“In the beginning,” Scripture says, “God created the heavens and the
earth.” That first biblical affirmation points to the priority of the doctrine
of creation within the system of Christian doctrine. Nevertheless, even the
doctrine of creation presupposes a biblical notion of God and the authority of
his revelation in Scripture. The Christian believer does not acknowledge the
creation and then infer a Creator. Indeed, it is not God who must be explained
by the creation, but creation which must be explained by the Creator. Thus, the
very first verse of the Bible affirms the cosmos as the free creation of the
sovereign God of Scripture—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The doctrine of creation is the attempt of the
Christian believer to come to terms with the relationship between God and the
world. As such, it gives proper place to the work of God in creation, points to
the nature and purpose of the created world, and distinguishes the Christian
theistic worldview from all others.
The starting point of the doctrine of creation is the presupposition of
the sovereign God of Scripture. Those first words of Scripture indicate that
the central character in the creation narratives is God, not the created order.
God acts as the divine Subject, creating a dynamic universe as the object of
his love and the theater of his glory. This biblical theism is the foundational
affirmation of the doctrine of creation. Creation is inseparable from
monotheism.
The most common creed in the Christian church begins with the
confession, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.”
The God of the Bible is not needful of anything outside himself. This
self-sufficiency or “aseity” of God precludes any need for creation on God’s
part. Positively, it affirms the fact that God created the world and all within
it out of the freedom of his own sovereign will. With this in view, the divine
initiative in creation takes on a powerful meaning. Though needing nothing, God
willed not to be alone, but to create a world distinct and other than himself,
as the result of his own divine pleasure.
This affirmation places the biblical worldview in opposition to all
others. The Israelites were surrounded by pre-biblical religions which placed
God over against creation, or suggested a number of gods conspiring to create a
universe out of existing chaos and matter. The early Christian church found
itself confronted by challenges including Gnosticism, Arianism, and
Manichaeism, each positing a worldview in which God was variously placed within
creation, over against creation as a dualism, or a scheme in which an evil god
created the world in order that a beneficent god might redeem it.
The church quickly affirmed what had been assumed in the Old Testament,
that God created the universe out of nothing, that is, out of no pre-existing
matter. If the church had allowed an acknowledgement of divine creation as the
mere fashioning of existing materials, it would have compromised the nature of
God and the biblical testimony. No form of dualism is compatible with biblical
theism.
The Hebrew verb used to describe the word of God in creation is distinct
from that used to describe the work of a human craftsman in fashioning an
artifact. Man may fashion out of what God has created, but only God can truly
create. This is the affirmation of creation ex nihilo—out of nothing—without
the use of pre-existing materials. The acknowledgement of God’s creation of the
world ex nihilo must be central to the Christian affirmation of the
doctrine of creation. Some contemporary theological movements have rejected
this in favor of an understanding which posits God as the fashioner of
pre-existing materials. Any such system presupposes a model of God unworthy of
biblical theism. No particle existed prior to God’s creative act.
The biblical portrait of the creating God demonstrates a loving God
whose character issues naturally in his creation. The loving character of God
is woven into the warp and woof of his creation and the creatures within it.
The biblical testimony will allow no distinction between the God who creates
and the God who redeems. Isaiah pointedly affirms the identity of the creating
God as the one with whom Israel must deal (Isaiah 43:15; 45:7; 40:28). Indeed,
creation is a Trinitarian event. The prologue to the Gospel of John proclaims
the role of the Son as the divine Word of creation through whom all things were
made, and “without whom nothing was made that was made,” (John 1:1-5). In like
manner, Paul reminded the Colossians that “all things were created through him
and for him,” (Colossians 1:15-17). The creating God is thus both Author and
Finisher. The God who created the universe as an exercise of his own glory is
the very same God who was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit, which is the living empowerment of the church,
was also manifest in creation.
The means of God’s creative activity is not detailed in the biblical
creation narratives (Genesis 1-2). The substance of the biblical teaching is
God’s creation of the universe and all within it by the power of his Word. The
biblical language affirms the creation of the world by divine fiat. That is, by
the force of his sovereign will God spoke, light appeared, the firmament was
made and the waters separated, the seas were created and dry land appeared, and
the whole of God’s creation was accomplished.
The product of God’s creative activity is a universe of seemingly
infinite variety, complexity, and mystery. The Genesis creation narratives
describe the creation of the world from the most rudimentary distinction
between the waters and the dry land, to the pinnacle of creation, man and
woman. Genesis 1 moves from the emergence of light through the emergence of dry
land, the blossoming of vegetation and the creative abundance of living
creatures, to the creation of man and woman.
Of central importance to the interpretation of these verses is the
recognition of God’s verdict upon his creation. The pristine energy of light,
the dryness of land, the swarms of living creatures, the multiplying birds and
fishes are all declared “good” in God’s sight. This critical judgment is an
intrinsic part of the biblical worldview. The created order has meaning and
value solely because it is the glorious creation of the Lord of the universe.
The creation has no inherent meaning within itself. Rather, it is dependent
upon the Creator for both preservation and value. Nevertheless, the biblical
affirmation is an unqualified judgment of goodness as God’s verdict on
creation.
Challenges old and new have been raised against this verdict. Gnosticism
thought matter to be evil and only mind to be good. Contemporary religious
movements, including the eclectic Christian Science movement, have gone so far
as to deny the reality of matter. The biblical affirmation is quite to the
contrary. Against materialism, the Christian worldview understands matter to
have no value in and of itself. But biblical theism affirms the world as the
theater of God’s glory. It is creation which is made meaningful by the Creator,
not the Creator who derives meaning from the creation.
It is the divine creation of humankind which forms the climax of the
biblical creation narratives. The biblical teachings concerning the creation of
humans point to the special character of humanity as made in the very image of
God. Man, contrary to the claims of secularism, is not the accidental
by-product of natural occurrences. Though Scripture does not indicate any
scientific means for the creation of man and woman (nor for any other dimension
of creation), it makes clear the identity of humanity as a special creation of
God by the power of his word and will. Thus, humanity is granted a value
inconsistent with a secularist worldview.
Within the scheme of the created order, humanity plays a strategic part.
Two biblical themes form the basis for this special role. The first is that of
dominion. Humanity, made in the image of God, is to possess and exercise
dominion over the remainder of creation. This dominion, or rulership, is
exercised by humans in the manipulation of creation to bring about harvest,
bounty, energy, and beauty. It is seen in the planting and reaping of crops,
the herding of animals, the harnessing of rivers, and the construction of
shelter.
This dominion theme must be balanced with the other
major theme of humanity’s responsibility within creation. By God’s mandate, humans must exercise their dominion with an
understanding of mutuality and responsibility. The biblical notion of dominion
is not seen in the rape of the land, but in the careful stewardship of natural
resources and the other creatures which share this planet. As the pinnacle of
God’s creative activity, humans stand responsible for their stewardship of
fellow creatures and the earth. Indeed, a helpful corrective which has emerged
in contemporary theology is the recognition that the cosmos is neither “mere
nature” nor “our world,” but is most properly “God’s creation.” Humans are
granted a high degree of delegated agency within God’s creation, but it remains
fundamentally God’s alone. This affirmation underlines the tremendous charge of
stewardship to humankind by the Creator.
Creation is not a brute fact without meaning. It derives its meaning
from the divine character and will. As the theater of God’s redemptive
activity, creation is not static, but is moving toward the goal established by
the Creator before the foundation of the universe. Creation, like the humans
within it, has a future.
Paul describes the creation as in need of redemption from the bondage of
decay and travail—the results of the entry of sin into the created order
(Romans 8:19-23). The Old Testament speaks of the new heavens and the new
earth, which is the eventual purpose of God in reconciliation (Isaiah 66:22).
Paul spoke of the dramatic transformation of the believer as a “new creation”
(2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15). The writer of the Apocalypse recorded a
vision of a new heaven and a new earth even as the Creator spoke: “Behold, I
make all things new,” (Revelation 12:1-8). The essential meaning of these
affirmations is that God controls the destiny of the universe he created. The
cosmos does not exist alongside God as a reality out of control. Rather, it
exists as the theater of his redemptive activity, the reach of which includes
the entire cosmos.
Thus, the Christian doctrine of creation is directly connected to the
doctrine of redemption. For this reason, a failure to affirm the biblical
doctrine of creation leads to inevitable compromise on the doctrine of
redemption. In reality, we simply cannot minimize the importance of this
doctrine, nor can we surrender biblical truth in the face of modern denials. We
must get it right from the beginning.
==============================
The doctrine of creation does not stand alone. The universe has not been
set adrift in time without purpose or divine direction. The Christian
affirmation of God requires an affirmation of His continuing sovereign Lordship
over the created order. This affirmation sets the Christian worldview apart
from alternative worldviews which recognize no continuing divine direction.
Deism, a perspective accepted by many in the nineteenth century, affirmed God
as the creator of the universe, but denied any continuing divine will expressed
in the history or future of the creation. God, it was suggested, had created
the world much as a clock, and had wound it up to move by its own direction.
Contemporary challenges to the affirmation of divine providence suggest that
though God created the world and set the original forces in order, God has
either ceased to will, or is unable to make his will effective within the
creation.
All of these are clearly in opposition to biblical theism. The God of
the Bible is a God who acts within the history of His creation and who has
ultimate control over the affairs of the nations, natural forces, and humanity.
Like creation, God’s providence is a Trinitarian activity. The Lord who
exercises providence is none other than the Lord and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and that providence is energized by the presence of the Holy Spirit
within the world. The root meaning of providence is “foresight,” though the
biblical meaning is far more rich in significance. God does not exercise mere
foresight into the affairs of the cosmos; he ultimately orders and directs
world occurrences. The biblical doctrine of providence is demonstrated in the
concrete experiences of Israel and her neighbors in the Old Testament and in
the life of Jesus and the development of the church in the New Testament. As
such, divine providence is a sign of God’s steadfast covenant love with his
people. The history of the Jews in the Old Testament exists as a powerful
witness and sign of God’s intervening covenant love—a love ultimately revealed
on the cross.
“In God,” Paul declares, “all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:17)
Nothing in creation itself is self-sufficient. God is responsible for both the
origin and the preservation of all creation. Without God’s continuing
preservation of creation the cosmos would cease to exist. No atom of the
universe is self-sufficient—all creation is utterly dependent upon God’s
gracious sustenance. As Ezra affirmed in the book of Nehemiah, “Thou are the
Lord, thou alone, . . . thou preservest all.” (Nehemiah 9:6)
To affirm providence as the divine preserving is to acknowledge that
creation has limits. That these limits do not rule the creature is due to God’s
acting preservation. This is not a passive divine activity. God enters into
world occurrence and ordains that it should exist. This is not to suggest that
God creates the world anew each moment, as has been suggested by some
theologians. God’s creative activity as represented in new beings and new life
demonstrates the continuation of his creative will, but the original creative
act which set the cosmos in place is a unique once-for-all event. The Christian
does not know the means of God’s preservation of the world, but the knowledge
of his preserving love provides comfort and refutes contemporary naturalism,
which supposes that the world exists on its own.
This aspect of divine providence is often called divine government. The
Christian affirms the Lordship of God over all the affairs of humanity,
nations, and natural forces. The universe is not set adrift in purposeless
trajectory. Human history is not a meaningless record of isolated events and
movements. The future is not a matter of mere human responsibility or chance.
The biblical worldview presupposes the governing Lordship of God in the cosmos,
and biblical theism, that understanding of God’s own nature demonstrated in the
text of Scripture, requires an affirmation of God’s sovereign rulership over
all world occurrences—past history and future hope.
The divine ruling has both individual and corporate dimensions. In
encompasses the unfathomable forces of energy reaching throughout the vast
expanse of the universe. Furthermore, it includes the experiences, actions, and
destiny of individual human beings. Theologians have often identified a third
aspect of divine providence, God’s accompanying of the creature, that is,
divine concurrence or cooperation. This is best understood within the context
of the divine ruling, however. In affirming God’s cooperation with the creature
theologians have attempted to do justice to the role of the human will within
human activity. The human is not a static creature, but possesses a will and
limited means to accomplish that will. The biblical worldview does not deny
this human role in world events and the actions of the individuals.
Nevertheless, the Christian recognizes the ultimacy of the divine will and
ruling. Insofar as the creature exercises its will, it does so in the context,
acknowledged or not, of the ultimate divine will. The sovereign divine will is
effective, but not despotic. Human freedom and divine sovereignty are both affirmed.
As Paul affirms in Philippians 2:13, God is active in both the willing and
working of his creatures.
Any affirmation of divine providence must acknowledge the enormous
challenge to that biblical affirmation represented by the problem of evil and suffering
in the world. In the minds of many individuals, the presence of tremendous
human suffering and manifest evil calls into question the goodness or potency
of God, or both. This problem is not a modern discovery. It is as old as the
book of Job and as persistent as any theological issue.
Two forms of evil must be distinguished: natural evil and human evil.
Natural evil includes earthquakes, floods, fires, and other causes of suffering
not caused by direct human evil. This problem may be posed as the question: “Why
are there scorpions, sharks and snakes in God’s good creation?” Human evil is
more easily defined. It is the product of human activity; humans inflicting
evil and tremendous suffering upon others.
The Christian must not evade these issues. The secular mind may never be
satisfied with the Christian response, but the believer must not ignore the
challenge. Believers themselves are often troubled by this challenge to faith.
Death, acute and chronic physical pain, profound mental anguish, and manifold
other forms of suffering face both believers and unbelievers on a daily basis.
Various theological options have been suggested as a means of addressing
this challenge. Some have suggested that God has ceased to be active in the
everyday experience of the world. Others, including Christian Scientists and
numerous New Age thinkers deny the presence of evil and explain it all as a
metaphysical experience. Some contemporary worldviews posit God as a
participant in the world process, struggling with the creation, with the
eventual liberation from evil and suffering. Many of these are patently in
contradiction with the biblical understanding of God. Nevertheless, the
biblical concept of God does repeatedly affirm his identification with the
plight of humanity and his determination to suffer with humanity.
Christians have the solace of some limited understanding of God’s
purposes in the world as revealed in Scripture—purposes which make human
suffering and the presence of some evil understandable. Nevertheless, the
knowledge and understanding of the creature is partial and fragmentary. The
meaning of all suffering and evil is outside the creature’s limited reach. Even
for the Christian, much suffering is beyond understanding. In this century two
central symbols of this suffering are the Holocaust of Hitler against the Jews
and the extermination of millions in the former Soviet Union—as well as the
potential holocaust of a catastrophic terrorist attack. The Christian community
must resist the tendency to evade these questions of suffering or to be
satisfied with commonly accepted responses which do justice to neither the
issue nor the biblical witness.
What distinguishes the Christian biblical worldview is its affirmation
that God is the sovereign Lord in whom all creatures, forces, and experiences
find their purpose and meaning. Though the problems of evil and suffering
constitute an awesome challenge to the believer, they do so only in the context
of a profound faith in the purpose of the sovereign Lord who gave the world his
ultimate sign of power and providential love on the cross.
The Christian believer knows the key to the ultimate meaning and
significance of the created universe and human experience. Though our present
knowledge is limited, even as we are limited creatures, believers know the
source of the cosmos and rest in the confidence and hope which comes through a
personal knowledge of the Creator. This knowledge is not discovered by the
creature through observation of the universe, but is revealed in Scripture and,
ultimately, in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through
Christ we have knowledge of the fatherly Lordship of the Creator, upon whom the
creation depends for its existence, and in whom the cosmos finds its purpose
and confident hope. Therefore, the Christian worldview is necessarily distinct
from all others in the midst of contemporary nihilism and the frantic search
for meaning. Christians bear witness to the God in whom all creatures find
their meaning and purpose. “For from him and through him and to him are all
things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)
==============================
[KH: 6 months after the beginning of the Iraq war.]
Standing again before the General Assembly of the United Nations, President Bush not only did not back down—he pressed his case. The civilized world still faces a grave challenge, he asserted, and that challenge remains terrorism in all its forms.
“Those who incite murder and celebrate suicide reveal their contempt for life itself,” the President declared. “They have no place in any religious faith, they have no claim on the world’s sympathy and they should have no friend in this chamber.” Is the United Nations up to this challenge?
The European press anticipated the President’s U.N. address as an opportunity to put America and the Bush administration on trial. Some predicted that the President would bring a rather nonconfrontational address designed to secure U.N. support. They were wrong. Bush went to New York to put the U.N. on notice and call it to fulfill its responsibility.
The President’s address revealed that his basic worldview remains unchanged. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, President Bush shocked the cultural elites by his forceful and deliberate use of the categories of good and evil. These words have been debased by the postmodern worldview, and the academic and political elites assume that evil is an outdated and unusable word. But, though the word may have been erased from the postmodernists’ dictionary—it is still essential to the President’s vocabulary, and that of the American public.
Standing at the rostrum of the General Assembly, the President drew the critical distinction between good and evil: “Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: Between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children, without mercy or shame. Between these alternatives there is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and recruit and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of history.”
This view of the world is anathema to the international elites—especially in Europe and the United States. The worldview is force-fed to America’s young people through the educational system, and college professors report that students are reluctant to call anyone evil, even Adolf Hitler. This moral disarmament is as dangerous as the threat of terrorism, but it is part and parcel of a worldview determined to draw no moral distinctions between the agents of terror and their victims.
In the arena of the United Nations, the primary divide on this question is between America and Europe. As Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains, “It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power—the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power—American and European perspectives are diverging.”
Kagan believes he knows why the American and European worldviews are diverging. He explains that Europe has bought into Immanuel Kant’s Enlightenment vision of “perpetual peace,” while Americans reflect Thomas Hobbes’ belief that violence can only be restrained by the use of force. Kagan traces the history of Europe and the United States in order to demonstrate the evolution of these worldviews, but he sees the divide in basically secular terms.
While Kagan offers a very insightful argument, I would offer an alternative explanation. Europe and the United States do represent very different worldviews, and these worldviews do determine how each culture views the world. But there is something beyond a secular reality here. The twentieth century witnessed the rapid secularization of European culture. Though the process began in the Enlightenment itself, the secular tide did not sweep over Western Europe until after the Second World War. The secular worldview cannot deal with the category of evil. Behavior may be socially unacceptable, or even pathological, but not evil. The very concept of evil requires a belief in moral absolutes, and moral absolutes depend on an objective morality. In the end, only a divine Creator can establish an objective morality. The formula is simple: No God, no moral absolutes, no evil.
Americans are not [yet] as secular
as the Europeans. Most Americans claim to believe in God, and the residue of
the Christian worldview still informs the American conscience. Americans—along
with their president—believe in the reality of good and evil. They also believe
that evil must be confronted and, where necessary, confronted with force.
The Christian worldview imposes the concept of original sin on our understanding of what it means to be human. Christians understand the reality of evil and believe that evil must be restrained. The use of force is always surrounded by a host of moral questions and qualifications, but, in the end, most Christians are convinced that force must often be exercised, lest human sinfulness be set loose.
Time will reveal the U.N.’s response to the President’s speech and appeal. Recent history offers little reason for confidence that the United Nations will summon moral resolve and meet the President’s challenge. Nevertheless, the speech itself offers an opportunity to consider the basic divide between the Christian and secular worldviews. There is little hope for those who refuse to acknowledge the difference between good and evil.
==============================
For several years, I have been warning audiences that America now faces a generation of young people unwilling to grow up, assume adult responsibility, marry, and start raising families. I have addressed this issue in various articles, public lectures, and church settings. My observations have been drawn from constant contact with young adults, including college students, and are backed up by a wealth of demographic and statistical information. Nevertheless, my warnings have often been met with incredulity, suspicion, and even outrage.
Now, TIME magazine has come out with a cover story that announces this new social phenomenon. It’s about time.
According to TIME’s January 24, 2005 cover story, the “twixters” are young adults who simply won’t grow up. TIME’s investigative report and analysis offer considerable insight and first-person accounts of this new social phenomenon. Beyond this, the article offers substantial confirmation of the basic issues at stake and what it would take to reverse this trend.
Lev Grossman, the main writer of TIME’s article, explains that the “twixters” are “not kids anymore, but they’re not adults either.” He begins his article by introducing six young adults—all young Chicagoans in their twenties—who “go out three nights a week, sometimes more.” They have each held several jobs since college (one is now on her 17th). These unsettled young adults don’t own homes, change apartments almost as frequently as their wardrobe, and are, for all appearances, permanent adolescents.
Needless to say, none of them are married, and none have children. Grossman correctly observes, “Thirty years ago, people like Michele, Ellen, Nathan, Corinne, Marcus and Jennie didn’t exist, statistically speaking.” Just thirty years ago, the median age of marriage for American women was 21. Motherhood came only a year later, statistically speaking. Women now marry at a median age of 25—the same median age for first childbirth.
The phenomenon of delayed adulthood is already producing profound social consequences. Economists are concerned about the financial implications of young adults who return to live with their parents and put off major investments like the purchase of a home until well into their thirties. Social scientists are tracking the effects of delayed marriage and the social dislocation common to this age group. Like most demographic trends, this new pattern of life is not likely to be reversed anytime soon, at least in society at large.
Grossman provides interesting insights into this generational phenomenon as he focuses on several twenty-somethings who fit the pattern. Matt Swann, 27, took 6.5 years to graduate from the University of Georgia with a degree in “Cognitive Science.” Like many in his generation, he chose his major based upon interest, with little attention to job prospects.
Swann’s extended college experience is now the norm. According to data provided by colleges and universities, the average college student is now taking at least five years to finish a baccalaureate degree. Once the degree is in hand, these graduates do not necessarily move on to a stable job related to their academic pursuits. Many of these young people enter the job market in order to “find themselves” and follow their own personal interests.
Kate Galantha, 28, took a full seven years to complete her college degree, attending three different institutions. She finally graduated with an “undeclared” major in 2001 and began work as a nanny. She has moved six times since 1999 and is apparently unsure of her next move.
Zach Braff, 29, a film director and actor, explains his perception of the generational trend. “In the past, people got married and got a job and had kids, but now there’s a new 10 years that people are using to try and find out what kind of life they want to lead. For a lot of people, the weight of all the possibility is overwhelming.”
Grossman argues that this pattern of delayed adulthood is a permanent cultural shift. “In the past, people moved from childhood to adolescence and from adolescence to adulthood, but today there is a new, intermediate phase along the way. The years from 18 until 25 and even beyond have become a distinct and separate life stage, a strange transitional never-never land between adolescence and adulthood in which people stall for a few extra years, putting off the iron cage of adult responsibility that constantly threatens to crash down on them. They’re betwixt and between.”
Social scientists debate the significance of this new phenomenon. Some see this trend towards delayed adulthood as a good thing. Advocates for the trend suggest that these young Americans are simply enjoying the benefits won by advocates of social liberation. Furthermore, they have grown up in a culture of affluence that has afforded them unprecedented options, creature comforts, and security. They simply do not want to enter the more insecure world of adult responsibility.
Jeffrey Arnett, who sees what he calls “emerging adulthood” as a positive trend, teaches developmental psychology at the University of Maryland. These unsettled young Americans are simply taking their time to focus on adult responsibility. “This is the one time of their lives when they’re not responsible for anyone else or to anyone else,” he argues. “So they have this wonderful freedom to really focus on their own lives and work on becoming the kind of person they want to be.”
In other words, Arnett sees delayed adulthood as a new social phenomenon that allows self-centered Americans even more time to focus on themselves while “not responsible for anyone else or to anyone else.” Of course, what Arnett celebrates, others see as the very heart of the problem.
After all, what are these young people doing during this stage of “emerging adulthood?” Well, they’re having a lot of sex, for one thing. Obviously, social trends point to demographic generalities, not to every individual in this age cohort. Still, even TIME registered surprise at the sexual attitudes of these unmarried twenty and thirty-somethings.
The delay of marriage is the most significant statistical marker. The average age of first marriage for a white American male is now almost 28—a full six years later than just a few decades ago. This trend is not uniquely American. The average age for a man’s first marriage in Canada is 28, in England 29.7. Germany and Italy come in with even higher ages, 30.3 and 30.5 respectively.
This delay in assuming marital commitment and responsibility does not mean a delay in sexual activity. As Grossman explains, “Marrying late also means that twixters tend to have more sexual partners than previous generations. The situation is analogous to the promiscuous job-hopping behavior.”
The six twenty-somethings Grossman introduced in his opening paragraph all indicate an interest in marriage—but not anytime soon. “It’s a long way down the road,” said Marcus Jones. “I’m too self involved. I don’t want to bring that into a relationship now.” As he joked to Grossman, “My wife is currently a sophomore in high school.”
In a similar vein, Jennie Jing, 26, commented, “I want to get married but not soon. I’m enjoying myself. There’s a lot I want to do by myself still.” Kate Galantha isn’t sure about marriage at all: “I fantasize more about sharing a place with someone than about my wedding day. I haven’t seen a lot of good marriages.”
Economic factors are undoubtedly at play in this new social phenomenon. Economists argue that wages for young adults are simply not keeping pace with the larger economic context, and most young adults lack confidence that job prospects will sustain them through their adult years. So, they go back to live with their parents, returning to a state of extended adolescence that western cultures simply have never seen before.
Looking at this from a biblical perspective, the most tragic aspect of this development is the fact that these young people are refusing to enter into the adult experience and adult responsibilities that is their Christian calling. The delay of marriage will exact an undeniable social toll in terms of delayed parenthood, even smaller families, and more self-centered parents. The experiences of marriage and raising children are important parts of learning the adult experience and finding one’s way into the deep responsibilities and incalculable rewards of genuine adulthood.
As TIME explains, many of these young people are so busy buying iPods, designer clothes, and new automobiles that they will find the necessary sacrifices of marital life and parenthood to be a rude shock. So long as they are living with parents, or grouping together in “emerging adult” enclaves, they continue to live like teenagers—only with even greater freedoms and privileges.
According to TIME, America should not linger in denial about this new social phenomenon, but should simply accept it as a new reality. That is simply not good enough for those who believe that God has something better in mind. At the same time, TIME’s cover story is an important milestone that should not be missed.
==============================