounts for a great deal of the difference in average well-being between married and unmarried persons. Indeed, loneliness is probably the negative feeling most likely to be alleviated simply by being married.” The latest research shows the skeptics are wrong: In real life, the public legal commitment represented by that “piece of paper” makes a big difference. The married really are emotionally healthier than their single counterparts because they’ve chosen to live in this particular type of committed relationship. The commitment married people make to each other is reinforced and supported not only by their own private efforts and emotions but by the wider community…
B. Children flourish in homes with two married parents. We have long known the negative impact that divorce has on children. So if that is true of divorce then it only makes sense that they suffer even more in the instability of cohabitation where couples part at much higher rates. In cohabitation, the male partner is often not the father and often cannot relate to them as such. As Waite says, “average, children lucky enough to have married parents lead emotionally and physically healthier, wealthier, longer, better educated, and more financially successful lives as a result.”
C. There are less psychological and social ailments. Much could be said about this but let me cite one point. If the great theme of marriage is union, the counter of cohabitation is individualism. Cohabitation is attractive as an alternative to marriage not only because it is a non-binding and nonlegal but also because it accommodates a very different style of life. But the price of this freedom can be high. For by consciously withholding permanent commitment, cohabitors do not reap the advantages of a deeper partnership. Because they do not feel responsible for each other’s well-being, cohabitors do not seem to regulate each other’s behaviors in the same way spouses do and generally do not reap the profound physical health benefits married couples get. Because the future of their partnership is so uncertain, cohabitors cannot risk becoming interdependent as married couples do.
ILLUSTRATE: We can think of cohabitation much like we do of buying a car. When I buy a car I take it for a test drive. I am comparing it to dozens of other options and trying to decide if this is the one for me- and even if I buy it and don’t like it I can sell it and get another one later. Similarly, one of the main reasons that people cohabit is that they have bought into a negative view the risks of marriage and have decided they want to find out if this potential partner they are involved with is compatible as a permanent mate. So they decide they will give it a test drive by moving in together. It seldom works out.
APPLY: The problem is that people are not like cars. You cannot test drive them and dispose of them or trade them in for another model without severe emotional damage to at least one of them. It permanently shapes how we view future relationships and destroy the idea of trust. People need to know you are with them through thick or thin.
Why should we value and protect the sacred covenant of marriage between a man and a woman?
II. Marriage models God’s sacred covenant with us. (Eph. 5:32) Something cohabitation cannot do. We return back to our theme verse for this series on marriage.
“For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.”
A. Marriage in Scripture is a publicly recognized covenant. Even in today’s secular world we still seem to think this public commitment benefits society. How much more so if we know that it is God who also recognizes it and binds it.
B. The marriage covenant is more conducive to stable relationships because it is built on commitment and trust.
Cohabitation builds relationships on the idea of a back door. In other words, if I find this relationship is not working I always have a back door. Now think for a moment what that means. It says, “I do not trust you enough, and you do not trust me enough to commit to a lifelong relationship so we will live together instead and we can leave at any time one of us chooses to. Think about what this means- the foundation of your relationship is distrust and potential that either one can choose the way out. You can’t build a steady relationship on that. If you started your relationship with distrust, then you have to go back and rebuild the foundation- one based on trust. Why? Because distrust as the foundation itself it shaky.
C. Deciding is better than sliding when forming a relationship.
Many slide into a relationship. They started dating and spending time together and enjoyed being together but are not ready for the commitment of marriage. So, they decide just to move in. No real commitment, just superficial agreements over financial arrangements, no long-term discussions about children or careers or how responsibilities are to be shared. There is no covenant, no vow, no public recognition. Just a relationship that feels good at the time but ignores the rough and tumble that go with commitments that make a relationship work.
ILLUSTRATE: What a covenant does is set the terms of the relationship- the most fundamental of which is, “this is permanent.” Cohabitation is built solely on and individuals changing moods and as a result, leads to relational instability.
Countries with individualistic traditions have some of the highest rates of instability in the West. Scott Stanley at the University of Denver demonstrates that couples who cohabit prior to a public engagement are far more likely to flounder in their marriages. As one author has said, “We think that’s because they are more likely to experience sliding into marriage rather that deciding to be together and then getting married. In some ways, cohabitation is sort of like being at McDonald’s compared to having a nice meal at one’s home. Cohabitation is quick, it’s convenient, and it can taste good. But it doesn’t leave the same feeling in your stomach as a good home prepared meal does, and it’s not as healthy and as enriching for you. a relationship and minimizing the commitments.”
Cohabitors have more individual freedom to do exactly what they like, but they have more difficulty reaping the kinds of benefits that come from jointly planning for the long haul.
APPLY: Should that surprise us. If God gives us His standards for our good it only makes sense that we disregard them at our own risk.
THEME: Building a healthy lasting relationship requires both parties to commit to permanent covenant relationship before God and others.
Why should we value and protect the sacred covenant of marriage between a man and a woman?
III. Marriage brings into check the radical individualism that drives cohabitation. (I Thessalonians 4:9-12)
Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. 10 And in fact, you do love all of God’s family throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers and sisters, to do so more and more, 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, 12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
This passage is telling us to love one another. This means that we seek the best for the object loved and Jesus is our model for that. It includes three things.
A. The marriage union balances Individual autonomy with the common good. When a culture stresses individual rights over the common good we should not be surprised that people act accordingly even in marriage. Most cohabitors give little serious thought to how their marriage, or lack of it, affects those around them. This includes children, family, schools, culture etc. It is about “me”.
B. Self-sacrifice is foundational to the marriage covenant. And this is what many cohabitors do not want. Marriage will change us- we have to give up something. Many men say they do not want to marry because they do not want to change. They do not want their freedoms taken away. And yet this is what marriage and it is what most men need. They need marriage to bring their passions in check and to live for something other than themselves.
C. God’s grace can enable us to flourish in spite of our failures in marriage but we may still face consequences.
One of the challenges when I speak on marriage is that I know many that I am speaking to are not married. For some, it is not a choice. Either they never married or a spouse left them. They are not in sin. But, in today there will always room who have lived together or are still are. God’s grace and forgiveness are available but, as today’s passage reminds, we must put confess it as sin and put it behind. God is always ready and willing to accept us.
ILLUSTRATE: A small article in The Week, a secular source for world and American news, made the following statement: “Want to help America's economy and yourself at the same time? Then get married. The advantages of raising kids in a stable household are well documented: "Children of married parents are more likely to graduate high school, less likely to go to jail, and more likely to delay sexual activity." … [Kids from single parent homes] are "five times as likely to live in poverty." Men who marry, research has shown, are more productive at work, are paid better, and are more likely to be employed than their unmarried counterparts. Economist Stephen Moore has pointed out that marriage is a "far better social program than food stamps,
Medicaid, public housing, or even all of them combined."
APPLY: Yet despite the advantages of connubial life, "single-parent families have exploded." Today, more than 40 percent of American children are born out of wedlock. To restore the vigorous economic growth that built America's middle class, we first need to restore the "pro-growth" institution of marriage.
THEME: Building a healthy lasting relationship requires both parties to commit to permanent covenant relationship before God and others.
SAY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID: This morning we a saw that both biblical and empirical evidence shows that we can only form healthy lasting relationships if both parties begin the relationship with the idea of permanence and as a commitment made before God and others.
TIE INTO OPENING SENTENCE: Since my days at UPS, I have heard many people like Gary tell me that marriage is only a piece of paper that only complicates things. But we also ignore the moral aspects of being obedient to God and its great benefits to both the individual and society.
APPLY TO SPECIFIC AUDIENCE:
1. A person is not like a car. You cannot test drive and throw a person away if things do not work. That is why “seeing if this person is compatible” will assure you they are not. No two people are compatible. Marriage is about putting two incompatible people together and learning to make it work.
2. The nature of the marriage relationship vs. the cohabitation is fundamentally different. If cohabitation is about keeping the back door open in case it is needed, then marriage is about closing the back door. Thus, the high divorce rate of cohabitors who marry.
3. The ongoing emphasis on self-autonomy and individualism will assure us that unstable relationships will be the norm. Until we understand that marriage is about sacrifice, as modeled by that of Jesus we will always have high divorce rates and high cohabitation.
HAYMAKER: Time magazine recently featured an article that asked, "Is monogamy over?" The article offered various opinions, including "monogamy is a charade" that leads to "institutionalizing dishonesty," and "[monogamy] is just an option, not the default," and "There's no right, there's no wrong." Time also featured Pastor Andy Stanley who offered this biblical view: Monogamy is more like an endangered species. Rare. Valuable. Something to be fed and protected. Perhaps an armed guard should be assigned to every monogamous couple to ward off poachers. Perhaps not.
The value a culture places on monogamy determines the welfare of its women and children. Women and children do not fare well in societies that embrace polygamy or promiscuity. In the majority of cases, sexual freedom undermines the financial freedom of women. Sexual freedom eventually undermines the financial and emotional security of children.
If we are only biology, none of the above really matters … If we are only biology, monogamy was probably a flawed concept from the start. But very few of us live as if we are only biology … As a pastor, I've officiated my share of weddings and I've done my share of premarital counseling. I always ask couples why they are getting married. Survival of the species never makes the list.
The "I" and "You" that inhabit our bodies desire more than another body. We desire intimacy—to know and to be fully known without fear. Intimacy is fragile. Intimacy is powerful. Intimacy is fueled by exclusivity. So, no, monogamy is not obsolete. It's endangered.
