Cohabitation Among Evangelicals: A New Norm?

Most of us are used to seeing well-known Evangelicals who live together outside of marriage celebrated in the news media—without any suggestion of a contradiction between their claims to be Bible-believing Christians and their choice to cohabit. Recent examples include top-rated Kansas City Chiefs Quarterback Patrick Mahomes and A-list Hollywood actor Chris Pratt.

Pratt and Mahomes are not anomalies; living together in sexual union outside of marriage is now accepted by most Evangelicals. Among those under 45, most have practiced cohabitation, plan to live together in the future, or are open to the possibility.

A Pew Research Center study in 2019 documented the acceptance of cohabitation among most Evangelicals…In fact, by 2012, the General Social Survey (GSS) revealed that only 41% of evangelicals ages 18 to 29 disagreed with the claim that cohabitation was morally acceptable even if the couple had no express intention to marry.

Among the currently cohabiting, only 55% of cohabiting Evangelicals were certain they would marry their partners—less than Mainline Protestants (59%), but more than the other religious groups. Of these Evangelicals, 13% were living with partners they had no clear intention of marrying; about the same as for Catholics (12%).

Well this here is probably true for many women of many faiths: They will profess to being Evangelical , or Catholic, or Baptist, or Jewish what have you… but likely a very small percentage adhere closely to the structures of their faith. That majority will all play the Joe/chad game.

I sincerely believe that most "women of faith" aren't consciously prevaricating when they say that their top priorities in a man are "devout faith, Christian values, firm moral principles, loyalty, family-oriented, etc." - rather than admitting that "hotness (over 6'2" tall, muscular physique), wealth, and confidence (read: Evinces an 'abundance mentality' b/c treats me like a disposable snot-rag)" are what really catches their eye.

Girls and women are brainwashed by Society to believe that they are all "sugar and spice," are "more romantic and idealistic," and will be heavily sanctioned by Society if they voice any doubts.

Whereas boys and men are taught that they are driven by "animalistic urges."

In fact, most 13-year-old boys have a pretty unromantic, un-idealized, realistic understanding of their sexual wants and needs. They suffer no delusions about their baser instincts - and can thus more-honestly confront them, control them, and integrate them into their worldview and personal standards of conduct. At the very least, they know how they are perceived by their environment and know how they had better behave. And Society is there, every step of the way, eager to penalize them if they step out of line.

Only by admitting to oneself, "I want to b*ng every girl in my 9th-grade science class" can one deal with these baser instincts - not by denying them, as girls are taught to do.

The Church believes that maintaining this fiction (that girls are "pure") is the safer strategy - and paradoxically ends up promoting the very behavior She decries.

Even after the harm is done and the consequences have been reaped (read: skyrocketing single-motherhood, esp. in the Black community), pastors are loathe to "call out" this behavior for fear of losing their (predominately) female parishioners. Instead, the pastors encourage young, unattached men to "step up" and become step-fathers.

Mr. Kevin Samuels quite eloquently analyzed and publicized this moral deficit of (Black) churches.

Regards,

Regardless of how its popularly defined, the word technically means spreading the Gospel and good news about Jesus Christ. Thus, all Christians are would technically be "Evangelicals", not just fundamentalist protestants.

Yes, technically, however, in context that is not how to the word is being used. While

during the fundamentalist-modernist crisis of the early 20th century, “fundamentalist” became almost synonymous with “evangelical.” Fundamentalist meant those who defended the fundamentals of the Christian faith against modernists, who doubted the full veracity and inspiration of the Bible.

[Yet] Very few people identify as fundamentalists any more in America, while more white people identify as evangelicals than are actual evangelicals in the sense of belief or practice...pollsters since 1976 have routinely asked whether people are “born again” or “evangelical.” - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/who-is-a-fundamentalist/

Thus as said, "Evangelical" once meant "Bible believers" but the term has become diluted, esp. among youth.

>> Still, only about one in four gave the “Bible answer” of “definitely not,” and close to half are planning on or leaning toward it. <<
It's not surprising to me only about 25% of "Biblical" Christians actually follow what the Bible itself says

Also of out context. The author states:

I narrowed my focus to only those respondents who were 15 to 22 years of age who had never been married or cohabited. Evangelical Protestants are clearly the least likely to say it is likely they will cohabit someday and are the most likely to have ruled cohabiting out. Still, only about one in four gave the “Bible answer” of “definitely not,” and close to half are planning on or leaning toward it.

Sounds like they believe in the "Biblical" definition of marriage the same way they believe in the "Biblical" definition of Holy Communion. Maybe 1 in 4 of them use bread and wine like Jesus did, and actually believe they're receiving Jesus. The rest of the so-called "Biblical" evangelicals use grape juice and Ritz crackers and think its "merely a symbol".

You mean you actually want to argue that Catholics - those who Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death - are more conservative than Bible believers? To the contrary. As I said and show,

"Evangelical" once meant "Bible believers" as those who strongly esteemed the Bible as being the sure, supreme, substantive, accurate and authoritative word of God. Classic "evangelicals" long attested to being the most conservative unified large religious group (at least in the West) in key basic values and fundamental beliefs . Including being the most conservative voting block for decades (approx. 74% to 80% from Bush to Trump) You can only wish that Catholics overall were as conservative.

And yet as one poll found, the Biblical literalist Catholic (11.8%) is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) - American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

You can only ignore what refutes you, or disagree with your leadership - and 'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X, 1906) - as to who is a RC.

And as for using "bread and wine like Jesus did, and actually believe they're receiving Jesus. The rest of the so-called "Biblical" evangelicals use grape juice and Ritz crackers and think its "merely a symbol," it is actually Catholics who fail to be consistent with being literal.

For to be plainly literally, "Take, eat: this is My body... Drink....this is my blood" would mean the apostles were looking at actual incarnated bloody flesh, and a cup of actual red blood, just as manifestly physical as Christ was when He sweated blood and was crucified, and a spear thrust into Him and out came water. And who said "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39);

And not some inanimate objects that do not look, behave, smell, taste to be the body and blood of Christ, but scientifically test to be just what they appear to be, despite it being claimed that the bread and wine no longer exist as such these have become the true body and blood of Christ in each and every visible particle, regardless of appearance.

Until that is, a non-existent host begins to manifest decay.corruption, at which point the true body and blood of Christ also are no longer are locally present.

Yet the Lord nowhere appeared as an inanimate object, and in contrary to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, John emphasizes the manifestly physical incarnated Christ, in contrast to one whose body was not according to what He appeared to be:

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 John 1:1-2)

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)

But rather than a strictly literal reading of the Lord's words of consecration at the last supper, which would mean the flesh and blood would look as human as it always did on earth, then since RC priests do not actually or theologically confect this (regardless of private revelation claims), then they must jump thru metaphysical hoops in order to justify how inanimate objects are the true body and blood of Christ, meaning a contrived metaphysical meaning.

Read my examination here to save me more slow typing .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.