The Borg On Marrying Young
Now, I know some of my readers married young. What I am about to say is not a judgment on them, so please don't take offense at what I say, it's not aimed at you, at all. That said, I'm going to be shamelessly perscriptive (and ironic), but that's okay - it's not like I'm the Moral Implimentor.
As we all know, there are pressures on the young in Christian circles to give into their desires and marry since they are "burning with passion". So there will be some lusty young man who can't control himself, chooses a girl because "she's hot" (single, and a Christian) and gets married without further consideration.
He soon discovers that marriage is tough. His wife has many unlovable qualities. Since he married thinking that the only important characteristic of marriage was sex, he neglected to choose someone whom he could talk to, share with and be a companion to. He didn't realise that his wife needs to be kept happy in more than one way. He thought, "it's only about sex right? The other stuff is easy." Since her husband is not meeting her needs, and is a thoughtless kinda guy, she fails to respect him. Ergo the couple has a rubbish marriage. He doesn't love her (only lusts her) and she doesn't respect him.
A further problem might occur if he's a smart kind of guy, but his wife is a bimbo. He'll eventually get bored of her, and meet attractive intelligent women at, say, church whom he does not tire of. Even if he doesn't have an affair with such a woman, he might commit adultry with them in his heart, and lead them astray too.
But, Shyborg, you say, we're talking about Christians here. Surely Christians would be compelled to work at their marriages, and even after the mistake of marrying for lust would try to know their spouses? I reply, yes they would. But at what cost? Might this be what St Paul refers to when he says marriage takes one away from being concerned with the Lord to being filled with one's spouses concerns? Why make life hard for oneself, when all that energy (poured into a relationship) could be used for serving God outside of marriage?
I'm not saying don't get married. But I do say marry someone with great consideration. Think about all aspects of your relationship, and think of the gaps that someone else might end up filling. And I don't think I'm being idealistic in reccomending that a Christain waits a while until someone really suitable and worthy comes along, someone who is easy to love/respect. Before I tell show that this is possible, let me address a possible objection:
What if a young couple is burning with passion? Should they not get married? Here I will perhaps be harsh. To answer this objection I ask: What is that led them to be in such a state? Were they being sexually impure whilst going out? Were either parties feeding their sexual desires, and so priming themselves for lust? So much of our sexual immorality is the result of comprimise, a whoring of ourselves with the sexual expectations of popular culture and the world. If we want to be serious about sexual purity, we have to be worried about more than just p0rn.
Case study: I've had the privledge of getting to know a slightly older Christian couple. We'll call them Al and Lou. At first glance they seem like an unlikely pair. She's a tall Anglo, he's short and Asian. She was late 20's, and he early 30's when they got married. Late for Christians. However, my respect for them increases the more I get to know them. You can tell that they are truely in love. They flirt and tease each other, and they treat each other beautifully. He's hilarious, intelligent and bold. She is gentle, wise and witty. They are both other person centered. She says that every morning they have to spend at least an hour deep in discussion, to "catch up". It's clear that through their marriage, they have brought out the best in each other.

30 Comments:
St Paul says if you have complete mastery over your hormones you do better not to marry at all, and devote your time to ministry...
Also, could you expand on this a bit further - "Think about all aspects of your relationship, and think of the gaps that someone else might end up filling."
A possible gap might be that you enjoy stimulating conversation, but the girl you're marrying isn't really into that. So after you marry there is the possibility you might seek stimulating conversation with other people, and some of them might be women. This could damage your marriage.
(word verification: "gpfib"... gallup poll fib?)
A possible gap might be that you enjoy stimulating conversation, but the girl you're marrying isn't really into that. So after you marry there is the possibility you might seek stimulating conversation with other people, and some of them might be women. This could damage your marriage.
I think this would definitely damage your marriage. That is why you need to have very careful boundaries.
I guess I'm not comfortable with the focus of marriage as finding someone to fill your needs. I mean marriage obviously does do that, and there is nothing wrong with having needs.
But it is a more dynamic process where you are growing together and learning to appreciate different things in each other and (to an extant) accomodate each others short-comings.
The problem with lists is that there is always someone out there who will fill one or more of your criteria better than your eventual partner.
Stimluating conversation? Well, after 5 years its not quite as stimulating anymore (familiarity etc) - and then you meet this incredibly witty guy at work. What do you do?
Or you think she is the prettiest girl you have ever seen. What happens if, in 10 years, you meet someone who you think is prettier?
Or you love the fact that he is captain of the footy team. What happens when he no longer makes the grade?
Don't misunderstand me. I actually think it is legitimate to be attracted to any of these things. But once you are married, it is not helpful to bring out "the list" and see how he is measuring up.
Once you have made that committment, you are on a journey together "for better or worse." And the future belongs to God. Perhaps he is the most scintillating coversationalist ever, then after a couple of years he struck by crippling depression and the conversation dries up. What do you do?
Or she is the most gorgeous thing you've ever seen, then she is in a car accident and her face is cut to shreds by flying glass. The plastic surgeons do a good job - but she is never quite the same.
I'm not in contradiction to your main point, which is to marry wisely. I think that is absolutely true. I married foolishly and paid a pretty heavy price!
But I certainly feel uncomfortable with this idea of "gaps" that another person is filling for you. God did not create any half persons. In a good marriage, two whole people come together and make a conscious decision to create a partnership that will last a lifetime. Once you have started down the path, I dont think it is wise to look back or to either side. You have to keep pressing on together...
getting married young certainly has hard things... but i guess i would challenge the implicit assumption in your arguments shiloh that being older means you'll make a better decision and therefore have a better marriage.
You could be right Bron. But I think you and Nick are a lot more mature than others and so capable of making the wise decision that others at your age would not be able to.
But I'm not necessarily saying that older = wiser. Although younger often = not wise.
Even if a couple is "Burning with passion", it doesn't mean they have to get married.
If they are not suited to each other ( i.e he wants to be a pastor,she doesn't want to be a pastor's wife- Or, the only thing they have in common is Christ and sexual attraction) then they can break up.
This is a hard thing for a lot of Christians and I've seen some relationships drag on for years b/c they don't want to let each other go but they can't resolve their differences.
However, the break needs to be clean b/c if they are burning, they can continue/begin to fall into sin with one another.
As( ironically) an ex-boyfriend said.
It's better to break a dating relationship then break the friendship, better to break an engagement than to lead one another into an unhappy marriage that stifles ones faith in the Lord Jesus.
I think sometimes Christian are quick to think "I desire sex, therefore I don't have the "gift" of singleness and need to marry quick-smart".
We all have periods of celibacy in our life, during singleness, during engagement and courtship, (and perhaps later, if our spouse dies) If we can't hang on during these times, how well will we handle fidelity during marriage?
"The problem with lists is that there is always someone out there who will fill one or more of your criteria better than your eventual partner."
That is so true. Nobody is an absolutely perfect fit, and people grow and change, or get affected by outside circumstances. It's important to go into a relationship with realistic expectations and a genuine desire to love and commit.
I do see what you're saying Shy. If you need to be in a close relationship with someone who is a great conversationalist, picking someone who can barely string two words together isn't exactly going to breed contentment. If you start out with someone who fulfils your basic needs, you can grow to love them to such an extent that even if circumstances change, what you need is no longer 'a great conversationalist', but the specific person.
I'm getting married young. But it hasn't been a silly, impulsive decision - I waited til the right person came along, and we've been together 2 years already. I'd hope that everyone, regardless of age, married for the right reasons.
flattery will not win you your point shiloh! I do conceed that as a generalisation, younger=not as wise. But yeah, that doesn't necessarly mean that older people make better decisions.
lol Bron. My feeble attempts at placating... ;)
random thoughts:
* "young" is a term with some relativity, what's "young" today certainly wasn't "young" 2000+yrs ago.
* a fascinating/disturbing part of being a christian 20-something is (for me at least) getting to a point with certain expectations about the common sense people would have when dealing with relationships, marriage etc, and then seeing just how spectacularly wrong you were. :|
* one thing no one seems to want to acknowledge is that 'relating' is a skill, and some people just plain suck at it, girls and boys. it requires a certain amount of awareness, common sense, motivation and a billion other qualities that just aren't dolled out equally. People who are good or 'good enough' though will probably do well whether they marry young or old, and they are indeed a pleasure to watch & learn from.
* We talk a lot about sex from the pulpit ("don't") but we don't talk much about relationships in general (too hard? too complex? too hopeless?). Its a shame because lots of people get pretty messed up emotionally without anything overtly sexual going on. the emotional damage from failed/bad relationships is prob just as bad (or worse) than pre-marital sex, but it hardly gets the same air time.
* We study for years to do a job that will last ~10 years max. we get maybe a couple of Sunday afternoon's worth of marriage "preparation" for a relationship that is suppose to last 50-60 yrs+. It seems to me you're pretty much on your own. Those who can swim will, those who can't will and do sink. :(
* its interesting to observe different patterns of marriage relationships. amongst pre-kids 20-30 somethings, I've noticed too broad groups in christian circles: the loving, "husband and wife" kind you'd expect, and a disturbingly high proportion of quietly adversarial, affectionate-less "brother and sister" type relationships (eiw) which just seems bizarre. whats up with that?
* sex gets a bad rap because its #1 on guys minds (of course, not your minds enlightened blog readers) so women assume its stealing brain cycles away from being able to relate better. 'fraid not.
* any relationship where expectations aren't being met is a failure of both parties to (a) understand their *own* expectations and (b) communicate them. blaming the guy for going after the hot bimbo is fair to a point but comes across as pretty condescending to men - what exactly was the hot bimbo expecting from the guy she knew well enough to marry?
* dodgy ref to 1 cor 7
* I didn't realise I had this many points :S
sex gets a bad rap because its #1 on guys minds (of course, not your minds enlightened blog readers)
Lol! I love it when Christian guys rush to say "No, of course *I'm* not obsessed by sex like all those other nasty guys. *I* spend my time thinking about liturgical dance and religious art..."
"and a disturbingly high proportion of quietly adversarial, affectionate-less "brother and sister" type relationships (eiw) which just seems bizarre. whats up with that?"
I've noticed that too. The idea that the only prerequisites for a marriage partner are that they're a Christian and you're friends with them (because friendship lasts, the feeling of being 'in love' doesn't, blah). I don't see this as being a good idea at all, but maybe that's because I'm a hopeless romantic :)
"The idea that the only prerequisites for a marriage partner are that they're a Christian and you're friends with them...I don't see this as being a good idea at all"
I totally agree. I think this idea is maybe useful to people who have seen all their friends in their social circle get married and they're desperate to join in with the couples BBQs. Apart from that, I think it's kinda dangerous. You want someone who excites you, not someone you're just happy to hang around with.
In regards to your post Shy, I think I disagree with your setup. I know you're generalising, so I don't want to attack the specifics too much, but I don't know if your example of a lusty guy and hot girl rings true. It's not something I think I've ever witnessed (and I've seen a lot of marriages!;)
However, I agree with the point you are making. Marriage is a big big step. As Cher would say: "You know how picky I am about my shoes, and they only go on my feet." I think there can be problems when people marry young, especially when they may be under (perhaps well-intentioned) pressure from their church or social group. If the couple chose to get married for reasons other than the fact they love each like crazed monkeys, the pressures of marriage could make them realise they were in it for the wrong reasons.
The couples I know who have married young are all in stable, loving, happy relationships. Having to defend the fact I have so many married classmates while still only 22 has caused me to think about it a bit. My usual defence when my housemates bagged me: "If they love each other, and they know they're the right one, why wait?" I think that's fair enough. If you consider all the options, factors, important issues, potential problems, and still love each other the fury of a thousand fiery nuns, then I think you'll be fine no matter what age.
Wow, long post. My bad, folks!
You still didn't respond to Bron's statement!
--Luke
"*I* spend my time thinking about liturgical dance and religious art..."
And sex.
You know they say that the average male thinks about sex every 30 seconds or so. And twice as often when they are awake...
I married early (I was 20, she was 19), but I think we were more sensible than a lot of people (although everyone thinks they are better than average, so maybe I'm wrong).
I know that even the day before the wedding we asked each other whether we still wanted to get married, we both thought that it would be better to break up then than rush into marriage.
We've been married nearly 3 years now, so we aren't a hugely long-married couple, but I know others who have broken up sooner, and it is something we will fight against as hard as we can.
I think being aware of what you are doing when you go into marriage really helps. Neither of us expected roses and fireworks for the rest of our lives, but we did make a commitment to one another to love each other for better or for worse, and when it's worse, you need to remind each other of the commitment you made and fight to keep yourselves from temptation. Set boundaries and all that clichéd crap. It is actually important.
Inside my ring I have engraved "love always perseveres". It's something to remind me what I promised.
When you get married I suggest you put a verse (or paraphrase one like I did) to remind you why you are doing what you are doing.
Also put your wedding date, and then you can always recall it :)
On the downside, everyone seems to have disagreed with you. On the upside, you have generated lots of comments and debate.
So, keep posting strong opinions I say...
"The idea that the only prerequisites for a marriage partner are that they're a Christian and you're friends with them...I don't see this as being a good idea at all"
whoever said it was?
You often hear the Christian Checklist, which is something along the lines of the person has to be
-Christian
-single
-opposite sex
-human
-attractive to you
which is often taught in the context of "as long as you've checked off these, God's pretty happy for you to make your own decisions". Which is fairly true. However I have come across people who presume that's all there is to it (even if the person who taught them that didn't mean as much), and if they can match all the stuff on that checklist then lock 'em in. I think that's the kind of thing Angus etc are talking about, Bog.
Of course, the Basic Checklist doesn't take into account a lot of other things God would want you to consider, as is being discussed in these comments, so I don't think it's really all that accurate to say "check off all those and God is happy" (yeah, I'm rebutting teaching I quoted myself). I think it's probably more accurate to say those are the basic things that apply to all Christians picking a partner, after that the factors are fairly specific to each person. If you ask me, God would be most happy if you find a person you're going to have a great lifetime with, not just an acceptable one.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah it's too early for me to be that coherent
"whoever said it was?"
Well I don't want to name names, but it's something I've heard a LOT, and always strenuosly disagreed with. I think the reasoning was that friendship lasts longer than sexual attraction, but there are way too many things wrong with that argument.
What are the things that are wrong with that argument? :)
For the reccord, I'm not denying that marriage might be hard work. But, you do need something to motivate that hard work! This where marrying wisely is important.
...but what constitutes wisdom in marriage/relationship choices is an interesting thing, and whatever it is, it certainly doesn't appear to be in abundant supply..
the most interesting/difficult thing about love/lurrvve(heh)/marriage - it involves life changing decisions based on an unholy mix of feeling, various conflicting cultural/family/individual expectations, personal experience, delusions, an *enormous* amount of speculation, and maybe a touch a reason.
i'm also not sure you could find a positive correlation between intelligence (such as it is) and successful relationship outcomes. nor "emotional intelligence" (hello junk science), nor wealth for that matter too. you could probably find one between being a jerk and unsuccessful relationships though...
so whatever the magic ingredients are, they're pretty elusive.
i think the friendship vs sexual attraction vs ?? argument highlights something by what's absent.
marriage based on friendship sans 'eros' (to borrow vaguely from CS Lewis) = platonic, pleasant marriage, but probably not entirely fulfilling. marriage based on eros without a deep friendship = lots of sparks, not much substance.
so what's missing? to hazard a very uneducated guess i'd wager the magic ingredients to successful relps is intimacy (in all forms, intellectual/emotional/spiritual/physical etc). if that's true, then wise choices can be made by discriminating based on the potential degree of intimacy available in any given relationship.
with intimacy there's no room for meanness, selfishness, pigheadedness, holding grudges etc. instead there's a positive, albeit particularly fragile, feedback loop where each party wants to do the right thing by each other so as to keep perpetuating the quality of relationship they enjoy.
problem is humans being what they are, sin is diametrically opposed to intimacy. and given we're very sinful, real, enduring intimacy is very rare, thus no one has much idea of what it is because no one ever really sees it.
not to be too defeatist though, if you can find it, you've hit the jackpot & one of the most significant aspects of the human experience.
... ??
meh, i'm probably way off. some more random thoughts:
* imo, people create expectations based on maximum ideals (ie the 'perfect' sig. other), but actually make *decisions* based on minimum ideals. ie, an individual might think a lukewarm, ambivalent relationship is better than aching loneliness. therefore they don't think "what is the wisest decision?" they think "will this course of action meet my *minimum* expectations sufficiently such that it is worth pursuing?", if err, that makes sense.
* lurrvvee is a numbers game. people get caught up in the idea of 'the one' mostly because of silly idealism, but also because of the statistical improbability of an 'ideal' spose being available and accessible (think of all the things that count against it: geography, accessibility, personal availability, timing etc etc etc).
* because of the statistical improbability of finding the ideal spose, people compromise, because its far more likely there is someone matching the checklist swil mentions than there is finding the 'perfect' spose, and people are generally more interested in improving their minimum circumstance than they are make the 'wisest' choice. this is an interesting question of wisdom though: considering divorce statistics (ie the degree to which marriages outright fail), is it wiser to settle for a workable relationship involving some compromise *now*, or is it wiser to hold out for something approaching an ideal spose, despite the statistical improbability of this happening?
* why is work, in the context of relationships (esp marriage), always framed in a negative context, as though its a bad thing? is there an expectation of fruitlessness, ie you have to do *lots* of work for very few results? To me that just sounds like very inefficient work?
* i can really, really crap on :D
You have some interesting thoughts. Please be so kind as to unveil your identity. It's only netiquitte.
" What are the things that are wrong with that argument? :)"
I think you're not giving marriage enough credit if you say 'sexual attraction fades but friendship lasts, so go with a friend'. You can work at maintaining spark and sexual attraction - yes, it requires work and isn't always easy, but it's not like it isn't important in the first place. And also, friendship can be just as hard to work at and maintain.
Another thing wrong with the argument is the idea that as long as you have friendship, the marriage will be good. Not necessarily true. As Angus said, you want someone who excites you. You get plain friendship from your friends, and something more from people who are more than that - people who, as anon said, you're intimate with in every way. If you just marry a friend, then meet someone who excites you in every way, you've settled for someone who should have just remained a friend.
Just some quick thoughts before I run off to tea, probably a bit incoherent sorry :)
>Please be so kind as to unveil your identity. It's only netiquitte.
my bad, i'm luke, but not the luke who posted at 10:57 PM !
Thanks Luke! How did you find my blog, if you don't mind me asking?
Emi, I agree with you. :) I don't think the position I was presenting in the origional post was that sexual attraction had nothing to do with marriage. It has a lot to do with marriage!
yeah, the 'you're' in my comment was the general 'you', not the Shiloh 'you' :)
That's it. You're going on my RSS feed. An older friend got married relatively young (21), about the saem time as several of his mates.
None of them had kids for years. His comment was that they all (himself included) had to spend a lot of time after the honeymoon wore off simply growing up. Five years on, none of the marriages had ended in divorce yet, but two of the marriages had become so cold that the best outcome he could see occuring was that the couples would stay together but not have kids.
That all said, I was at a wedding a few weeks back of a couple who have been in a relationship for five years, have an incredibly mature outlook on marriage and who no one in their right mind would worry about. They were only 21 and 22 though, as they both started early and grew up quick, if you met them you would guess them to be several years older than they are.
What worries me about people like them though, is not that they aren't ready, but that other people draw the wrong conclusions. For instance another friend is marrying a girl this January who he only met last March. He is 19 and she is 18. That kind of thing scares me no end.
Dear Borg,
I wonder if you are oversimplifying the situation somewhat. (Although with clarity you have pointed out the folly of taking Paul at his literal best.) Of course sex, or 'burning with passion' cannot be the primary injunction to a swift and thoughtless marriage by two young people, but I think Paul is realistic in suggesting that it is difficult to remain sexually pure and to lead a holy life as a single person (if it was so in his day, how much more now, in this day and age of permissibility). Perhaps we should say that it is spiritual, intellectual maturity that is needed for marriage, rather than to press the stop button on age? Two people can be in their early twenties and be sufficiently mature to consider marriage seriously, don't you think?
It is also important to remember that as Christians we are asked to love and pour out our lives for our spouse as a reflection of Christ's relationship with his Church (no other love has this, that a man would lay down his life for his friend ... etc). - many an early marriage in Christian circles is in reaction to the society around them, which says to dump your old girlfriend or boyfriend when a better looking, more intelligent,
more 'compatable' model comes along, thus running through a cycle of broken relationships looking for the one that will 'fulfill me'. I am not saying don't be wise in chosing a life partner, and there is much to be said for choosing one that is compatible and 'easy to love', (not just the first one that comes along and lights your fire) but ultimately such an emphasis on choice misses the point: Christ loved us the unlovely, simply 'because', and marriage should I think, reflect such.
The context of Paul's time should also be taken into consideration: he was not living in a time and culture were young people were permitted to chose their marriage partners. We are in positions to do so, which can create questions and issues for us, as we shrive to live lives of holiness for God's glory.
Sorry for the long digression.
Great to discover your blog site Shiloh. Hope you're doing well.
love, Bei-En
Post a Comment
<< Home