Search Results

Guest Author: Dr. Faydra Shapiro Introductions are funny things – sometimes it’s what is unsaid, what is assumed, that can tell you the most. Several years ago I gave a talk at a church in North America about Israel and Jewish-Christian relations. The listeners were very encouraging and as the talk drew to a close I felt I had really done a superb job of teaching and inspiring the audience. Until the moment when one elderly gentleman stood up to ask me a question. He said: “Thank you very much, Dr. Shapiro. That was a great talk. But one thing you didn’t really speak about was the role of your faith in Jesus Christ”. “Oh, dear”, I thought, my heart sinking. Clearly I had done a brilliant job, but I had missed an essential point. Since that day I take the time to state it plainly and for the record: I am a Jew. Admittedly a Jew with an out-of-the-ordinary interest in Christianity and the New Testament, but still, simply, an “Orthodox” Jew. That doesn’t necessarily matter much, but it’s always useful to know where a person is coming from. Today I want to discuss an issue that comes up often in my conversations with Christian – almost always evangelical – friends and students. This is the matter of “having a relationship with God”, and the belief that this is one of the benefits of the Jesus path. While I do recognize that the whole rhetoric of “relationship not religion” is a product of 1970s popular American evangelicalism, it is an attiude that has important implications even if it might not be mobilized by many Christians. Now again, let’s pay attention to the unsaid. Having a relationship with God as opposed to what? The other (clearly undesirable) option is “religion”. So with Jesus one can ostensibly have something true and immediate – a personal relationship with God, whereas Jews only have “religion”. Let’s unpack this a little. “Relationship” is understood to refer to something intimate, experiential, mystical, personal, friendly, deep, spiritual. “Religion” is ascribed the associations of being rule-oriented, man-made, legalistic, formal, distanced and superficial. Given these resonances, clearly having a relationship is something desirable whereas religion is something to progress past. And it is not uncommon for Christian readings of the gospels to assume precisely this – that what Jesus offered people was a personal (intimate, deep) relationship with God specifically in distinction to the Jews who only offered (formal, sterile) religion. You can imagine the impact that this kind of slogan has for Christian understandings of Judaism. It’s also interesting how this emphasis resonates with the current wave of people who insist that they are “spiritual, not religious.” The fact is that Judaism takes the idea of the individual’s relationship with God very seriously. It is obvious to Jews that both fear of God and love of God are important, and that emphasizing one over the over leads to an unhealthy imbalance. But the Jewish love of God and personal relationship with Him ends up looking quite different than that of contemporary evangelical Christianity for several reasons. First, most Jews find popular evangelical lyrics and expressions like “My Saviour, my closest friend” and “Jesus take the wheel” to be far too casually intimate with the Holy One Blessed be He, to be comfortable. The concern is that this approach casts the sovereign, powerful, Master of the Universe into a being dangerously much like ourselves. Second, Jews believe that doing His will is the highest expression of love, gratitude and clinging to God. In short, good relationships are expressed in action. Because performing mitzvoth (commandments) often looks so foreign to outsiders, it is very difficult for Christians to recognize things like keeping the dietary laws or Sabbath observance for what it is supposed to be – a declaration of love for God. I believe that the ideal for both Judaism and Christianity is a balance and an integration of heart and hands, relationship and religion, informal and formal, spontaneous and fixed. Our challenge is to look for the unseen behind the slogan, and behind our assumptions – to learn to see the “spiritual” in Judaism and the role of “practice” or “holy living” in Christianity. Soon Jews around the world will be marking the holiest day of the year – yom kippur (the Day of Atonement). It is a powerful day, dedicated to intensive prayer and fasting, with some of the most profound and moving liturgy of the Jewish tradition. Several times on that awesome day we will describe our relationship to God with these words: For we are your people, and you are our God. We are your children, and you are our Father. We are your servants, and you are our Lord. We are your community, and you are our Portion. We are your heritage, and you are our Lot. We are your flock, and you are our Shepherd. We are your vineyard, and you are our Keeper. We are your work, and you are our Maker. We are your companions, and you are our Beloved. We are your treasure, and you are our Friend. We are your people, and you are our King. We are your betrothed, and you are our Betrothed. From www.eteacherbiblical.com

Why do kids lie? They start early. It’s hard to trust again after a child has started habitually lying. How can you be sure he won’t lie again? How do you break him of the habit? Because once he starts, it’ll only get worse. If you’ve got a child who’s started lying, here are some things you may want to know. Kids lie for two basic reasons. One is for wish fulfillment . Some kids will come home and tell you they scored three goals in soccer…and then you find out they didn’t play at all. The second is out of fear . “Did you break that vase?” you demand. “No, I didn’t do it! Little Joey did it!” your seven-year-old claims. Most children lie out of fear. in order for there to be a relationship between two human beings, it must be based on trust otherwise the lying will become a mountain and get between them. So if your child lies to you, he needs to be caught in that lie and told that lying is not acceptable. There also needs to be a second consequence for lying. Let’s say that, a couple days later, your child says something like, “Can I go next door and play with Ronnie?” Your answer needs to be a matter-of-fact “No.” “Buy why?” your child asks. “You always let me go.” Now’s the teachable moment. “Honey, I don’t have any assurance that you’re going to be where you said you’ll be. Remember Wednesday night, when you told me you were going to be at Susan’s—and you weren’t?” Do you beat the kid over the head with the lie? No. Don’t drag it out long term. But saying something like that two or three times makes a memorable impression on a child that lying isn’t what you do. It doesn’t gain you anything, and it breaks down trust between the two of you. Children need to see and feel that immediate result. Remember the age old admonition: “You won’t get in trouble if you tell me the truth.” That needs to be true of your family. If your child tells the truth she can know that you’re unhappy, but she should not be punished for telling the truth. In those situations, you’ll need to think carefully before you open your mouth. How you respond to such a situation directly relates to how comfortable your child is in telling you the truth. Kids can be as dumb as mud and will do stupid things, but if they own up to them and say they’re sorry, they need to know that life will go on and you won’t beat them over the head for years for their mistake. Lastly, parents too have to be careful about their own lies; even those pesky little white lies are still lies. If you say to your child, “If someone from work calls, I’m not here,” and it’s not the truth, your child is smart enough to know it. And then your kid thinks, If it’s okay for you to lie, it’s okay for me to lie. Don’t forget, if you value honesty, you must also model it for your children. And that goes for any bit of character you’d like to see develop in your child For more on raising kids, Have a New Kid by Friday is a valuable resource! Purchase Have a New Kid by Friday HERE . – See more at: www.birthorderguy.com/parenting/liar-liar-pants-on-fire/

How do we discern the effects of witchcraft? We must not be oblivious to the schemes of Satan, assuming that the practice of witchcraft is only used among primitive peoples in far away places. Paul confirms in Ephesians 6:12 the need for us to be proactive in our fight with forces of darkness. “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Therefore, let’s examine some of the characteristic symptoms that occur when a spiritual battle like witchcraft affects a Christian or a church. 1. When a Christian is under an assault of witchcraft and curses, he becomes increasingly disoriented or confused; he might even become clumsy. Satan wants to cloud his vision, thus stopping him from reaching his destiny in God. Thus, the individual under attack cannot connect with his spiritual vision; his motivation is either gone or lacking. 2. When one is targeted by curses, he will feel emotionally drained or debilitated. Those who have been the object of spiritual curses will carry a darkness, a cloud, in their countenance. The back of their neck is tight; a band of oppression around their head manifests as a headache. The person might assume he is sick, but it is not the flu. It is witchcraft. 3. Often, the curses released from witchcraft will arouse a number of inordinate fears which will plague the mind. The theater of the individual’s imagination will be targeted: At center stage, grotesque images will flash. The individual will be further drained by lack of deep or restful sleep. 4. When curses are aimed at a congregation, inter-church relationships will experience constant problems, distracting the body of Christ from its primary focus and calling. Irritation levels will be high; patience will be low. People will be more likely to complain about one another. Gossip and backbiting will increase proportionately. Rebellion against church leaders will seem justified and the temptation to withdraw from fellowship will be strong. It is vital to note that any or all of these symptoms may be evident and the cause may not be witchcraft. However, once we ascertain that we are truly fighting a spiritual enemy, victory is near. Putting On Christ To win this battle, we must understand why the Lord allows evil in the first place. From the beginning, God’s plan has been to create man in His image. To facilitate His eternal purpose, the Lord accommodates evil to bring forth godly character in us. In other words, we would never ascend to the heights of Christlike love, which loves even one’s adversary, without there being actual enemies to perfect our love. God cannot establish within us a pure heart and a steadfast spirit without allowing genuine temptations and actual obstacles that must be overcome. The reason the Lord even tolerates evil in the world is to produce a righteousness within us that not only withstands the assault of evil but grows stronger and brighter in the midst of it. Therefore, to deal with witchcraft, we must understand that the Lord’s primary objective is not the removal of wickedness from society, but the transformation of our hearts to Christlikeness. Let’s look again at the symptoms that accompany the assault of witchcraft and apply the principle of transformation. 1. How do we break the effect of curses and confusion that blocks our vision? We bless those who curse us. Even if we do not know specifically who is directing a curse toward us, we pray a blessing on them. In other words, we ask God to bless them with the same blessing we have experienced in our repentance and coming to Christ. We bless and curse not. This is vital. Too many Christians become bitter and angry in the conflict. If we descend into hatefulness, we have already lost the battle against witchcraft. We must cooperate with God in turning what was meant for evil into a greater good within us. This is why we bless those who would curse us: It is not only for their sakes but to preserve our own soul from its natural response toward hatred. While silent prayer is certainly an acceptable form of communication with God, it is our experience that audible prayer is both more forceful and effective with regard to spiritual warfare. A typical example of a prayer against witchcraft and curses would be the following: Heavenly Father, You know the battle which is coming against me/us. I pray that You would forgive those who are serving the devil. Lord, I know You said that those who bless us, You would bless, and those who curse us, You would curse. Yet, Father, these people are already under Your curse. Therefore, I pray that You would pour out Your redemptive blessings-those very blessings which shatter darkness with light, that overcome evil with good, that bring hope to the hopeless and life to the dead. And I ask these things, Heavenly Father, that You might fulfill the redemptive purposes You revealed in Your Son, Jesus Christ, and satisfy the longing of Your heart. Amen. 2. How do we throw off the power of debilitation and oppression? We put on the mantle of praise for the spirit of heaviness. The church is, by biblical definition, the house of the Lord, the temple of God. The purpose of the temple was not to “house” God, for even the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. The temple was created to offer worship to the Almighty and to provide a place of access for us in God’s habitation. Thus, the Holy Spirit unites us so that we can provide a living temple where we offer continual worship to God. The battle against us seeks to keep us from that purpose. If you are under an assault of witchcraft, begin to listen to praise music in your home or car. Sing along with them, letting your heart reach to the Lord. Build a buffer of worship around your soul. Become thankful for all that God has given you. The Scripture says we “enter His gates with thanksgiving, and His courts with praise” (Ps. 100:4). 3. How do we overcome fear? The Scripture tells us that perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18). God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love and a disciplined or sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7). Satan is a liar and the father of lies. The devil cannot tell the truth. No matter what Satan tells you, it is not the truth but a perversion of truth. Jesus also said that Satan is a murderer. Whenever we believe the devil instead of God, the quality of our life proportionally declines; something in us dies and it dies because we believed a lie. Therefore, we must stop listening to Satan and simply do what the Lord tells us to do. You ask, “But what if I get hurt?” Being a Christian is not a guarantee that we will not be hurt. Peter tells us, “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose” (1 Peter 4:1). It is one thing to know that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world; it is quite another to hear Him tell us, “Come, follow Me” (Luke 18:22). The fears that bind us are often the result of the wavering, unresolved condition of our will. Once we decide to truly follow Christ, the bondage of fear can be overcome. Where then, you ask, is the divine antidote or the place of immunity? The Lord never promised us immunity from pain. There will be times when we hurt. Yet, through the love of Christ our inner person will not be injured. Jesus said we would be “delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death, and you will be hated by all on account of My name. Yet not a hair of your head will perish” (Luke 21:16-18). God’s promise is not to keep us from conflict, but to be with us in conflict. Though we are put to death, every part of our lives shall experience resurrection: “not a hair . . . will perish.” Indeed, part of our weaponry against the threats of Satan is our knowledge that death cannot hold us. The devil cannot torment us with the fear of dying if we know that death is but a meeting with God and our departure from earth is but an arrival in heaven. Let us once again pray: Lord God, forgive me for my fears. I confess that I have been seeking to save my life when You, in fact, have called me to lose it for Your sake. By the power of Your Spirit, I renounce fear. God has not given me a spirit of fear! Father, I submit to the vision and courage of Your Son, Jesus, that I might live in accordance with Your will no matter what the cost. I also pray for others in the body of Christ who might be struggling against inordinate fears and frightening imaginations. In the name of Jesus, I bind the spirit of fear and I pray that, according to Your promise, You will deliver Your people from all their fears. In Jesus’ name. Amen. 4. How do we end Satan’s assault against the congregation? Constant irritations, division and strife among brethren-we must expose the work of the devil. Thousands of churches have gained the upper hand in their battle against darkness by simply recognizing that people are not our real enemy; the devil is. Fathers, mothers, pastors, intercessors and Christian workers of all kinds must possess this basic knowledge of spiritual warfare and the willingness to exercise authority. When the enemy seeks to bring us to a place of contention or division with one or more people, we must discern this satanic activity as a plot to keep us all from a blessing that God intended for us. Thus, we must turn quickly to intercession for that person or church. This prayer posture must expand beyond our immediate church relationships into the citywide body of Christ. We are our brother’s keeper. We must recognize, if we are to be effective in resisting the enemy, the church will have to become a house of prayer. Lord, we ask You to grant us the gift of discernment. Forgive us for judging one another and for failing to see the work of the enemy who seeks to divide us. Father, we submit to the mind of Christ, we ask for His perception, that we would have insight into what You are doing in the church. Lord, we also ask for boldness to defend one another from the voice of accusation and suspicion. Help us, Lord, to pray when we hear a rumor, to stand in the gap when we see a fault, to become a house of prayer for the church in this city. In Jesus’ name. Amen. Re-printed from www.frangipane.org. Used by permission.

I didn’t want just a filter that was like a fence around my kids. Fences might be good for keeping dogs in, but they only provide a temptation for people. You always want to see what’s on the other side—particularly with the Internet, especially if you know nobody is really watching.” – Ron DeHaas, founder of Covenant Eyes Two Reasons Accountability Software is Important When it comes to Internet safety, parental controls often focus on only one method: blocking content. But accountability software is not the same as Internet filtering. A filter blocks access to specific places online; accountability services do not. While people frequently use accountability and filtering together, accountability services monitor and report the sites that have been visited and the apps that have been used. 1. Internet accountability is important is because secrecy has become the norm. According to recent research, 71% of teens have done something to hide what they do online from their parents. This includes clearing browser history, minimizing a browser window when in view, deleting inappropriate videos, lying about online behavior, blocking parents with social media privacy settings, and using private browsing. 2. Internet accountability is important because it offers “relational” parental controls. Internet safety is not merely a matter of shielding young eyes from bad content. Internet safety is about training kids to become adults in a world without filters. Nothing does this better than having a healthy, constant conversational relationship with your child about their online choices. To do this, however, we need to know where they are going online. Seven Steps to Internet Safety: Parental Controls in Your Home Good parental controls begin with conversation. As you set down clear rules for using the Internet in the home, remember the importance of keeping a warm, open dialogue with your kids. As the video stated above, here are seven steps you should take right away in your home. Adopt this policy: If I am not willing to monitor a device, I will not provide it. Review and configure all parental controls for devices in your home. Make sure you have administrative controls on every device. Review every app on your child’s devices. Make sure you can control when apps are added and deleted. Discuss Internet concerns with the parents of your children’s friends. See what protocols they have in place. Limit the times of day your child spends online. Require all computers and phones be outside the bedroom, especially at night. Install Covenant Eyes on every device in your home. Use it to monitor where your kids go online and then start having good conversations with them about the choices they are making.. www.covenanteyes.com . Used by permission.

Women are always asking me how they can get their husbands to talk. “He just won’t talk to me, Dr. Leman. I just can’t seem to make out what he’s thinking and he won’t tell me.” Women love to talk. They’re wired to be verbal. In the average day woman use about three and a half times as many words as men. To put it another way, women could write novels with their conversations while men prefer the CliffsNotes version. That’s quite a difference. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t get your husband to communicate with you. But it may not happen in the way you think. And I can tell you this: getting your husband to talk isn’t going to start with interrogation. Let’s start with what not to say to your husband. Never ask your husband “why.” Why you ask? Because it instantly puts your husband on the defensive. If your husband is trying to communicate with you and you ask him “why,” you’ve effectively killed the conversation. Asking him that is like saying, “Explain your reasoning to me because I think you’re pretty stupid and you obviously can’t figure this out without my help.” This may sound extreme but male egos are much more fragile than they appear. “Why” is a challenge to your husband, and the defensive walls that will rise from this question can make you feel as if you’re actually talking to no one. So why not try statements instead? This may sound counter-relational, but your husband won’t hear it that way. When your husband is talking to you try saying, “Hey, that’s really interesting. Tell me more about that!” Take an interest in what your husband is talking about (even if the subject isn’t thrilling to you). If he’s into baseball he would love it if you asked him how his fantasy team was doing! Even if your husband is presenting an idea to you that you’re not crazy about, stick with the “tell me more about that” vein. Don’t ask him why he would want to do this or that. It will only clam him up. Men and women are different creatures. But communication is possible! Let your husband know that you care about what he cares about and he’ll be more than happy to open up . Just remember—you don’t always need to know why. To learn more about the way your husband communicates, purchase Have a New Husband by Friday. Available at all bookstores and online at Amazon, B&N and Christian Books. www.birthorderguy.com . Used by permission.

Face it, there are just some things that we don’t like to do. We all have those irritating things that incessantly demand our attention. Every one of us has a collection of loathsome demands that keep throwing themselves in front of us. Our lives are chock full of repetitive tasks, missed agenda items, overdue obligations, lapsed deadlines, and overlooked commitments that constantly harass us. We all have those irritating things that are irritating because we know that they need to be done, and we know that we should have gotten them done a long time ago, and we know that we’d feel a whole lot better if we had gotten them done. But we don’t want to. And so all of these various things have become something of a noxious stench emanating from the pages of our calendars. And so we find ourselves attempting to pencil those things out and off of our calendars. We all have things that we just don’t like to do, so we kick the can down the road. Then there are the messes that we’ve made. There’s the colossal blunders, the erroneous missteps, and the self-centered choices that have turned on us. Then there’s the little messes that have grown into mammoth messes because we never took care of the little messes when we should have. There were gambles that we took that were prompted more by a narcissistic headiness than a thoughtful deliberation. There were risks that we embraced out of some childish cavalier notion rather than a measured wisdom. We have some bad things that we caused that we just don’t like to deal with, so we kick them down the road as well. Versions of Kicking the Can Yet, things don’t go away just because we want them to. Problems don’t get solved just because we’re annoyed with them. Life is not so enchanted that things simply just dissipate all by themselves, or mystically resolve themselves because life feels bad for us. ‘Avoidance’ is not some sort of practiced slight-of-hand where the things that we’re avoiding magically vanish under the silken cloak of avoidance. ‘Denial’ is not some ingenious, multi-purpose tool that fixes whatever problem is that we’re in denial of, somehow busily working away behind the scenes while we’re sitting in denial of the problem. And whatever ‘ignoring’ is, it’s not powerful enough to somehow relegate the thing that we’re ignoring to the very oblivion that we hope our ignoring will relegate it to. We all have things that we just don’t like to do, so we kick the can down the road. Kicking the Can Implies Acceptance of the Can In kicking the can, it’s not that we’re in denial of the issue, or the commitment, or the obligation, or the deadline that we’re working so hard to avoid, or the self-made mess that we want to forget about. We’ve come to accept whatever it is that we’re kicking down the road, and we’ve embraced the fact that it’s a part of our lives and it’s likely here to stay as much as we hate that. We’ve long given up hope that it’s going to go away, or supernaturally fix itself, or be fixed by someone else. Kicking the can down the road implies that we’re accepted the galling reality that whatever it is that we’ve avoiding, it’s something that’s not going to go away; at least on its own. So given that it’s not going to go away, we decide to push it away by kicking it down the road. Kicking the Can Is an Action Based on a Decision Kicking the can down the road is an action. It represents the decision that we’ve made about whatever it is that we’re avoiding. It’s the choice we’ve made to deal with this thing by not dealing with it. It’s a conscious decision to placate responsibility, postpone the inevitable, deny our poor choices, pay a legitimate obligation forward yet again, and momentarily pretend that all is good so as to avoid any discomfort around that fact that all is not good. There’s nothing inherently good or redeeming about kicking the can down the road. In doing so, we’re doing nothing more than exhibiting cowardice and nothing less than throwing off responsibility. Kicking the Can to Pawn It Off Sometimes kicking the can down the road is done out of some pathetic hope that somebody else is going to pick it up and take care of it for us. Maybe someone else will step in or step up and solve this. Maybe if we kick it down the road long enough and hard enough somebody else is going to get tired of watching us do it, or feel bad enough for us that they’ll take care of it. Maybe we’re actually kicking the can in the direction of somebody as a means of baiting them a bit and hoping they’ll get rid of this for us. Whatever the case, maybe someone will have mercy on us, walk up to the can, pick it up, and dispense of it for us. Kicking The Can is Often Blaming the Can on Someone Else Sometimes kicking the can is designed to kick it so far away from us that we no longer look like we’re connected to the can. If we can ignore the issue long enough and distance ourselves from it far enough, we can often make it look like we really have nothing to do with it at all. But more than that, it’s often a way to distance the issue or the mistake or the blunder so far from us that it actually looks as if it belongs to someone else. Maybe we can ignore the issue long enough and kick it so far away from us that it appears as if it’s closer to somebody else than it is to us. If we can pull that off, we can actually make the issue look like it belongs to the person that we’ve kicked it over to. And too often once we’ve done that, we not only make the claim that it’s theirs, but we go so far as to say that it was never ours in the first place. Suddenly, kicking the can down the road becomes an act of kicking it over onto someone else’s road. Kicking the Can Will Kick Our Can There are implications for kicking the can down the road. Sometimes those implications are serious beyond whatever the issue was in the first place. Sometimes they’re outright devastating. The reality of life is such that avoiding most things means that those things will become worse in the avoiding, not better. If we’re avoiding something in the first place it’s probably because it’s pretty bad to begin with, otherwise we wouldn’t be working so hard to avoid it. And the worse something is, the worse it’s going to get if we avoid it. We add to the problem each time with avoid the problem. So kicking the proverbial can down the road only increases in the size of the can. And when that happens there will come a time when it’s too big to kick any longer. What’s Your Can? We all have our cans. Some are small and some are anything but small. But we all have them and it would be in our best interest to be honest about them. It’s time to identify our cans, as grueling and distasteful as that might be. Once we’ve done that, it’s time to quite the kicking and start the resolving. The road to resolution might be a rough one that demands much of us, but it will not demand as much of us as it will if we keep on kicking the can. It’s about being accountable. It’s about being a person of integrity and intention. It’s about stepping up to whatever our cans might be, purposefully reaching down, picking up the lot of them and ridding our lives of each one. A life with no cans to kick is a life of un-littered roads that grant us unobstructed passage. And it would seem that a litter free road would be a rather nice one to travel. It might be wise to consider adopting a can free life and giving up a kicking career.

When I was a young believer, I committed to memory Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow, and able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Admittedly, I had no clue what “the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow” meant. I since discovered that this text has everything to do with one of the present-day ministries of Jesus. Specifically, His ministry as Great High Priest. The high priestly ministry of Christ is in fact the main theme of Hebrews. Just count the number of times “high priest” is used throughout the letter and that will become clear. As I pointed out in Jesus Now , we often miss this theme because Hebrews contains five parenthetical warnings which interrupt the author’s main subject. So what is the meaning of “piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow?” It is this: Jesus Christ, by His living word and through His indwelling life, enables us to differentiate between our soul (our mind, will, and emotion) and our spirit (the deepest part of us where God dwells). To put it another way, part of the high priestly ministry of Christ is to reveal what comes from our own thoughts, feelings, and volition and what comes from His leading. (I’ve demonstrated elsewhere that the human spirit and soul are not the same thing. 1 Thess. 5:23 makes that plain, as well as many other biblical texts.) In Hebrews 3:1, the writer mentions Jesus as our Apostle (a sent messenger) and High Priest. He uses Moses as a shadow of both roles and then collapses into a long parenthetic warning, explaining how the word of God fell on disobedient ears in the wilderness (quoting Psalm 95:7-11). In Hebrews 4:12, the writer picks up the themes of God’s word and Christ’s high priestly ministry, telling us that the Lord Jesus is carrying out His work as High Priest for our spirit and soul. Specifically, the writer likens each of us to be a sacrifice on the altar. Under the Old Testament covenant, when Israel offered up sacrifices, the sacrifice was tied to an altar. The priest killed it with a very sharp knife, dividing the sacrifice into two halves. The word translated “sword” in Hebrews 4:12 is machaira, and one of the meanings is “a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh.” The priest’s knife was so sharp that it pierced the sacrifice to the joints and the marrow. As a result, all the insides of the sacrifice that were once hidden could now be seen. They were laid bare without concealment. After the priest opened the sacrifice with his knife, he would burn it with fire as an offering to the Lord. Now hold that image in your mind and read the next verse, Hebrews 4:13, “And there is no creature that is not manifest before Him, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we are to give our account.” In verse 14, the writer continues into other aspects of the high priestly ministry of Christ saying, “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven . . . ” So in Hebrews 4:12-14, the Holy Spirit paints a powerful picture illustrating the work of the Lord Jesus as our Great High Priest. As the sacrifice was opened with the knife of the Old Testament priest so that the joints and marrow were all laid bare, the Lord Jesus does this same penetrating, exposing, and dividing work on our spirits and souls with the knife of His word. It’s no accident that Revelation 1:16 says of Christ, “Out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword.” In like manner, Revelation 2:12 says, “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him [Jesus] who has the sharp, double-edged sword.” As our Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus uses His word to pierce and divide every part of us: the spiritual from the soulish. Only the sharp sword of God’s word handled by the Lord Jesus Christ can clearly discern the source of our living. Just as a human knife can divide bone from marrow, the knife of God’s word can divide the closely knit spirit from the soul. Within an immature Christian or one who operates in his or her flesh, it’s virtually impossible to distinguish between what comes from a person’s own natural soul (mind, will, or emotion) and what comes from their spirit (the place where God dwells, speaks, and reveals). In other words, such a person can’t tell when God is speaking to them and when it’s their own fallen thoughts, emotions, or desires that they assume is God’s speaking. The word of God, when received with a teachable ear and an unhardened heart (see Hebrews 3), proves sharper than any two-edged sword. Hebrews 4:12 says the word of God is “living.” It’s not dead or inanimate, but something that is vital and speaks yesterday, today, and forever. It’s also “operative.” This means it’s capable of accomplishing its purpose, which is to divide spirit from soul and expose the intentions of the heart. It’s “sharper than any two-edged sword.” It’s so sharp it can pierce into the human spirit, the innermost part of the human anatomy. Your spirit is the part of you that’s deeper than thought, feeling, and volition. If you open your heart to God’s word, and let it penetrate your inward being, Jesus, your High Priest, will do His amazing work of dividing what’s natural from that which is spiritual in your life. For much more on this subject, get Frank Viola’s new book Jesus Now.

Learn to make the hand-off. Try to do for the next generation of church leaders what the previous generation of church leaders has not done for you. We need to hand off the local church in better condition than it was handed to us. Jesus is the hope of the world and the local church is the vehicle of expressing that hope to the world. Every generation of the church has a new opportunity to bring that message in fresh and relevant ways. Luke 5 – How did Matthew get to be one of Jesus’ disciples? Jesus selected him. How did the other 11 get to be Jesus’ disciples? Jesus selected them. How would you have felt if you would have not been selected? Most of us would have thought that wasn’t fair. •Fairness ended at the garden of Eden. Our current generation of leaders, if we are not careful, will make the same mistakes that the previous generation of church leaders have made. Apprenticing. Our single focused strategy for developing leaders at North Point Church was to do intentional apprenticing. Apprenticing – selecting, modeling, and coaching for the purpose of replacing yourself. We have the most trouble with the word “selecting.” Was Jesus fair? No. Was He intentional? Yes. Even among those He chose there was a subcategory of 3. It didn’t seem to bother Him. For 3 years He so ingrained Himself in those 12 that they carried on without Him. Make Disciples of Christ. A disciple is a learner. What was Jesus’ approach to apprenticeship? 1- Jesus began with succession in mind. Jesus was the most irreplaceable person of all time. He started out selecting those He was going to pour his life and time into. We wait too long to do that. 2- He handpicked those to whom he would entrust his mission. He didn’t ask for volunteers. We think in terms of classes and volunteers; Jesus didn’t. We are all about fairness and who shows up; Jesus was intentional about who He selected. Have the courage to choose whom you will invest in. 3 – He rarely did ministry alone. 4- He gave His disciples opportunity to do ministry alone while He was still around to debrief. Luke 9 – He sent the disciples out… they came back and reported to Him what happened. Jesus decided to stay around to see what would happen without him. Eventually somebody else is going to be doing our job. Will you be there to see it done without you? Most people don’t plan to be around to see someone else do it without us. If Jesus was willing to do that, so should we. Churches almost always ignore this principle. We are too busy, insecure and intimidated to apprentice. We totally miss this. We get to the place that nobody will listen or nobody will take this seriously. We fail to engage in apprenticing in an intentional way. We do a lot of training but we fail to apprentice. There’s a difference. This isn’t about succession. This is about being intentional about pouring into the leaders that are coming behind you. notes by timschraeder.com. Mentor as Jesus did. He intentionally trained his disciples to carry on His ministry. Your successors may not be in your area of ministry or share your interests, but it is your responsibility as a Christian leader to teach them. We need to pour into them, not because they may someday have our job, but because someday they will carry that same responsibility of carrying the Gospel to the world.

We live in a war zone. Satan has successfully duped the vast majority of our churches into imbalance regarding all things concerning or threatening him. Our human natures are drawn like magnets to polar points, and we unfortunately apply our fleshly extremes to our pulpits. We tend to give the devil either far too much credit or not nearly enough. I cannot say this strongly enough: it is imperative in the days in which we’ve been assigned to occupy this earth that believers walk in truth and soundness of doctrine. Just as Christ warned in Matthew 24, we are living in days characterized by a rampant increase of deception and wickedness. Satan knows the biblical signs of Christ’s imminent return far better than we do, and he is furious because he knows his time is short (Rev. 12:12). Therefore, he has moved into comparative nuclear arms in his war against us, while we’re still using popguns in our war against him. A war of unprecedented proportions is waging against the church and the people of God. We must put on our armor, learn how to use our weapons, and fight with the confidence of those who know they are destined to win. When we speak God’s Word out loud with confidence in Him—rather than in our own ability to believe—we are breathing faith. Believing and speaking the truth of God’s Word is like receiving blessed CPR from the Holy Spirit: “Since we have the same spirit of faith in accordance with what is written, ‘I believed, therefore I spoke,’ we also believe, and therefore speak” (2 Cor. 4:13). When we approach God in genuine repentance, taking full responsibility for our sins, our prison doors swing open. But we could sit right there in our prison cells in torment if we don’t stand on God’s promises and walk forward in truth: “Therefore, dear friends, since we have such promises, we should wash ourselves clean from every impurity of the flesh and spirit, making our sanctification complete in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). As believers and members of Christ’s body, we must pursue God’s heart and know Him intimately to find spiritual victory. Praying for a Christ Awakening:A Contemporary Collection for Church and Culture, p. 64. Used by permission of Dr. David Ferguson and Great Commandment Ministries.

Clutter is the enemy of intention. Without a sense of order in your life, your marriage relationship will never reach its potential. You probably remember the comedy shorts from the duo of Laurel and Hardy, which nearly always featured a classic line uttered by Hardy to his inept sidekick: “Another fine mess you’ve gotten me into!” Of course, Hardy typically had some part in creating the mess, but he was unwilling to acknowledge responsibility. This is about finding solutions, not assigning blame. First, let’s look at how clutter can hinder your marriage: Physical clutter engenders stress and leaves you feeling out of control. The time you spend looking for something because of disorganization is time lost forever to you and your spouse. Mental clutter robs you of the ability to meditate on God’s Word and your relationships. The Psalmist said, “Be still and know that I am God.” The Message Bible says it like this: “Step out of the traffic! Take a long, loving look at me, your High God.” (Psalm 46:10). Emotional clutter imprisons you behind iron bars of uncontrolled anger, bitterness or hatred, leaving you incapable of true intimacy. The good news about clutter is that it can be cleared. Here are some One Things you can do to clean up the mess: With your spouse, assign responsibility for housekeeping chores for each member of the family with a daily and weekly list. Discuss and think about how you each will feel with the freedom of an uncluttered home. Set aside specific time to be with God, and recognize that He probably will not reach out to you via Twitter. Banish all electronics and other distractions and ask God to help you “establish your thoughts.” (Proverbs 16:3) Identify one area of emotional clutter and seek out a trusted, Godly counselor who can help you overcome it. God is not a God of disorder, but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33). With an intentional focus on cleaning up the “fine mess,” you will carve out new space to enrich and deepen your marriage. Free eBook by Dr. Randy Carlson Dr. Randy Carlson has developed a 38 page eBook titled “Really Live” that will equip and challenge you to live life with more purpose and more meaning today, and more hope and success tomorrow. To download this free eBook simply visit TheIntentionalLife.com.

Scientists at the Oregon Health and Science University reported they had produced embryonic stem cells from a cloned human embryo. Here are 9 things you should know about human cloning: 1. Cloning is a form of reproduction in which offspring result not from the chance union of egg and sperm (sexual reproduction) but from the deliberate replication of the genetic makeup of another single individual (asexual reproduction). Human cloning, therefore, is the asexual production of a new human organism that is, at all stages of human development, genetically virtually identical to a currently existing or previously existing human being. 2. Human cloning is achieved by a technique referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The process involves introducing material from the nucleus of a human somatic cell (any biological cell forming the body of an organism, though for the purposes of SCNT, usually a skin cell) into an oocyte (a female egg cell that has not yet gone through the process to become an ovum) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated. The oocyte becomes an ovum that now no longer needs to be fertilized, because it contains the correct amount of genetic material. This new entity begins dividing and growing, yielding a cloned human embryo. 3. Cloning does not produce an exact genetic replica of the donor (the person the genetic material was taken from to produce the cloned embryo). All human cells, including eggs and sperm, contain small, energy-producing organelles called mitochondria. Mitochondria contain a small piece of DNA that specifies the genetic instructions for making several essential mitochondrial proteins. SCNT transfers the nucleus into the oocyte which contains mitochondrial DNA of the egg donor. Just as in sexual reproduction, the embryo produced by cloning contains genetic material from two different individuals. 4. Due to missing, but crucial interactions between the sperm and egg, genetic reprogramming errors’ are inherent to cloning. This leads to random, widespread genetic ‘imprinting’ and ‘epigenetic’ defects that are both known causes of cancer. In addition to the ‘epigenetic’ defects, cells derived from cloning that are injected back into the donor are rejected because of epigenetic mis-expression, genetic differences due to mitochondrial DNA, and the incompatibility of cells too immature in development to interact with adult tissue environments. This is the major stumbling block for using material from cloned embryos for the treatment of diseases. 5. The use of the terms therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning are misleading. All cloning produces a human embryo and is therefore reproductive in nature. The more accurate, neutral phrasing is cloning-to-produce-children and cloning-for-biomedical-research. These terms make a distinction between cloning that results in the creation of an embryo for subsequent destruction and one that is created in order to continue the normal process of human development. 6. The primary moral objection to cloning for research is that it creates human life solely for the purpose of destroying it; using a human embryo merely as a means to an end. In order to justify the killing of these human beings for their “spare parts”, we have to ignore the scientific understanding what makes a member of the human species and argue on the metaphysical definition of what constitutes personhood.’ While it is true that many people oppose the cloning of human embryos for valid religious and ethical reasons, the issue is not divided along the typical left/right political spectrum. Even pro-choice advocates and others who hold secular and/or progressive political views find sufficient ethical concerns for opposing the procedure. Daniel Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and a bioethicist at the University of Chicago, told National Public Radio (NPR), “This is a case in which one is deliberately setting out to create a human being for the sole purpose of destroying that human being. I’m of the school that thinks that that’s morally wrong no matter how much good could come of it.” 7. Currently, the primary justification for therapeutic cloning is as a means of harvesting embryonic stem cells—a process that ends a human life—for research purposes. Despite years of media hype and billions of dollars dedicated to the venture, embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) has never produced any clinically proven therapies—and likely never will. As the Washington Post wrote earlier this week, “few experts think that production of stem cells through cloning is likely to be medically useful soon, or possibly ever.” ESCR has been one of the most expensive boondoggles in biomedical history. 8. Cloning not only compounds the ethical concerns of ESCR but adds a significant number of other moral problems. This Machiavellian approach would be difficult to justify even if ESCR were to lead to miraculous cures. But research using harvested embryonic stem cells appears to be an unnecessarily speculative undertaking and a waste of money, life, and medical research. The use of adult stem cells, however, has none of the ethical problems and far fewer of the biomedical complications of ESCR. In fact, more than 70 types of therapies have been developed using adult stem cells. 9. As the President’s Council on Bioethics explained in 2005, The prospect of cloning-to-produce-children, which would be a radically new form of procreation, raises deep concerns about identity and individuality, the meaning of having children, the difference between procreation and manufacture, and the relationship between the generations. Cloning-for-biomedical-research also raises new questions about the manipulation of some human beings for the benefit of others, the freedom and value of biomedical inquiry, our obligation to heal the sick (and its limits), and the respect and protection owed to nascent human life. Moreover, the legislative debates over human cloning raise questions about the relationship between science and society, especially about whether society can or should exercise ethical and prudential control over biomedical technology and the conduct of biomedical research. Rarely has such a seemingly small innovation raised such large questions. (Although the studies on cloning and ESCR produced by the President’s Council on Bioethics were once available at Bioethics.gov, the Obama administration has removed all the work produced by the previous council.) Re-print from The Gospel Coalition. Used by permission.

“Living together before marriage is one of America’s most significant and unexpected family trends. By simple definition, living together-or unmarried cohabitation–is the status of couples who are sexual partners, not married to each other, and sharing a household. By 1997, the total number of unmarried couples in America topped 4 million, up from less than half a million in 1960.1 It is estimated that about a quarter of unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 39 are currently living with a partner and about half have lived at some time with an unmarried partner (the data are typically reported for women but not for men). Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by cohabitation, compared to virtually none earlier in the century.”2 “What makes cohabitation so significant is not only its prevalence but also its widespread popular acceptance. In recent representative national surveys nearly 60% of high school seniors indicated that they ‘agreed’ or ‘mostly agreed’ with the statement ‘it is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along.’ And nearly three quarters of the students, slightly more girls than boys, stated that ‘a man and a woman who live together without being married’ are either ‘experimenting with a worthwhile alternative lifestyle’ or ‘doing their own thing and not affecting anyone else.’”3 “Unlike divorce or unwed childbearing, the trend toward cohabitation has inspired virtually no public comment or criticism. It is hard to believe that across America, only thirty years ago, living together for unmarried, heterosexual couples was against the law.4 And it was considered immoral–living in sin–or at the very least highly improper. Women who provided sexual and housekeeping services to a man without the benefits of marriage were regarded as fools at best and morally loose at worst. A double standard existed, but cohabiting men were certainly not regarded with approbation” “Today, the old view of cohabitation seems yet another example of the repressive Victorian norms. The new view is that cohabitation represents a more progressive approach to intimate relationships. How much healthier women are to be free of social pressure to marry and stigma when they don’t. How much better off people are today to be able to exercise choice in their sexual and domestic arrangements. How much better off marriage can be, and how many divorces can be avoided, when sexual relationships start with a trial period.” “Surprisingly, much of the accumulating social science research suggests otherwise. What most cohabiting couples don’t know, and what in fact few people know, are the conclusions of many recent studies on unmarried cohabitation and its implications for young people and for society. Living together before marriage may seem like a harmless or even a progressive family trend until one takes a careful look at the evidence.” “How Living Together Before Marriage May Contribute To Marital Failure” “The vast majority of young women today want to marry and have children. And many of these women and most young men see cohabitation as a way to test marital compatibility and improve the chances of long-lasting marriage. Their reasoning is as follows: Given the high levels of divorce, why be in a hurry to marry? Why not test marital compatibility by sharing a bed and a bathroom with for a year or even longer? If it doesn’t work out, one can simply move out. According to this reasoning, cohabitation weeds out unsuitable partners through a process of natural de-selection. Over time, perhaps after several living-together relationships, a person will eventually find a marriageable mate.” “The social science evidence challenges this idea that cohabiting ensures greater marital compatibility and thereby promotes stronger and more enduring marriages. Cohabitation does not reduce the likelihood of eventual divorce; in fact, it may lead to a higher divorce risk. Although the association was stronger a decade or two ago and has diminished in the younger generations, virtually all research on the topic has determined that the chances of divorce ending a marriage preceded by cohabitation are significantly greater than for a marriage not preceded by cohabitation. A 1992 study of 3,300 cases, for example, based on the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households, found that in their marriages prior cohabitors ‘are estimated to have a hazard of dissolution that is about 46% higher than for noncohabitors.’ The authors of this study concluded, after reviewing all previous studies, that the enhanced risk of marital disruption following cohabitation ‘is beginning to take on the status of an empirical generalization.’”5 “More in question within the research community is why the striking statistical association between cohabitation and divorce should exist. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is that those people willing to cohabit are more unconventional than others and less committed to the institution of marriage. These are the same people then, who more easily will leave a marriage if it becomes troublesome. By this explanation, cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce but is merely associated with it because the same type of people is involved in both phenomena.” “There is some empirical support for this position. Yet even when this “selection effect” is carefully controlled statistically a negative effect of cohabitation on later marriage stability still remains.6 And no positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has been ever been found.” “The reasons for cohabitation’s negative effect are not fully understood. One may be that while marriages are held together largely by a strong ethic of commitment, cohabiting relationships by their very nature tend to undercut this ethic. Although cohabiting relationships are like marriages in many ways-shared dwelling, economic union (at least in part), sexual intimacy, often even children-they typically differ in the levels of commitment and autonomy involved. According to recent studies cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples in their dedication to the continuation of the relationship and reluctance to terminate it, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy.7 It is reasonable to speculate, based on these studies, that once this low-commitment, high-autonomy pattern of relating is learned, it becomes hard to unlearn.” “The results of several studies suggest that cohabitation may change partners’ attitudes toward the institution of marriage, contributing to either making marriage less likely, or if marriage takes place, less successful. A 1997 longitudinal study conducted by demographers at Pennsylvania State University concluded, for example, “cohabitation increased young people’s acceptance of divorce, but other independent living experiences did not.” And ‘the more months of exposure to cohabitation that young people experienced, the less enthusiastic they were toward marriage and childbearing.’”8 “Particularly problematic is serial cohabitation. One study determined that the effect of cohabitation on later marital instability is found only when one or both partners had previously cohabited with someone other than their spouse.9 A reason for this could be that the experience of dissolving one cohabiting relationship generates a greater willingness to dissolve later relationships. People’s tolerance for unhappiness is diminished, and they will scrap a marriage that might otherwise be salvaged. This may be similar to the attitudinal effects of divorce; going through a divorce makes one more tolerant of divorce.” “If the conclusions of these studies hold up under further investigation, they may hold the answer to the question of why premarital cohabitation should effect the stability of a later marriage. The act of cohabitation generates changes in people’s attitudes toward marriage that make the stability of marriage less likely. Society wide, therefore, the growth of cohabitation will tend to further weaken marriage as an institution.” “An important caveat must be inserted here. There is a growing understanding among researchers that different types and life-patterns of cohabitation must be distinguished clearly from each other. Cohabitation that is an immediate prelude to marriage, or prenuptial cohabitation-both partners plan to marry each other in the near future-is different from cohabitation that is an alternative to marriage. There is some evidence to support the proposition that living together for a short period of time with the person one intends to marry has no adverse effects on the subsequent marriage. Cohabitation in this case appears to be very similar to marriage; it merely takes place during the engagement period.10 This proposition would appear to be less true, however, when one or both of the partners has had prior experience with cohabitation, or brings children into the relationship.” “Cohabitation As An Alternative To Marriage” “Most cohabiting relationships are relatively short lived and an estimated 60% end in marriage.11 Still, a surprising number are essentially alternatives to marriage and that number is increasing. This should be of great national concern, not only for what the growth of cohabitation is doing to the institution of marriage but for what it is doing, or not doing, for the participants involved. In general, cohabiting relationships tend to be less satisfactory than marriage relationships.” “Except perhaps for the short term prenuptial type of cohabitation, and probably also for the post-marriage cohabiting relationships of seniors and retired people who typically cohabit rather than marry for economic reasons,12 cohabitation and marriage relationships are qualitatively different. Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents.13 One reason is that, as several sociologists not surprisingly concluded after a careful analysis, in unmarried cohabitation ‘levels of certainty about the relationship are lower than in marriage.’”14 “It is easy to understand, therefore, why cohabiting is inherently much less stable than marriage and why, especially in view of the fact that it is easier to terminate, the break-up rate of cohabitors is far higher than for married partners. Within two years about half of all cohabiting relationships end in either marriage or a parting of the ways, and after five years only about 10% of couples are still cohabiting (data from the late 1980s).15 In comparison, only about 45% of first marriages today are expected to break up over the course of a lifetime.”16 “Still not widely known by the public at large is the fact that married couples have substantial benefits over the unmarried in terms of labor force productivity, physical and mental health, general happiness, and longevity.17 There is evidence that these benefits are diluted for couples who are not married but merely cohabiting.18 Among the probable reasons for the benefits of marriage, as summarized by University of Chicago demographer Linda Waite,19 are: 1) The long-term contract implicit in marriage. This facilitates emotional investment in the relationship, including the close monitoring of each other’s behavior. The longer time horizon also makes specialization more likely; working as a couple, individuals can develop those skills in which they excel, leaving others to their partner. 2) The greater sharing of economic and social resources by married couples. In addition to economies of scale, this enables couples to act as a small insurance pool against life uncertainties, reducing each person’s need to protect themselves from unexpected events. 3) The better connection of married couples to the larger community. This includes other individuals and groups (such as in-laws) as well as social institutions such as churches and synagogues. These can be important sources of social and emotional support and material benefits.” “In addition to missing out on many of the benefits of marriage, cohabitors may face more serious difficulties. Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples.20 And women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse. Some research has shown that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married partners.”21 “Again, the selection factor is undoubtedly strong in findings such as these. But the most careful statistical probing suggests that selection is not the only factor at work; the intrinsic nature of the cohabiting relationship also plays a role.” “Why Cohabitation Is Harmful For Children” “Of all the types of cohabitation, that involving children is by far the most problematic. In 1997, 36% of all unmarried-couple households included a child under eighteen, up from only 21% in 1987.22 For unmarried couples in the 25-34 age group the percentage with children is higher still, approaching half of all such households.23 By one recent estimate nearly half of all children today will spend some time in a cohabiting family before age 16.”24 “One of the greatest problems for children living with a cohabiting couple is the high risk that the couple will break up.25 Fully three quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born to married parents face a similar fate. One reason is that marriage rates for cohabiting couples have been plummeting. In the last decade, the proportion of cohabiting mothers who go on to eventually marry the child’s father declined from 57% to 44%.”26 “Parental break up, as is now widely known, almost always entails a myriad of personal and social difficulties for children, some of which can be long lasting. For the children of a cohabiting couple these may come on top of a plethora of already existing problems. One study found that children currently living with a mother and her unmarried partner had significantly more behavior problems and lower academic performance than children from intact families.”27 “It is important to note that the great majority of children in unmarried-couple households were born not in the present union but in a previous union of one of the adult partners, usually the mother.28 This means that they are living with an unmarried stepfather or mother’s boyfriend, with whom the economic and social relationships are often tenuous. For example, these children have no claim to child support should the couple separate.” “Child abuse has become a major national problem and has increased dramatically in recent years, by more than 10% a year according to one estimate.29 In the opinion of most researchers, this increase is related strongly to changing family forms. Surprisingly, the available American data do not enable us to distinguish the abuse that takes place in married-couple households from that in cohabiting-couple households. We do have abuse-prevalence studies that look at stepparent families (both married and unmarried) and mother’s boyfriends (both cohabiting and dating). Both show far higher levels of child abuse than is found in intact families.”30 “One study in Great Britain did look at the relationship between child abuse and the family structure and marital background of parents, and the results are disturbing. It was found that, compared to children living with married biological parents, children living with cohabiting but unmarried biological parents are 20 times more likely to be subject to child abuse, and those living with a mother and a cohabiting boyfriend who is not the father face an increased risk of 33 times. In contrast, the rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child lives with a biological mother who lives alone. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the most unsafe of all family environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father.31 This is the environment for the majority of children in cohabiting couple households.” “Part of the enormous differences indicated above are probably due to differing income levels of the families involved. But this points up one of the other problems of cohabiting couples-their lower incomes. It is well known that children of single parents fare poorly economically when compared to the children of married parents. Not so well known is that cohabiting couples are economically more like single parents than like married couples. While the 1996 poverty rate for children living in married couple households was about 6%, it was 31% for children living in cohabiting households, much closer to the rate of 45% for children living in families headed by single mothers.”32 “One of the most important social science findings of recent years is that marriage is a wealth enhancing institution. According to one study, childrearing cohabiting couples have only about two-thirds of the income of married couples with children, mainly due to the fact that the average income of male cohabiting partners is only about half that of male married partners.33 The selection effect is surely at work here, with less well-off men and their partners choosing cohabitation over marriage. But it also is the case that men when they marry, especially those who then go on to have children, tend to become more responsible and productive.34 They earn more than their unmarried counterparts. An additional factor not to be overlooked is the private transfer of wealth among extended family members, which is considerably lower for cohabiting couples than for married couples.35 It is clear that family members are more willing to transfer wealth to “in-laws” than to mere boyfriends or girlfriends.” “Who Cohabits And Why” “Why has unmarried cohabitation become such a widespread practice throughout the modern world in such a short period of time? Demographic factors are surely involved. Puberty begins at an earlier age, as does the onset of sexual activity, and marriages take place at older ages mainly because of the longer time period spent getting educated and establishing careers. Thus there is an extended period of sexually active singlehood before first marriage. Also, our material affluence as well as welfare benefits enable many young people to live on their own for an extended time, apart from their parents. During those years of young adulthood nonmarital cohabitation can be a cost-saver, a source of companionship, and an assurance of relatively safe sexual fulfillment. For some, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage, for some, an alternative to it, and for yet others, simply an alternative to living alone.”36 “More broadly, the rise of cohabitation in the advanced nations has been attributed to the sexual revolution, which has virtually revoked the stigma against cohabitation.37 In the past thirty years, with the advent of effective contraceptive technologies and widespread sexual permissiveness promoted by advertising and the organized entertainment industry, premarital sex has become widely accepted. In large segments of the population cohabitation no longer is associated with sin or social impropriety or pathology, nor are cohabiting couples subject to much, if any, disapproval.” “Another important reason for cohabitation’s growth is that the institution of marriage has changed dramatically, leading to an erosion of confidence in its stability. From a tradition strongly buttressed by economics, religion, and the law, marriage has become a more personalized relationship, what one wag has referred to as a mere “notarized date.” People used to marry not just for love but also for family and economic considerations, and if love died during the course of a marriage, this was not considered sufficient reason to break up an established union. A divorce was legally difficult if not impossible to get, and people who divorced faced enormous social stigma.” “ In today’s marriages love is all, and it is a love tied to self-fulfillment. Divorce is available to everyone, with little stigma attached. If either love or a sense of self-fulfillment disappear, the marriage is considered to be over and divorce is the logical outcome.” “Fully aware of this new fragility of marriage, people are taking cautionary actions. The attitude is either try it out first and make sure that it will work, or try to minimize the damage of breakup by settling for a weaker form of union, one that avoids a marriage license and, if need be, an eventual divorce.” “The growth of cohabitation is also associated with the rise of feminism. Traditional marriage, both in law and in practice, typically involved male leadership. For some women, cohabitation seemingly avoids the legacy of patriarchy and at the same time provides more personal autonomy and equality in the relationship. Moreover, women’s shift into the labor force and their growing economic independence make marriage less necessary and, for some, less desirable.” “Underlying all of these trends is the broad cultural shift from a more religious society where marriage was considered the bedrock of civilization and people were imbued with a strong sense of social conformity and tradition, to a more secular society focused on individual autonomy and self invention. This cultural rejection of traditional institutional and moral authority, evident in all of the advanced, Western societies, often has had ‘freedom of choice’ as its theme and the acceptance of ‘alternative lifestyles’ as its message.” “In general, cohabitation is a phenomenon that began among the young in the lower classes and then moved up to the middle classes.38 Cohabitation in America-especially cohabitation as an alternative to marriage-is more common among Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and disadvantaged white women. One reason for this is that male income and employment are lower among minorities and the lower classes, and male economic status remains an important determinant as to whether or not a man feels ready to marry, and a woman wants to marry him.40 Cohabitation is also more common among those who are less religious than their peers. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the act of cohabitation actually diminishes religious participation, whereas marriage tends to increase it.”41 “People who cohabit are much more likely to come from broken homes. Among young adults, those who experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood are more likely to form cohabiting unions than children who grew up in families with married parents who got along. They are also more likely to enter living-together relationships at younger ages.42 For young people who have already suffered the losses associated with parental divorce, cohabitation may provide an early escape from family turmoil, although unfortunately it increases the likelihood of new losses and turmoil. For these people, cohabitation often recapitulates the childhood experience of coming together and splitting apart with the additional possibility of more violent conflict. Finally, cohabitation is a much more likely experience for those who themselves have been divorced.” “What are the Main Arguments for and Against Living Together Before Marriage in Modern Societies?” “To the degree that there is a scholarly debate about the growth of cohabitation, it is typically polarized into ‘for’ and ‘against’ without much concern for the nuances. On one side is the religiously inspired view that living with someone outside of marriage, indeed all premarital sex, represents an assault on the sanctity of marriage. If you are ready for sex you are ready for marriage, the argument goes, and the two should always go together, following biblical injunction. This side is typically supportive of early marriage as an antidote to sexual promiscuity, and as worthwhile in its own right.” “The other side, based in secular thought, holds that we can’t realistically expect people to remain sexually abstinent from today’s puberty at age eleven or twelve (even earlier for some) to marriage in the late twenties, which is empirically the most desirable age for insuring a lasting union. Therefore, it is better that they cohabit during that time with a few others than be promiscuous with many. This side also finds the idea of a trial marriage quite appealing. Modern societies in any event, the argument goes, have become so highly sexualized and the practice of cohabitation has become so widely accepted that there is no way to stop it.” “The anti-cohabitation perspective believes in linking sex to marriage, but fails to answer the question of how to postpone sex until marriage at a time when the age of marriage has risen to an average of almost 26, the highest in this century. Cold showers, anyone? Nor is there evidence to support the idea that marriage at a younger age is a good solution. On the contrary, marrying later in life seems to provide some protection against divorce. Teenage marriages, for example, have a much higher risk of breaking up than do marriages among young adults in their twenties. The reasons are fairly obvious; at older ages people are more emotionally mature and established in their jobs and careers, and usually better able to know what they want in a lifetime mate.” “Pro-cohabitation arguments recognize the demographic and social realities but fail to answer another question: if the aim is to have a strong, lifelong marriage, and for most people it still is, can cohabitation be of any help? As we have seen the statistical data are unsupportive on this point. So far, at least, living together before marriage has been remarkably unsuccessful as a generator of happy and long-lasting marriages.” “Should Unmarried Cohabitation Be Institutionalized?” “If marriage has been moving toward decreased social and legal recognition and control, cohabitation has moved in the opposite direction, steadily gaining social and legal identification as a distinct new institution. Cohabitation was illegal in all states prior to about 1970 and, although the law is seldom enforced, it remains illegal in a number of states. No state has yet established cohabitation as a legal relationship, but most states have now decriminalized ‘consensual sexual acts’ among adults, which include cohabitation.” “In lieu of state laws, some marriage-like rights of cohabitors have gradually been established through the courts. The law typically comes into play, for example, when cohabitors who split up have disagreements about the division of property, when one of the partners argues that some kind of oral or implicit marriage-like contract existed, and when the courts accept this position. Whereas property claims by cohabitors traditionally have been denied on the ground that ‘parties to an illegal relationship do not have rights based on that relationship,’ courts have begun to rule more frequently that cohabitors do have certain rights based on such concepts as ‘equitable principles.’”43 “The legal changes underway mean that cohabitation is becoming less of a ‘no-strings attached’ phenomenon, one involving some of the benefits of marriage with none of the costly legal procedures and financial consequences of divorce. In the most famous case, Marvin vs. Marvin, what the news media labeled ‘palimony’ in place of alimony was sought by a woman with whom Hollywood actor Lee Marvin lived for many years. The Supreme Court of California upheld the woman’s claim of an implied contract. Many states have not accepted key elements of the Marvin decision, and the financial award of palimony was eventually rejected on appeal. Yet the proposition that unmarried couples have the right to form contracts has come to be widely acknowledged.” “In an attempt to reduce the uncertainties of the legal system, some cohabitors are now initiating formal ‘living together contracts.’45 Some of these contracts state clearly, with the intent of avoiding property entanglements should the relationship break down, that the relationship is not a marriage but merely ‘two free and independent human beings who happen to live together.’ Others, in contrast, seek to secure the rights of married couples in such matters as inheritance and child custody. Marriage-like fiscal and legal benefits are also beginning to come to cohabiting couples. In the attempt to provide for gay and lesbian couples, for whom marriage is forbidden, many corporations, universities, municipalities, and even some states now provide “domestic partnership” benefits ranging from health insurance and pensions to the right to inherit the lease of a rent controlled apartment. In the process, such benefits have commonly been offered to unmarried heterosexual couples as well, one reason being to avoid lawsuits charging ‘illegal discrimination.’ Although the legal issues have only begun to be considered, the courts are likely to hold that the withholding of benefits from heterosexual cohabitors when they are offered to same-sex couples is a violation of U. S. laws against sex discrimination.” “Religions have also started to reconsider cohabitation. Some religions have developed “commitment ceremonies” as an alternative to marriage ceremonies. So far these are mainly intended for same-sex couples and in some cases the elderly, but it seems only a matter of time before their purview is broadened.” “Unlike in the United States, cohabitation has become an accepted new social institution in most northern European countries, and in several Scandinavian nations cohabitors have virtually the same legal rights as married couples. In Sweden and Denmark, for example, the world’s cohabitation leaders, cohabitors and married couples have the same rights and obligations in taxation, welfare benefits, inheritance, and child care. Only a few differences remain, such as the right to adopt children, but even that difference may soon disappear. Not incidentally, Sweden also has the lowest marriage rate ever recorded (and one of the highest divorce rates); an estimated 30% of all couples sharing a household in Sweden today are unmarried.46 For many Swedish and Danish couples cohabiting has become an alternative rather than a prelude to marriage, and almost all marriages in these nations are now preceded by cohabitation.” “Is America moving toward the Scandinavian family model? Sweden and Denmark are the world’s most secular societies, and some argue that American religiosity will work against increasing levels of cohabitation. Yet few religions prohibit cohabitation or even actively attempt to discourage it, so the religious barrier may be quite weak. Others argue that most Americans draw a sharper distinction than Scandinavians do between cohabitation and marriage, viewing marriage as a higher and more serious form of commitment. But as the practice of cohabitation in America becomes increasingly common, popular distinctions between cohabitation and marriage are fading. In short, the legal, social and religious barriers to cohabitation are weak and likely to get weaker. Unless there is an unexpected turnaround, America and the other Anglo countries, plus the rest of northern Europe, do appear to be headed in the direction of Scandinavia.” “The institutionalization of cohabitation in the public and private sectors has potentially serious social consequences that need to be carefully considered. At first glance, in a world where close relationships are in increasingly short supply, why not recognize and support such relationships in whatever form they occur? Surely this is the approach that would seem to blend social justice and compassion with the goal of personal freedom. But is it not in society’s greater interest to foster long-term, committed relationships among childrearing couples? In this regard the advantages of marriage are substantial. It is only marriage that has the implicit long-term contract, the greater sharing of economic and social resources, and the better connection to the larger community.” “The recognition and support of unmarried cohabitation unfortunately casts marriage as merely one of several alternative lifestyle choices. As the alternatives to it are strengthened, the institution of marriage is bound to weaken. After all, if cohabitors have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples, why bother to marry? Why bother, indeed, if society itself expresses no strong preference one way or the other. It is simpler and less complicated to live together. The expansion of domestic partner benefits to heterosexual cohabiting couples, then, may be an easy way to avoid legal challenges, but the troubling issue arises: cities and private businesses that extend these benefits are in effect subsidizing the formation of fragile family forms. Even more troublingly, they are subsidizing family forms that pose increased risks of violence to women and children. While the granting of certain marriage-like legal rights to cohabiting couples may be advisable in some circumstances to protect children and other dependents in the event of couple break up, an extensive granting of such rights serves to undercut an essential institution that is already established to regulate family relationships. These issues, at the least, should cause us to proceed toward the further institutionalization of unmarried cohabitation only after very careful deliberation and forethought.” “Some Principles To Guide The Practice Of Cohabitation Before Marriage” “Unmarried cohabitation has become a prominent feature of modern life and is undoubtedly here to stay in some form. The demographic, economic, and cultural forces of modern life would appear to be too strong to permit any society merely to turn back the clock, even if it so desired. Yet by all of the empirical evidence at our disposal, not to mention the wisdom of the ages, the institution of marriage remains a cornerstone of a successful society. And the practice of cohabitation, far from being a friend of marriage, looks more and more like its enemy. As a goal of social change, therefore, perhaps the best that we can hope for is to contain cohabitation in ways that minimize its damage to marriage.” “With that goal in mind, are there any principles that we might give to young adults to guide their thinking about living together before marriage? In developing such principles it is important to note that, because men and women differ somewhat in their sexual and mate-selection strategies, cohabitation often has a different meaning for each sex. Women tend to see it as a step toward eventual marriage, while men regard it more as a sexual opportunity without the ties of long-term commitment. A woman’s willingness to cohabit runs the risk of sending men precisely the wrong signal. What our grandmothers supposedly knew might well be true: If a woman truly wants a man to marry her, wisdom dictates a measure of playing hard to get.”47 “Pulling together what we know from recent social science research about cohabitation and its effects, here are four principles concerning living together before marriage that seem most likely to promote, or at least not curtail, long-term committed relationships among childrearing couples:” “1. Consider not living together at all before marriage. Cohabitation appears not to be helpful and may be harmful as a try-out for marriage. There is no evidence that if you decide to cohabit before marriage you will have a stronger marriage than those who don’t live together, and some evidence to suggest that if you live together before marriage, you are more likely to break up after marriage. Cohabitation is probably least harmful (though not necessarily helpful) when it is prenuptial – when both partners are definitely planning to marry, have formally announced their engagement and have picked a wedding date.” “2. Do not make a habit of cohabiting. Be aware of the dangers of multiple living together experiences, both for your own sense of well-being and for your chances of establishing a strong lifelong partnership. Contrary to popular wisdom, you do not learn to have better relationships from multiple failed cohabiting relationships. In fact, multiple cohabiting is a strong predictor of the failure of future relationships.” “3. Limit cohabitation to the shortest possible period of time. The longer you live together with a partner, the more likely it is that the low-commitment ethic of cohabitation will take hold, the opposite of what is required for a successful marriage.” “4. Do not cohabit if children are involved. Children need and should have parents who are committed to staying together over the long term. Cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents and the effects of breakup can be devastating and often long lasting. Moreover, children living in cohabiting unions are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence, including lethal violence, than are children living with married parents.” “Conclusion” “Despite its widespread acceptance by the young, the remarkable growth of unmarried cohabitation in recent years does not appear to be in children’s or the society’s best interest. The evidence suggests that it has weakened marriage and the intact, two-parent family and thereby damaged our social well-being, especially that of women and children. We cannot go back in history, but it seems time to establish some guidelines for the practice of cohabitation and to seriously question the further institutionalization of this new family form.” “In place of institutionalizing cohabitation, in our opinion, we should be trying to revitalize marriage-not along classic male-dominant lines but along modern egalitarian lines. Particularly helpful in this regard would be educating young people about marriage from the early school years onward, getting them to make the wisest choices in their lifetime mates, and stressing the importance of long-term commitment to marriages. Such an educational venture could build on the fact that a huge majority of our nation’s young people still express the strong desire to be in a long-term monogamous marriage.” “These ideas are offered to the American public and especially to society’s leaders in the spirit of generating a discussion. Our conclusions are tentative, and certainly not the last word on the subject. There is an obvious need for more research on cohabitation, and the findings of new research, of course, could alter our thinking. What is most important now, in our view, is a national debate on a topic that heretofore has been overlooked. Indeed, few issues seem more critical for the future of marriage and for generations to come.” 1. U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March, 1997. 2. Larry Bumpass and Hsien-Hen Lu. 1998. “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts.” Unpublished manuscript, Madison, WI: Center for Demography, University of Wisconsin. The most likely to cohabit are people aged 20 to 24. 3. J. G. Bachman, L. D. Johnston and P. M. O’Malley. 1997. Monitoring the Future: Questionnaire Responses from the Nation’s High School Seniors, 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. 4. The state statutes prohibiting “adultery” and “fornication,” which included cohabitation, were not often enforced. 5. Alfred DeMaris and K. Vaninadha Rao. 1992. “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability in the United States: A Reassessment.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54: 178-190. 6. See: Alfred DeMaris and William MacDonald. 1993. “Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Instability: A Test of the Unconventional Hypothesis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55: 399-407; William J. Axinn and Arland Thornton. 1992. “The Relationship Between Cohabitation and Divorce: Selectivity or Causal Influence.” Demography 29-3:357-374; Robert Schoen. 1992. “First Unions and the Stability of First Marriages.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:281-284; Elizabeth Thomson and Ugo Colella. 1992. “Cohabitation and Marital Stability: Quality or Commitment?” Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:259-267; Lee A Lillard, Michael J. Brien, and Linda J. Waite. 1995. “Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Dissolution: A Matter of Self-Selection?” Demography, Vol. 32-3:437-457; David R. Hall and John Z. Zhao. 1995. “Cohabitation and Divorce in Canada: Testing the Selectivity Hypothesis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:421-427; Marin Clarkberg, Ross M. Stolzenberg, and Linda Waite. 1995. “Attitudes, Values, and Entrance into Cohabitational versus Marital Unions.” Socia Forces 74-2:609-634; Stephen L. Nock. 1995. “Spouse Preferences of Never-Married, Divorced, and Cohabiting Americans.” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 24-3/4:91-108. 7. Stephen L. Nock. 1995. “A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships.” Journal of Family Issues 16-1:53-76. See also: Robert Schoen and Robin M Weinick. 1993. “Partner Choice in Marriages and Cohabitations.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:408-414. 8. William G. Axinn and Jennifer S. Barber. 1997. “Living Arrangements and Family Formation Attitudes in Early Adulthood.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:595-611. See also Axinn and Thornton. 1992. op.cit., and Elizabeth Thomson and Ugo Colella. 1992. op. cit. 9. DeMaris and McDonald. 1993. op. cit.; Jan E. Stets. 1993. “The Link Between Past and Present Intimate Relationships.” Journal of Family Issues 14-2:236-260. 10. Susan L. Brown. “Cohabitation as Marriage Prelude Versus Marriage Alternative: The Significance for Psychological Well-Being.” Unpublished paper presented at the 1998 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Author is at Bowling Green State University, Ohio; Susan L. Brown and Alan Booth. 1996. “Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:668-678. 11. Larry Bumpass and James Sweet. 1989. “National Estimates of Cohabitation.” Demography 24-4:615-625. 12. Albert Chevan. 1996. “As Cheaply as One: Cohabitation in the Older Population.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:656-666. According to calculations by Chevan, the percentage of noninstitutionalized, unmarried cohabiting persons 60 years of age and over increased from virtually zero in 1960 to 2.4 in 1990, p. 659. See also R. G. Hatch. 1995. Aging and Cohabitation. New York: Garland. 13. Nock. 1995; Brown and Booth. 1996; Linda J. Waite and Kara Joyner, 1996. Men’s and Women’s General Happiness and Sexual Satisfaction in Marriage, Cohabitation and Single Living. Unpublished manuscript. Chicago: Population Research Center, Univ. of Chicago; Renate Forste and Koray Tanfer 1996. “Sexual Exclusivity Among Dating, Cohabiting, and Married Women.” Journal of Marriage the Family 58:33-47; Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth. 1997. A Generation at Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Table 4-2, p. 258. 14. Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin, 1991, p. 926 15. Bumpass and Sweet, 1989 16. Latest estimate based on current divorce rate. 17. Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite. 1995. “Till Death Do Us Part: Marital Disruption and Mortality.” American Journal of Sociology 100:1131-1156; R. Jay Turner and Franco Marino. 1994. “Social Support and Social Structure: A Descriptive Epidemiology.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35:193-212; Linda J. Waite. 1995. “Does Marriage Matter?” Demography 32-4:483-507; Sanders Korenman and David Neumark. 1990. “Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?” The Journal of Human Resources 26-2:282-307; George A. Akerlof. 1998. “Men Without Children.” The Economic Journal 108:287-309. 18. Allan V. Horwitz and Helene Raskin White. 1998. “The Relationship of Cohabitation and Mental Health: A Study of a Young Adult Cohort.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:505-514; Waite. 1995. 19. Linda Waite. 1996. “Social Science Finds: ‘Marriage Matters.'” The Responsive Community Summer, p. 26-35. 20. Lee Robins and Darrel Reiger. 1990. Psychiatric Disorders in America. New York: Free Press, p. 72. 21. Jan E. Stets. 1991. “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:669-680. One study found that, of the violence toward women that is committed by intimates and relatives, 42% involves a close friend or partner whereas only 29% involves a current spouse. Ronet Bachman. 1994. “Violence Against Women.” Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. p. 6 22. U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March, 1997. 23. Wendy D. Manning and Daniel T. Lichter. 1996. “Parental Cohabitation and Children’s Economic Well-Being.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:998-1010. 24. Bumpass and Lu. 1998. op.cit. Using a different data set, however, Deborah R. Graefe and Daniel T. Lichter conclude that only about one in four chilren will live in a family headed by a cohabiting couple sometime during childhood. “Life Course Transitions of American Children: Parental Cohabitation, Marriage, and Single Motherhood.” Forthcoming: May, 1999. Demography 36. 25. It is the case, however, that-just as with married couples—cohabiting couples with children are less likely to break up than childless couples. Zheng Wu, “The Stability of Cohabitation Relationships: The Role of Children.” 1995. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:231-236. 26. Bumpass and Lu, 1998, op.cit. 27. Elizabeth Thompson, T. L. Hanson and S. S. McLanahan. 1994. “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources versus Parental Behaviors.” Social Forces 73-1:221-242. 28. By one estimate, 63%. Deborah R. Graefe and Daniel Lichter, 1999, forthcoming. 29. Andrea J. Sedlak and Diane Broadhurst, 1996. The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Washington, DC: HHS-National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. 30. See, for example, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly. 1987. “Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents,” in R. Gelles and J. Lancaster, eds. Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Aldine de Gruyter; Leslie Margolin. 1992. “Child Abuse by Mothers’ Boyfriends: Why the Overrepresentation?” Child Abuse and Neglect 16:541-551. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have stated: “stepparenthood per se remains the single most powerful risk factor for child abuse that has yet been identified.” Homicide (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988) p. 87-88. 31. Robert Whelan. 1993. Broken Homes and Battered Children: A Study of the Relationship Between Child Abuse and Family Type. London: Family Education Trust. See especially Table 12, p. 29. (Data are from the 1980s.) See also Patrick F. Fagan and Dorothy B. Hanks. 1997. The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family and The American Community. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. 32. Wendy D. Manning and Daniel T. Lichter. 1996. “Parental Cohabitation and Children’s Economic Well-Being.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:998-1010. 33. Wendy D. Manning and Daniel T. Lichter. 1996. 34. Sanders Korenman and David Neumark. 1990. “Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?” The Journal of Human Resources 26-2:282-307; George A. Akerlof. 1998. “Men Without Children.” The Economic Journal 108:287-309; Steven L. Nock. 1998. Marriage in Men’s Lives (New York: Oxford University Press). 35. Lingxin Hao. 1996. “Family Structure, Private Transfers, and the Economic Well-Being of Families with Children.” Social Forces 75-1:269-292. 36. R. Rindfuss and A. VanDenHeuvel. 1990. “Cohabitation: A Precursor to Marriage or an Alternative to Being Single?” Population and Development Review 16:703-726; Wendy D. Manning. 1993. “Marriage and Cohabitation Following Premarital Conception.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:839-850. 37. Larry L. Bumpass. 1990. “What’s Happening to the Family?” Demography 27-4:483-498. 38. Arland Thornton, William G. Axinn and Jay D. Treachman. 1995. “The Influence of School Enrollment and Accumulation on Cohabitation and Marriage in Early Adulthood.” American Sociological Review 60-5:762-774; Larry L. Bumpass, James A. Sweet, and Andrew Cherlin.1991. “The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:913-927. 39. Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J. Smock. 1995. “Why Marry? Race and the Transition to Marriage among Cohabitors.” Demography 32-4:509-520; Wendy D. Manning and Nancy S. Landale, 1996. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in Premarital Childbearing.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:63-77; Laura Spencer Loomis and Nancy S. Landale. 1994. “Nonmarital Cohabitation and Childbearing Among Black and White American Women.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:949-962; Robert Schoen and Dawn Owens. 1992. “A Further Look at First Unions and First Marriages.” in S. J. South and Stewart E. Tolnay, eds., The Changing American Family. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, p. 109-117. 40. Daniel T. Lichter, Diane K. McLaughlin, George Kephart, and David J. Landry. 1992. “Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?” American Sociological Review 57-6:781-789; Pamela J. Smock and Wendy D. Manning. 1997. “Cohabiting Partners’ Economic Circumstances and Marriage.” Demography 34-3:331-341; Valerie K. Oppenheimer, Matthijs Kalmijn and Nelson Lim. 1997. “Men’s Career Development and Marriage Timing During a Period of Rising Inequality.” Demography 34-3:311-330. 41. Arland Thornton, W. G. Axinn and D. H. Hill. 1992. “Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity, Cohabitation and Marriage.” American Journal of Sociology 98-3:628-651. 42. Arland Thornton. 1991.”Influence of the Marital History of Parents on the Marital and Cohabitational Experiences of Children.” American Journal of Sociology 96-4:868-894; Kathleen E. Kiernan. 1992. “The Impact of Family Disruption in Childhood on Transitions Made in Young Adult Life.” Population Studies 46:213-234; Andrew J. Cherlin, Kathleen E. Kiernan, and P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. 1995. “Parental Divorce in Childhood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood.” Demography, 32-3:299-318. 43. Monica A. Seff. 1995. “Cohabitation and the Law.” Marriage and Family Review 21-3/4:141-165. p. 149. 44. Marvin vs. Marvin, 1976. California 45. Toni Ihara and Ralph Warner. 1997. The Living Together Kit: A Guide for Unmarried Couples. Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press, 8th edition. These contracts are not yet upheld by all states, and their enforceability is often in question. 46. Richard F. Tomasson. 1998. “Modern Sweden: The Declining Importance of Marriage.” Scandinavian Review August 1998:83-89. The marriage rate in the United States is two and a half times the Swedish rate. 47. This is one of the messages in the runaway bestseller The Rules, by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider (New York: Warner Books, 1995) For more Fantastic Resources by Josh, visit http://www.josh.org. Used by permission.