The mission of Issues in Perspective is to provide thoughtful, historical and biblically-centered perspectives on current ethical and cultural issues.

The darkness of Postmodern, post-Christian American culture permeates our thinking about two fundamental axioms of the Christian faith—the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of life.  Both axioms of our faith are being challenged and both confront our consistency as Christians as we proclaim the infallible truth of God’s Word to a culture that is not listening.

• First, consider the growing acceptance of cohabitation among Christian couples.  David J. Ayers, professor of sociology at Grove City College, reports on a 2019 conference of evangelical pastors:  “I asked how many of them regularly faced cohabitation in their churches. Most raised their hands. One told me that he had stopped conducting weddings because so many of his engaged couples were cohabiting and got angry when he addressed it.  Another suffered bitter criticism from church members when he dismissed a church employee who refused to leave a cohabiting arrangement.  What I have seen for years in large national surveys and learned in interviews with a spectrum of pastors in 2019 corresponds with these anecdotes: Evangelicals, especially those under 40, increasingly see cohabitation as morally acceptable. Most young evangelicals have engaged in it or expect to.  Simply put, living together is far more common and accepted than Christians realize. American pastors are grappling with how to navigate wedding policies and premarital counseling among cohabiting congregants. But one thing is certain: If the church is to preserve and protect marriage, something about its approach has to change.  Evangelicals are much less likely than Americans overall to approve of cohabitation. Still, a Pew Research survey in 2019 found that 58 percent of white evangelicals and 70 percent of black Protestants believe cohabiting is acceptable if a couple plans to marry. The youngest Americans are far more liberal on cohabitation, with less than 10 percent finding it morally problematic.  This age difference is clear among evangelicals as well. In 2012, only 4 in 10 evangelicals ages 18 to 29 told the General Social Survey they disagreed with the statement: ‘It is alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married.’”

The idea of waiting until marriage comes across as even more antiquated in other studies. The most recent National Survey of Family Growth, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and completed in 2019, has found that 43 percent of evangelical Protestants ages 15 to 22 said they definitely or probably would cohabit in the future.  Only 24 percent said they definitely would not. Over two-thirds of those ages 29 to 49 had cohabited at least once. And 53 percent of evangelical Protestants currently in their first marriage cohabited with each other prior to being legally wed.  Evangelicals, especially those under 40, increasingly see cohabitation as morally acceptable. Most young evangelicals have engaged in it or expect to.  Among evangelicals who had ever cohabited, only 47% of first cohabitations had resulted in marriage at the time surveys were conducted.  Among evangelicals who were currently cohabitating, only 14% were engaged, and another 21% had definite plans to marry when they moved in together.  National Survey of Family Growth data shows that when evangelicals were interviewed, 45 percent of marriages that resulted from first cohabitations had already dissolved. But for evangelicals who had never cohabited, 79 percent of first marriages were still intact.  However, Ayers argues that “there is some reason for hope. The cohabiting habit is less acute among those who are theologically conservative and attend church weekly. Even with shifting cultural attitudes, the studies show that evangelicals who attend church regularly or who regard their faith as very important to their daily lives are much less likely to plan on cohabiting or to actually do so. Church attendance and personal faith commitment make a huge difference.

Why are some millennial evangelicals so open to cohabitation?  “Practical considerations, expedience, and economic factors consistently arise as justifications for cohabitation. [Bill] Henry, [of the St. Stephens Anglican Church] in Sewickley, Pennsylvania interviewed eight premarital couples—three of whom were cohabiting—as part of research for his Doctor of Ministry degree. When he asked them why young people in their generation choose to live together, the term ‘convenience’ was used seven times. But finances were by far the most common rationale, mentioned twice as much.  Churches must be sensitive that economic and practical pressures can make it genuinely difficult for cohabiting couples to separate until marriage. When I was an elder, my church encountered a situation where a repentant cohabiting couple were not only poor, but were raising children together. While willing to marry, they did not see how they could live apart until their premarital counseling and wedding were completed.  And such pressures aren’t limited to young couples. [Gerald] Dodds [of the Bethel Evangelical Presbyterian Church] pointed out that many widowed and elderly people today want to be married but are afraid that ‘getting married would hurt their government benefits.’ They see living together as their only alternative to being alone.”

Churches need to equip and train people using sound Christian doctrine and using real life experience and practical wisdom. This could look as simple as “This is what God teaches about cohabitation and sex outside marriage morally and theologically, and here is the evidence that his way really is the best path to a happy, stable, vibrant marriage.”  The church can no longer ignore the growing habit of cohabitation; it must address it.

• Second, reflect with me on the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade.  In a recent article in First Things, a Catholic journal of opinion, Notre Dame professor John Finnis argued that the fetus is a person under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and that the Supreme Court should therefore rule abortion unconstitutional.  As I write, there is a case pending before the Supreme Court that could potentially overturn Roe.  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization involves a Mississippi ban, with limited exceptions, on abortion after 15 weeks; a district court has struck down the law.  However, the case has been pending before the Court since September, indicating that there is not a required number—4 justices—to even hear the case.  Yet, many conservatives still hope the Court will hear this case or another one dealing with abortion.  But what if the Supreme Court did overturn Roe?  What would be the results?  Ross Douthat has published a most insightful essay on this topic.  He raises several rather profound judgments about Roe being overturned.

1. Of course, it would depend on the specifics of a Court ruling, but there is a possibility that the Court would not make abortion illegal in all situations.  Would the Court set additional limits on abortion in order to narrow it rather than make it totally illegal?  Perhaps, the Court would declare the matter of abortion a state legal issue not a national one.  In that case, there would be 50 separate sets of rules and regulations of abortion.  There is a degree of that now, but undeniably there would be greater confusion on the right of an abortion under certain circumstances and certain specific crisis points in a woman’s life.  In that case, it is not at all certain that abortions would end in the United States; it would be a procedure regulated by the individual states.
2. The second possibility is a ruling that declares abortion unconstitutional and thereby illegal in the United States.  [Whether there would be exceptions in the ruling or a total ban on all abortions is not clear.]  Those of us who are pro-life would face a significant challenge to demonstrate our consistency in caring for and protecting life at all stages of human development.  Will the pro-life movement step up and protect and support the pregnant woman who would no longer be able to get an abortion that was once available to her?  Let me illustrate:  Cheryl Ider, former chief executive of Popeye’s, has worked with other anti-abortion leaders “to brainstorm all the community support systems that would need to be stronger in a world where abortion is illegal: mental health services, addiction-recovery programs, affordable child care.”  Douthat correctly observes that “making abortion illegal would lead, in the short run, to more women raising kids in difficult circumstances . . . More unintended births to poor women in the near term are a necessary price of pro-life victory.”  For that reason, among others, Senator Mitt Romney has proposed a Family Plan that supports parenthood and child rearing through a mixture of tax credits and benefits.  Among fellow Republicans it has met with rejection and, among some, scorn.  This will not do!  If we are going to advocate for pro-life, we had better also put in place ways to meet the needs of mothers who have their babies rather than abort them.  To be pro-life involves protecting and caring for babies once they are outside the womb as well.

See David J. Ayers, “First Comes Love, Then Come House Keys” in Christianity Today (April 2021), pp. 37-41 and www.christianitytoday.com (16 March 2021); Ross Douthat in the New York Times (7 February and 4 April 2021);