It’s a statistic I think most of us have heard in one form or another: the median age of marriage in the U.S. has been on the rise the last six decades or so. According to the Census Bureau, in 1950, the middle age for men to tie the knot was 22.8 years old. Today, he puts on the band at 30.5. In 1950, the median age for women to say, “I do” was 20.3 years old. Today, she waits until her 28th birthday to walk down the aisle. The question that typically follows this statistic is an analytic one (one that my 4-year-old is an expert in asking): why?
Social experts, academics, and pastors have written plenty of material analyzing the subject, much of which is very good. The Welfare State’s encroachment has made marriage less necessary for survival. The career-driven woman is not as interested in marriage. Sex is cheaper than it used to be. Seeing marriage as mere companionship instead of a productive institution brings the demand down. Men are lazy bums. All of these theories are helpful, and indeed have been shown to be factors in our culture’s devaluation of marriage.
For the sake of clarity, I’ll reveal at the forefront that I am pro-marriage. I think one man and one woman bound together in a covenantal union until death is a good idea – a really good idea. So anything that has built up a siege against our Maker’s institution is worthy of assault. Load the catapult. I also think that for the most part, the earlier that union is established the better. Crank it, quick. So, if I may, I’d like to add a small pebble into the bucket to launch at the siege. I can’t name who exactly handed me the pebble, but I do have it in my hand now.
There’s a c-word circling around most marriage conversations today. Dating websites advertise around it. Engagements are broken up because of it. It’s a key driver in today’s marriage market, arguably having the most influence in these decisions. It’s not vulgarity, but it might as well be with the way it’s been used and abused. What men and women are looking for in their line-up of spousal options is compatibility. Propping up personality tests (whether the subjective kind or the other subjective kind), financial history, education levels, plans for children, and career alignment are all tools used in our search for compatibility in a spouse. I’m not sure if I can think of a more critical requirement in the modern world’s resume for such a position. Compatibility is presented as the most important prerequisite for marriage. It’s become even more important than all the parts fitting together (some might say we should have our priorities a bit straighter).
Now, I’m not against compatibility. After all, I didn’t marry a Russian-speaking, eastern-European Gypsy to compliment my Central-Siberian, Slavic roots for no reason. Compatibility should be an important consideration in marriage decisions. It definitely makes life not just more interesting, but arguably more productive as well. In the search for candidates for my children’s arranged marriages, “Compatible Families” is in fact on the list of qualifications.
Don’t worry, I’m kidding. Technically speaking.
At the very least, I will advise my kids of all the benefits of a compatible spouse. All jokes aside, there are real benefits to it. Compatibility is a good thing. But more at the level of Preferred Qualification, rather than at the top of the Required List.
Our modern obsession with compatibility is not just demonstrated in people’s marriage decisions. It drives their selection for the church they attend and the people they befriend, as well as the things they buy, the food they eat, and the shows that entertain them. Everything should fit my preferences. Again, compatibility driven by preference is good in its place. I mean, why would I eat something I don’t like or buy something I don’t want? But approaching the things in our life with this paradigm is one thing. It’s a little bit different when we approach the people in it that way.
But of course, when we live and function as individuals (as our culture does), why wouldn’t we esteem “Compatibility” as high as we do? It may be okay to approach some of the things in our life as individuals (although, even food is meant to be eaten and recreation enjoyed with others), but relationships by definition are not an individual matter. Compatibility is the hallmark of our spousal decision-making because we propagate our individualism even in this “selfless” institution.
But absolute compatibility is not an easy thing to pin down. Especially because people’s experience, understanding, and preference is not constant. And then the fear of becoming incompatible in the future convolutes the entire matter all the more. What are we to do? The baseless search for a spouse continues to be blown around and around, like a feather stuck in the air, unable to land because of the passing cars. There you have it: guys at 30 who still cannot find “The One.” While women with potential to be great wives are passed by. Of course, like most things, I see exceptions here. Not every unmarried man at 30 has his priorities upside down. But, if I can say it carefully, it seems to be that most do.
How about compatibility gets demoted about 10 slots down, and something else takes its place? Instead of Individualism as a paradigm for all our decisions, what if somewhere near the center, at the root, and next to the core of our decision-making principles was something else entirely? Something like a covenant. (For all the dispensationalists, that’s a lowercase “c”. Your conscience can be clear to keep reading.) What if life were to be understood not as separate individuals floating through the air, but as covenantal bodies moving in harmony – churches composed of families alongside families living in covenantal relationships with one another. If, instead of individualism fogging our vision, Christians were to see the world composed of covenants and compacts, then the priority of compatibility in marriage would be replaced with a different “c-word”: commitment.
Seeing marriage as a covenantal union instead of an individual preference elevates the priority of commitment above compatibility. In spite of any incompatibilities that may arise, can I commit to loving this woman as Christ loved the Church until death separates us? Can I commit to uphold my duty to protect, provide for, and lead her as Christ does me?
Preferences and compatibilities can change, undermining the ground of our choice. But dutiful follow-thru on commitments made is a lot less complicated. Does she love the Lord? Can you obey His Word together? Does she respect you? Can you commit to loving her until death?
Put a ring on it.
Leave a Reply