Divorce Rates

[Landlord]

 

If Christians want to do something about "sin" in this world (or this country, as we're pretty much all Americans) they can work on the Seventh Commandment, right inside the walls of their own churches, where divorce is rampant.

 

 

 

It actually seems like we might just be doing something about it!

 

http://catalystconference.com/read/everything-we-think-we-know-about-marriage-and-divorce-is-wrong/#.U21UOqD037T.facebook

 

 

 

 

Now, expert demographers continue to project that 40-50% of couples will get divorced – but it is important to remember that those are projections. And I’m skeptical because the actual numbers have never come close, and divorce rates continue to drop, not rise! Even among the highest-risk age group –baby boomers—seven in ten are still married to their first spouse. Most of them have had 30 years’ worth of chances to get divorced…and they are still together.

Now any amount of divorce is still too high! But still, knowing that most marriages last a lifetime is good news that urgently needs to be part of our conventional wisdom.

Another myth that is begging to be debunked is the notion that “Barna found that the rate of divorce is the same in the church.” Actually the Barna Group found no such thing and George Barna himself told me he would love to correct this misunderstanding. Because he wasn’t studying people “in the church.”

The Barna Group studies were focusing specifically on the divorce rates of those with Christian and non-Christian belief systems and didn’t take worship attendance into account. So I partnered with the Barna Group and we re-ran the numbers: and if the person was in church last week, their divorce rate dropped by 27%. And that is one of the smallest drops found in recent studies: overall, regular church attendance lowers the divorce rate anywhere from 25-50%, depending on the study you look at.

[knapplc]

I think you need to read that again, Landlord. The church is "doing something about it" by not counting all the Christians. That's not fixing the sin of divorce in the church, that's turning a blind eye to segments of the Christian population that are inconvenient for their numbers.

[Landlord]

Well I mean you said rampant, and I'm not sure how to translate that into a statistical threshold, but a divorce rate across the board of less than 30% and improving doesn't seem to qualify.

 

There's also a sticky spot of how do we define who is or isn't a Christian - self-identification is one method, but since you said we need to do something about the divorce rate inside the walls of our own churches, and people that go to church have a lower divorce rate, how are those people not doing something about it?

 

That's like saying our football team needs to do something to get stronger and faster, and then saying that only counting the players that spend more time in the weight room is just manipulating numbers and that nothing is actually being done.

[knapplc]

"Rampant" would mean at or near the national average, which would have to be nigh-on horrifyingly high by the church's standards.

 

If you want to pin me down to the "inside the walls" statement I'm cool with that. We can ignore everyone who actually is a Christian but who doesn't set foot inside those walls (which is yet another problem the church should be focusing on - their own lost sheep).

 

Regardless, the numbers cited in this guy's website are wrong. He states, "According to the Census Bureau, 72% of those who have ever been married, are still married to their first spouse! And the 28% who aren’t, includes everyone who was married for many years, until a spouse died. No-one knows what the average first-marriage divorce rate actually is, but based on the rate of widowhood and other factors, we can estimate it is probably closer to 20-25%. For all marriages (including second marriages, and so on), it is in the 31-35% range, depending on the study."

 

If you go to the Census Bureau from whence he claims he gets these stats, they state right on their website: "The Census Bureau is not the official source for administrative counts of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year.

 

These data may be obtained from the National Center For Health Statistics (NCHS). Their phone number is: 301-458-4636."

 

 

So if he's using numbers from the Census Bureau (as he claims), his data are already flawed.

 

Turning to the CDC, we find these two charts, which show us the divorce rates per 1,000 are just about half the marriage rates per 1,000 people.

 

 

 

Now, I'm no statistician, so if someone who understands statistics can better explain those charts that'd be swell. But they seem pretty clear to me.

[OH HSKR FAN]

The financial cost of getting divorced. . . is it worth it to get married in the first place?

[BigRedBuster]

Should AA be looked at as a worthless organization because there are some people who go to the meetings and still aren't able to stop drinking? OR....should we look at a group like AA as a good thing because they are actually trying to help a situation and there are some people who go to the meetings and get help and live better lives?

[knapplc]

 

Another myth that is begging to be debunked is the notion that “Barna found that the rate of divorce is the same in the church.” Actually the Barna Group found no such thing and George Barna himself told me he would love to correct this misunderstanding. Because he wasn’t studying people “in the church.”

The Barna Group studies were focusing specifically on the divorce rates of those with Christian and non-Christian belief systems and didn’t take worship attendance into account. So I partnered with the Barna Group and we re-ran the numbers: and if the person was in church last week, their divorce rate dropped by 27%. And that is one of the smallest drops found in recent studies: overall, regular church attendance lowers the divorce rate anywhere from 25-50%, depending on the study you look at.

 

 

This is a pretty curious passage from the source you pulled, Landlord. It states that the Barna group from whence much of the divorce-rate quotes come from. The Barna study was conducted in 2007/2008 and seems to have been rather scientific. The gentleman in this quote seems to indicate that Mr. Barna calls his own data into question, and would revise it if able.

 

But he is able - it's his data, and it's on his website. But not only does he not revise it, it's still readily available on his website: LINK

 

On that site, according to Barna, the divorce rate amongst all Adults is 33%. Amongst the varying Christian sects it's anywhere from 26% to 33% - again, pretty much statistically identical to the "all Adults" range.

 

 

Barna's stats show that the divorce rate among Atheists/Agnostics is 30%, or right around the average rate of Christians.

 

That's not exactly showing the church is doing something about divorce, wouldn't you say? If the rate of divorce amongst church-going Christians is at or near the same level as Atheists, seems to me the church has plenty of work to do within its own walls. Again - staying within the parameters of what you're comfortable talking about here.

[knapplc]

Should AA be looked at as a worthless organization because there are some people who go to the meetings and still aren't able to stop drinking? OR....should we look at a group like AA as a good thing because they are actually trying to help a situation and there are some people who go to the meetings and get help and live better lives?

 

That's not the point at all. Nobody is saying the church is not a worthwhile organization.

 

The contention is that there are plenty of harms/ills/woes inside the walls of the church that they need to be worrying about, things that affect the entire church population, rather than seeking "sins" that presumably exist outside the church. The log vs. the mote, if you will.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Should AA be looked at as a worthless organization because there are some people who go to the meetings and still aren't able to stop drinking? OR....should we look at a group like AA as a good thing because they are actually trying to help a situation and there are some people who go to the meetings and get help and live better lives?

 

That's not the point at all. Nobody is saying the church is not a worthwhile organization.

 

The contention is that there are plenty of harms/ills/woes inside the walls of the church that they need to be worrying about, things that affect the entire church population, rather than seeking "sins" that presumably exist outside the church. The log vs. the mote, if you will.

 

Sorry if I have completely misunderstood many posts on this board.

[Landlord]

 

Should AA be looked at as a worthless organization because there are some people who go to the meetings and still aren't able to stop drinking? OR....should we look at a group like AA as a good thing because they are actually trying to help a situation and there are some people who go to the meetings and get help and live better lives?

 

That's not the point at all. Nobody is saying the church is not a worthwhile organization.

 

The contention is that there are plenty of harms/ills/woes inside the walls of the church that they need to be worrying about, things that affect the entire church population, rather than seeking "sins" that presumably exist outside the church. The log vs. the mote, if you will.

 

 

 

I guess not related to the divorce discussion, but is it 'party foul' for the church to talk about hot topic issues that every other people group is discussing until every single church is practicing your suggestion?

 

Or in other words, would you ever be satisfied? Is there any kind of threshold where you would say, "Well done. You're doing things well." because in my estimation there are tons of church bodies and people that comprise them that are doing exactly what you want to see them be doing. Then what?

[knapplc]

I think Pope Francis' various statements on homosexuality are a great place to start. Stop the focus on the gays. The church has greater things to deal with than this, or a couple of other in a narrow range of topics. Spend more time being charitable and/or improving your own relationship with God. He's even come so far as to say Civil Unions between gay couples is/could be acceptable - and I firmly agree with him, even if the difference between a marriage and a Civil Union is largely semantic.

 

If I've given the impression that I'm saying the church is a bad place/thing, that's entirely a function of the very narrow, specific topics we're talking about. On this subject, based on that sermon, I think it's wrong. That's where the disconnect likely lies.

 

Granted, you know very well where I stand on the whole god/church thing, so take that from a non-believer's stance, but as I said up there, *I* have zero problem with the church/churchgoers, and

 

 

Holy buckets. That's my stance on the church & gays. Like Smee, I just had an apostrophe.

 

 

 

Here's how I'd like to see the world (and the religious, in the context of this thread) handle homosexuality. It's my take on Christianity: It doesn't hurt me, it doesn't affect me, it doesn't harm me or anyone I know in any way. I do not believe what (or, "in what") you believe, but I fully support your right to believe in the god of your choosing. In fact, if you introduced me to your child and your child asked me questions about "god," I'd give them the answer you would want me to give them - not because it's what I believe, but because it's what you believe.

 

 

I used to be Christian, and most of my friends still are. I'm the Godfather to our friends' eldest daughter. When the subject comes up, I use my knowledge of chapter & verse to reaffirm what she has been taught, what she believes.

 

Same goes for homosexuals. I don't in any way participate in or have any interest in the activities they participate in, but I fully support their right to do so. I don't believe homosexuals are harming themselves by being homosexual just like I don't believe Christians are harming themselves by being Christian. I think there would be a LOT less harm to homosexuals from themselves and society if we all just shut our ports about them and let them be.

This is the thing about all that, though - it's so easy. It is so easy to just be and live and let the people around you be and live and do what they want. There are people out there (people on this board) who think it's actually harmful for you to be Christian. It isn't, you're not being harmed in any way, and it's pretty easy to recognize that. But when you just shut the F up about everything, stop the worry and the hate and the angst and just get to know the person, not the label, it's pretty easy to be around people.

[Landlord]

I think Pope Francis' various statements on homosexuality are a great place to start. Stop the focus on the gays. The church has greater things to deal with than this, or a couple of other in a narrow range of topics. Spend more time being charitable and/or improving your own relationship with God. He's even come so far as to say Civil Unions between gay couples is/could be acceptable - and I firmly agree with him, even if the difference between a marriage and a Civil Union is largely semantic.

 

If I've given the impression that I'm saying the church is a bad place/thing, that's entirely a function of the very narrow, specific topics we're talking about. On this subject, based on that sermon, I think it's wrong. That's where the disconnect likely lies.

 

 

I am very much a fan of Pope Francis, coming from the perspective of a Christian that has had more distate for Catholicism than not, and would say the same thing as far as the impressions I've given towards certain focuses. "The gays" or other hot-button topics are something that hardly take up any thoughts out of my days, although I can see how people would get the impression that I'm really seriously concerned with all of this because of the topics on the board.

 

That's really just a matter of someone saying something, another person responding, and the snowball rolling down the hill.

 

As far as everything else, I'm pretty much in agreement, but here's one thing that's frustrating the hell out of me inside and outside of the church; people inconsistently sling mud at others only based on a few certain topics. I mentioned it before in the other thread, but it got lost in the bigger discussion - I think it's great that so many people that aren't affected by it personally seem to have a passionate interest in defending homosexuals and their rights or liberties. Why, then, am I not seeing people be outraged and appalled and getting worked up in response to the very serious and very real persecution and straight-up slaughter of Christians in tons of countries around the world, as one example? If people are outraged enough to call me an intolerant bigot because they think my beliefs continue to perpetuate persecution for gays such as not being able to marry or be treated equally in social circles, why no outrage over people dying? That should be the first right to fight for, right?

 

I genuinely don't know the answer. I don't know why people care so much about such trivial stuff and so little about the gravest of problems. This includes myself - I'm frustrated that I am not more frustrated.

 

I would submit that maybe we all of us on all sides are more often than we think just getting off on having someone to disagree with and there's more disagreement to be found in the most popular topics, rather than having any kind of pure interest in justice.

[JJ Husker]

I'm frustrated that I am not more frustrated.

I don't know but that doesn't seem very conducive to ever not being frustrated.

[knapplc]

Why, then, am I not seeing people be outraged and appalled and getting worked up in response to the very serious and very real persecution and straight-up slaughter of Christians in tons of countries around the world, as one example? If people are outraged enough to call me an intolerant bigot because they think my beliefs continue to perpetuate persecution for gays such as not being able to marry or be treated equally in social circles, why no outrage over people dying? That should be the first right to fight for, right?

For the record, *you* are not a bigot, but you have expressed bigoted thoughts/ideas. Non-bigots are not immune to bigotry.

 

Regarding the quoted, I am not aware that Christians are being persecuted around the world in greater numbers than gays, or Muslims, or Jews, or ethnic Kurds, or anyone else. Largely that's going to be due to the sources of news we have available, but largely it's because this is America and we're an insular society by nature. To wit, the biggest election the world has ever seen just took place in India, and barely ten minutes was meted out to coverage of this momentous event across the media landscape. It hugely affects the world and you and me, but it was barely a blip on the news' collective radar.

 

Where are you seeing the reporting about this? Who is dying, and where?

[Landlord]

I'll start a new thread with links on that specific topic thinking it deserves focused attention.