Thx all. NM

[MercyA]

Chosing someone because they are also a Christian guarantees nothing. Being in keeping with scripture guarantees nothing. My beliefs are totally different from what they were 15 years ago, and if my marriage had been based upon both being Christians, it may not have survived the changes. Beliefs are not static. I think what is worse in any marriage is dogmatic views about the faith of one's partner. Suppose the daughter breaks up with Nice Not-A-Christian Guy and finds someone else who claims to be a Christian and does seem like one. But wait! What if DD is a YEC, while New Christian Guy is Old Earth? Or maybe DD is a Methodist, but New Christian Guy is Catholic? What I'm saying is, now you've made some judgement about guy has to claim Christianity, but it guarantees nothing, including the future forms that faith may take.

 

Should a Believer divorce a mate who has "fallen away"?

 

I think it is better to objectively lay out possible pitfalls, but I personally would keep the Bible out of it. In the same way that I would point out that Nice Guy seems financially inept, I would also point out potential problems with faith differences.

 

My DD is Protestant and her boyfriend is Catholic and we have had many discussions about how this might play out in the future. But those are her hurdles to clear with her mate. In the family culture in which I grew up, he would be considered "not a Real Christian."

 

I agree with you that choosing a Christian spouse or following other Scriptural guidelines doesn't guarantee freedom from hardship or heartache in this life or guarantee that beliefs won't change in the future. That's not primarily why I'd advise someone to marry in the faith. I believe it's a matter of simple obedience.

 

Absolutely a believer should not divorce a spouse because they have fallen away from the faith or because they never had it: "...if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away....Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace" (1 Corinthians 7). 

 

I do think we should use our own wisdom and objectively discuss possible pitfalls, as you said. But when something is prohibited by Scripture for Christians, I don't believe there is any need for further discussion. You choose to obey it or you don't. 

 

I think we need a spin-off thread about YE and OE views in Christian marriages.  ;)

Edited June 3, 2017 by MercyA

[TCB]

Different faiths would be a deal breaker for me too. You don't know what will happen, in fact my husband changed faiths after about 16 years of marriage and that has been very difficult for us, but why start off with that handicap. 

[Crimson Wife]

I think that Christians need to think about the context of the Scripture. At the time it was written, it wasn't "she's a Christian and he's secular" but rather that the two spouses were actually very different faiths. There is a lot more conflict about religion in interfaith marriages than there is when one spouse is religious and the other one doesn't care much one way or the other.

 

To use a sports analogy, think about a diehard Red Sox fan married to a diehard Yankees fan vs. married to somebody who doesn't care about baseball (or sub out two other bitter sports rivals). Obviously religious affiliation has much bigger consequences than sports team allegiance, but you get the basic idea.

[J-rap]

I think it depends.

 

First, I do think 17 is quite young.  I think most people at that age are still figuring themselves out.  (Of course, most of us do that all our lives!)  But it seems like this part, the dating part, should be the easiest part.  If it already feels hard at this stage, then maybe it's not meant to be.  Especially if there are other circumstances (like the difference in faith) that will really require that they get along well and easily. 

 

As far as a difference in faith, I think that depends too.

 

I think for most people, shared faith adds stability, is uniting, and can create a steadfast foundation.

 

I am so glad my dh and I share a faith.  But I think what really matters to me is that he has Christ-like qualities in his heart, whether he recognizes it as Christ or not, and that he desires to learn and grow.  Most of my children would probably never consider marrying someone who is not a Christian.  But one of them would.  For her, her faith plays out through helping others in a big way.  She has a lot of big dreams.  She would rather be married to a man who is extraordinarily kind and giving who shares her dreams and is at least seeking the truth even if he hasn't declared himself a Christian, than a man who is a Christian but not extremely generous and doesn't share her big dreams and isn't interested in growing.  She would feel more equally yoked with the former.  She is quite a bit older than your dd though and has thought this through a lot.

 

But at the end of the day, you never really know.  Everyone's story is different, and some defy logic.

[TeenagerMom]

I'm a Christian. My DH is not.  We have an older DD who is not a Christian and has a boyfriend who is.  When it comes right down to it, it's about respecting each other's differences.  I don't try to convert him.  He doesn't tell me he thinks I am silly. If there is no respect, then it won't work.  We agreed when our children were little, they would go to my church, be taught about ALL religions and then allowed to decide for themselves.  Both of my children are athiest but have studied religions extensively, like their father.  ETA: My athiest husband is the most moral and honorable person I know.  He is like that, not because of religion, but because it's the right way to be a human.  He is far more "Christian like" than most Christians I know.

 

I don't think it is insurmountable at all.  As far as having to "work" on a relationship.....if there is more sadness and strife than happiness, then it is time to let go but they have to make that decision for themselves.

Edited June 3, 2017 by TeenagerMom

[Guest]

What is divided in your old and new churches? Like actual services? Study groups, ministries, all of the above? 

 

I'm just curious. I've only ever been to churches where most things were mixed groups of all kinds, certainly the services always had a very broad mix of people. Well, the sunrise service is usually 95% old people, but other than that, lol. 

 

 

Adult Sunday school classes had a mix of ages and stages.  

Children were not encouraged to come to worship service until they were in 6th grade.  

Choirs were mixed age but the evening service worship band wasn't.  Pretty much a geezer at 35 there.

 

All through the church, it was ages and stages driven for any of the small groups and fellowship groups, which is where you got a chance to know people.

 

MOPS (Mothers of Preschoolers)

Second Wind (retirees)

Young Marrieds

Empty Nesters

Youth groups

College group

Post-college age singles

30-40yo singles

Married people dinner groups

 

Adult Sunday school classes had a mix of ages and stages.  Children were not encouraged to come to worship service until they were in 6th grade.  

 

Large (not mega, but large) churches have to find a way to get people into fellowship and I'm not saying I have the answer.  I was just one that fell through the cracks.)

 

ETA the rest of the answer--you asked about my new parish.  There is no age separation for anything.  Everyone is in worship.  Everyone is at vespers.  Everyone is invited to weddings, funerals, baptisms.  Everyone works on a coffee hour team so we can eat together after church.  Everyone helps with *something*.  YES, we do tend to gravitate to subsets of people with whom we have more in common (ages and stages) but it is self-induced limitation.  I spend coffee hour talking to people of all different ages and interests and marital status every week.  And in my little group of friends that gather once a month, two are widows, two are divorced, three are married but one of the dh's goes to a different church.  All of us in this little group are between 50 and 65, but it isn't age that was the determining factor--it was availability on Fridays at noon.  :0). I'm not saying it is perfect, but it sure is a lot more accessible to a lot of different ages and stages and I like that. 

 

[katilac]

Adult Sunday school classes had a mix of ages and stages.  

 

<snip snip snip>

 

Very interesting! Thanks for explaining. 

 

ETA: just read the part you added about your new church, and that is more what I am used to.

Edited June 3, 2017 by katilac

[marbel]

My personal view is that dating is not the time to "work things out" if they are big things. That is the time to run. A drug problem? RUN!!! If you are married and your spouse develops a drug problem, work it out if you can. Someone with a mean streak? Nothing to work out. RUN! If you are married and your spouse suddenly becomes mentally ill and mean? Try to work it out. The person you are dating has a family that doesn't like you and they won't take your side? RUN! If you are married and have problems with your in-laws, try to work it out. 

 

That is MY opinion, and like Dennis Miller, I could be wrong.

 

This is what I was thinking too.  In a dating relationship there should be nothing to "work out."   

 

I've seen too many women who were afraid to be without a boyfriend knock themselves out to "work things out" with someone with whom they were ultimately incompatible. (Not saying the young woman in the OP is doing that.) 

 

This also applies to marrying within one's faith (though I don't know if Anne intended it to).  My general advice is to marry someone who shares your faith.  Not your faith while dating?  Break up.  Faith changes while married? Work it out.  

 

This has nothing to do with Anne's post but something I saw earlier.  But re: a Christian marrying outside the faith.  "Keep the Bible out of it" was the advice.  Really?  If a person is a Christian who professes to believe the Bible, then... they aren't going to "keep the Bible out of it."  Of course I have no idea how important faith is to the young woman in question.  But if it is important to her, it's bad advice to suggest keeping the Bible out of the discussion.   (I assume the same could be said of a devout Muslim and the Koran, or any other person of faith, though of course I'm always ready to be told I'm wrong.)

 

ETA: I'm getting a general sense that many people think making a point of marrying someone who shares their faith is ultimately a fool's errand, because that can change.  But so can many things. So then why bother to set any standards at all?   

Edited June 3, 2017 by marbel

[BusyMom5]

How many posters have said their faith changed since they were 17 or 19? Mine did. I assume it will continue to change as I get older. DH and I started out as different but similar Christians. We are now both out of church, disillusioned by the faiths we were raised in. I think the imporant parts of a relationship are communication and respect. There are definitely times I would advise my kids to run; abuse, drugs, completely different life goals and lifestyles (that one can change easily, too), lack of respect. I say the OP should encourage her DD to think about the future, make sure that thus young man fits into where she wants yo be. I'd also encourage waiting to get married so that they both mature a bit more. It would be great if she could live on her own for a while, to see who she really is.

[lllll]

nm

Edited June 5, 2017 by tentwelve

[prairiewindmomma]

So, she got into a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship at 15-16? This for me is where I would've encouraged putting on the brakes. 18 months later it is way more challenging.

 

We are strongly encouraging our children not to pair off before legal adulthood. They should be busy figuring out who they are and what they want from life before pairing off. So much changes in those early adulthood years--even among young people of the same background and belief system.

 

Serious dating, imo, should be delayed until closer to marriageable age.

[MommyLiberty5013]

I am 34 now with 4 kids under 7. I was in a "serious" relationships in high school, from around 16, that continued into college with one really fantastic guy. I never married him, though. We grew apart. And that is what often happens to "young love." It is real love, but it is bounded by the necessary confines of the parents' home and rules, as well as the distance and the mobility of the two young people in the relationship.

 

My mom really trivialized my relationship with this guy. She also intensely impeded it. She made it seem like it was fake because I was young. Not only did that hurt me emotionally, but it caused me to want to get away from her and not allow her into the deeper parts of my life. It took YEARS to get back a relationship with my mom that I felt was mutually helpful and beneficial and built on mutual respect.

 

OP, it sounds like you have a nice relationship with this young man and I urge you to continue that and to speak highly of him (as you deem appropriate) to your daughter. However, I would also delicately encourage her every so often to understand that she and/or he may change and grow out of this relationship over the next few years as one or both of them spread their wings.

 

In terms of faith, I didn't quite understand whether or not you said your daughter is a Christian and the boyfriend is not. But, my $0.02 is that marriage is work (good work) and it requires a lot of time and effort at its base. Stats show us the high divorce numbers both inside and outside the church. We just cannot argue with those numbers.

 

My question would be, why make marriage potentially harder by coming at it from two different religious perspectives? Religion is more than what you do on a holy day or how you decorate your home. It often (not always) informs how you give money, how you discipline and/or educate your kids, how you view major things like debt, saving, and spending money, and it may even affect how spare time is spent, or what is considered "appropriate" TV, movies, and video games. Those could be potentially fatal issues in a marriage if not properly handled.

 

Clearly, here, many people have navigated that really well - being of different faiths and still married. But, I wager that for people who hold very strong faiths (or none) in any direction, and are living those out daily and are truly orthodox, then being of one same religion is of the utmost importance to the success of their marriage.

 

[Reefgazer]

A random thought, up for discussion or not, is that if there are issues early on in a relationship it's probably not a good sign for the longevity of the romance.

[Garga]

OP, I was thinking about this further and I really think that if she was my dd, I'd try to get her to just wait for a while - quite a while.  The faith thing is big (to me), but you've basically described a long-distance relationship between teenagers.  Adding in the faith thing, it seems like a shot in the dark to be talking marriage at this point.  

 

As for dating phase, I wouldn't even call what they're doing actual dating.  

 

I would also recommend taking things very slowly, especially since they are long distance dating at this point.  It's too easy to only remember the good when you're long distance, and not remember the bad.  Distance makes the heart grow fonder and all that.  

 

Will she be going to college?  A good plan would be not to talk about marriage until after college.

[gardenmom5]

This is what I was thinking too.  In a dating relationship there should be nothing to "work out."   

 

I've seen too many women who were afraid to be without a boyfriend knock themselves out to "work things out" with someone with whom they were ultimately incompatible. (Not saying the young woman in the OP is doing that.) 

 

 

 

ETA: I'm getting a general sense that many people think making a point of marrying someone who shares their faith is ultimately a fool's errand, because that can change.  But so can many things. So then why bother to set any standards at all?   

 

guys do that do.  they get where they don't want to be alone- and marry for the wrong reasons.

 

what's sad to me is how often outsiders can see flags the couple will ignore.  there are times to take a hint and move-on. 

 

as for within one's faith . . .

My friend's daughter was dating two young men.  one raised in the faith, so - established.  one who  was very new and had a lot to learn. . . she chose to marry the "established" guy . . . . she had a miserable marriage as he was about appearances - and had NO substance.   the divorce was extremely painful.  she later ran into the 2nd guy that she had rejected because he "lacked experience".  he was everything she thought the first guy was.

 

we encourage marrying within our faith - but "not" is not an automatic deal breaker.  there are other factors that make that decision more complicated.

I've seen too many times that marrying within the faith is not a guarantee of happiness.  it's not that simple.

[Guest]

This is what I was thinking too. In a dating relationship there should be nothing to "work out."

 

I've seen too many women who were afraid to be without a boyfriend knock themselves out to "work things out" with someone with whom they were ultimately incompatible. (Not saying the young woman in the OP is doing that.)

 

This also applies to marrying within one's faith (though I don't know if Anne intended it to). My general advice is to marry someone who shares your faith. Not your faith while dating? Break up. Faith changes while married? Work it out.

 

This has nothing to do with Anne's post but something I saw earlier. But re: a Christian marrying outside the faith. "Keep the Bible out of it" was the advice. Really? If a person is a Christian who professes to believe the Bible, then... they aren't going to "keep the Bible out of it." Of course I have no idea how important faith is to the young woman in question. But if it is important to her, it's bad advice to suggest keeping the Bible out of the discussion. (I assume the same could be said of a devout Muslim and the Koran, or any other person of faith, though of course I'm always ready to be told I'm wrong.)

 

ETA: I'm getting a general sense that many people think making a point of marrying someone who shares their faith is ultimately a fool's errand, because that can change. But so can many things. So then why bother to set any standards at all?

Well, since I am the one who said that, here's why I said that:

 

Even when I was a die-hard Christian, I had a very strong practical streak. There is a lot of advice between the onion-skinned pages of the Bible, but I look at what it says and say, "Is this practical? Logical? Applicable to the current century?" And there's a lot said in the Bible, "commanded" if you please, the does fail in one or more of those measures. Don't boil a goat in it's mother's milk? Not applicable to...my diet, or the current century. He who spares the rod hates his son...beat him with the rod and deliver his soul from hell? Not practical, logical or applicable to the current century.

 

I do think, as Crimson said, it makes a difference whether we mean two devout, incompatible religions, or two people who are not religious at all, or only one is committed to their faith and the other is sort of blasé about theirs. I can't think of any instance where two devout, incompatibly religious people were married - I simply have never heard of it, and I think it would be unlikely to happen.

 

But I have an image in my head, where some person is telling some other person they cannot be here, do this, associate here, because this is for Believers and you aren't one...I think it is wrong. Breaking up with someone and saying, "I'm sorry...it has come to my attention that you aren't a Christian, so I guess this is goodbye," is sort of revolting to me. It reminds me of the times I was turned away from something because another person judged me not Christian enough.

[Janeway]

I hate to say this but, my husband and I had some big problems while dating. And we stuck it out. And that was a mistake. Sure, we have worked things out now. But the problems still happened. The problems were largely related to his nasty family. It was unworkable. Husband was in denial and let his mother abuse me and our children, and well, him too. We endured years of abuse before he finally faced the truth about his parents. It was not worth it. Emotionally, I feel like I have so many problems with anxiety now due to what I have been through. I went to counseling for a while to deal with the abuse. The counselor felt I have PTSD, but I feel that term is thrown around too much. But I have definitely changed, and not for the better because of what I have been through. I used to be so optimistic and always see good in everyone, or assumed good. I know now that some people are just evil all the way through with no good at all. Now, I don't feel an inner care for every single person out there. I no longer just assume everyone has good in them. It has permanently taken away so much of what was once me. IF I could go back in time, I would not be with my husband. I know that he himself was wrapped up in the abuse she was exacting on him so he was a victim too. But, being sucked in to that really has been an awful thing. So often, even daily now, something will happen and it will remind me of things she did and it brings so much pain to me. 

 

BUT..for the advice for you on the daughter thing, unless something is huge, you probably shouldn't get between anything. I know that your daughter might tell you a lot, but if you take sides against him, and then they marry, that can cause a rift between you all. If he cheats or treats her poorly for real, or his parents are abusive, then you should give the advice to escape that. But short of those situations, it is best to avoid giving any advice that comes off like judging him.

[Pen]

Is the religion difference the only "issue"?  And is it an "issue" for your daughter or for you or both? Is the boyfriend also concerned about the religious difference?

[Janeway]

They do have a big difference--she is Christian and he is not. This could come up more as her faith matures, or...not. What about things like this? 

I would consider this a big issue.

 

When I married my husband, I was definitely a Christian and he was not. All these years later, we do not take the kids to church. That part of my life is gone and my children will not have it. Everything seems to have defaulted to the path of least resistance, which is not putting the effort forth to go to church. Every single marriage I have known like this, it defaulted to the kids not being raised as Christians.

 

I would advise my daughter to not date this guy and to move on.

[HS Mom in NC]

Dating isn't marriage, so pressure to make it work shouldn't be the same.  Break up for any reason is fine in dating.
 

They do have a big difference--she is Christian and he is not. This could come up more as her faith matures, or...not. What about things like this? 

 

Well, it depends on what being a Christian means to her.  If it means she expects her future household will be run according to her interpretation of Scripture then it's a deal breaker, because why should he live like that if those aren't his convictions?  Even within branches of Christianity, convictions can be very different.  For example, what will "Wives, submit to your husbands" look like in her life?  Will she expect her babies to be baptized/Christened? Will she be against it?  Will she be open to the possibility of both?  Will she take teaching about finances literally and be opposed to all debt and insist on giving 10% or some other figure regularly? Will she insist her kids attend church with her until they move out?  Will it be optional? Will she expect her husband to not look on other women with lust or will she include light or harder core porn in their sex lives?  What will she consider legitimate reasons to separate/divorce, if any? Does she have specific convictions about birth control, abortion in cases of the life and or health of the mother, infertility, adoption, etc.? What about working outside the home?  What about drinking? What does she expect to tell her children about homosexuality?  How will she expect to treat her homosexual child?

Faith affects all those lifestyle decisions even though people of the same faith will answer differently.  Imagine how the range of possibilities are outside the faith.  People considering marriage need to have a handle on where they come down those kinds of things (religion/philosophy, finances, lifestyle, childrearing) and whether or not their preferences (negotiables) or convictions (non-negotiables) are compatible.  People should have the lives they want.  There's no legitimate reason to insist on creating an unstable environment from the outset. 

That being said, even when people have compatible convictions there are no guarantees and people's convictions can change over time, so a heavy dose of reality is in order.  My husband and I were on the same page until 12 years into the marriage, then everything changed for him.  He left the faith and hasn't gone back.  That made our family life extremely difficult for about 7 years and then it was just hard. We've been married for 24 years now. No sane person should volunteer for something that's fundamentally misaligned.  If you're already married, then yes, you should make Herculean efforts, but you never know how it will work out-it might not. Better to find someone who shares your convictions from the outset and hope for the best.

[Arcadia]

They do have a big difference--she is Christian and he is not. This could come up more as her faith matures, or...not. What about things like this?

My 45 year old friend's mom is Buddhist and his dad is Christian. He is an agnostic. His parents are still happily married. They have the same family values.

 

Giving opinions on dating regardless of age of child is so hard/tricky. My mom has seen disastrous results so she said she will listen but not comment way before I seriously date. I was social dating in middle school. That happened to work out okay for me since all my ex-boyfriends are nice guys/husbands/fathers who eventually found someone and are still happily married.

[Scarlett]

That would be a deal breaker for me.

 

I would have discouraged and probably forbidden that relationship 2 years ago. Now it is probably entrenched and I am sorry for your dd and this boy.

[Guest]

Dating isn't marriage, so pressure to make it work shouldn't be the same. Break up for any reason is fine in dating.

 

 

Well, it depends on what being a Christian means to her. If it means she expects her future household will be run according to her interpretation of Scripture then it's a deal breaker, because why should he live like that if those aren't his convictions? Even within branches of Christianity, convictions can be very different. For example, what will "Wives, submit to your husbands" look like in her life? Will she expect her babies to be baptized/Christened? Will she be against it? Will she be open to the possibility of both? Will she take teaching about finances literally and be opposed to all debt and insist on giving 10% or some other figure regularly? Will she insist her kids attend church with her until they move out? Will it be optional? Will she expect her husband to not look on other women with lust or will she include light or harder core porn in their sex lives? What will she consider legitimate reasons to separate/divorce, if any? Does she have specific convictions about birth control, abortion in cases of the life and or health of the mother, infertility, adoption, etc.? What about working outside the home? What about drinking? What does she expect to tell her children about homosexuality? How will she expect to treat her homosexual child?

 

Faith affects all those lifestyle decisions even though people of the same faith will answer differently. Imagine how the range of possibilities are outside the faith. People considering marriage need to have a handle on where they come down those kinds of things (religion/philosophy, finances, lifestyle, childrearing) and whether or not their preferences (negotiables) or convictions (non-negotiables) are compatible. People should have the lives they want. There's no legitimate reason to insist on creating an unstable environment from the outset.

 

That being said, even when people have compatible convictions there are no guarantees and people's convictions can change over time, so a heavy dose of reality is in order. My husband and I were on the same page until 12 years into the marriage, then everything changed for him. He left the faith and hasn't gone back. That made our family life extremely difficult for about 7 years and then it was just hard. We've been married for 24 years now. No sane person should volunteer for something that's fundamentally misaligned. If you're already married, then yes, you should make Herculean efforts, but you never know how it will work out-it might not. Better to find someone who shares your convictions from the outset and hope for the best.

I know you know this, and I agree with your last paragraph, but no matter where a couple thinks they stand on those issues when they are young, they may change their views organically, or when a particular problem comes their way. I had different beliefs about birth control, the role of women, childcare, discipline, food/eating habits, political views, abortion, homosexuality...really, many, many things. My views on several things have flip-flopped back and forth. The key is mutual respect, not agreeing about each and every thing. So, I see these two scenarios as totally different:

 

Girl: Well, I'm a Christian and I think life in the church is very important. I plan to raise my future children in the church.

Guy: Well, I think Christianity is a brainless fairy tale and I hope my future children never darken the door of a church.

In this scenario, run. Find someone else. But it's not the difference of faith that is the issue, it's the rigidity and lack of respect of the guy. This would be different:

Girl: Well, I'm a Christian and plan to raise my future kids in the church.

Guy: Well, I'm agnostic and don't really believe most of those things, but if it's important to my spouse, I would not prevent her from going to church or taking the kids to church. As long as she doesn't nag ME about going.

 

I do think, on the whole, early relationships should not be so much "work." I agree with what Garga said earlier; I never really got the whole "gotta work on our marriage" thing. Certainly early relationships should not be a whole lot of work.

 

I remember a friend once asking me if I thought it was good enough to marry a guy who is good on paper, but for whom she did not feel "the spark." Solid guy, good with finances, kind and moral, shared her interests...just no Wow Factor. My opinion was, and is, it could work but I think it's a sad concession to make. I also think you are vulnerable if/when you eventually do meet someone who really ignites you. It's really handy to have that spark of passion in the background, at least, when life gets complicated. I've known plenty of divorces where one mate, usually the female, says, "Well, I settled for him and now I regret it. I want to feel alive."

 

Sorry; I kind of rambled off on a bunny trail there. ðŸ˜

[Guest]

It's true that people shouldn't idealize that first relationship, but they shouldn't discount it either.

Stereotypes are probabilities, not defining characteristics.

I'm glad I married lateish (29) because I did a lot of things in life before then that I wouldn't have done if I had been married, but I have also seen some great marriages that came about because people who knew each other really well essentially grew their adult lives together.

My DD is still in her first relationship at 20 years old; she and her bf have known each other since they were around 7 or 8. She (and I) have certainly heard lots of advice suggesting that she couldn't possibly stay together with him because neither of them have experienced other people. This view does really annoy me, because certainly nothing magical happens at age 25 or whatever beyond which you are capable of choosing a good mate, while before which you are incapable. There's no law that says they couldn't have met a great mate early in life.

 

At the same time, though, I am generally not in favor of early marriage. I am very happy that, at present at least, my DD is focused on completing her degree and doing some things (i.e., travel) that she knows become difficult when you are married; certainly when you have kids. She even recognizes that having a pet makes these things more difficult, which is an impressive realization, I think.

 

I just think, no matter how great the relationship, there is no rush to get married. It's one reason I am not fussed about pre-marriage s@x with a committed partner. I don't want my kids to hurry up and marry someone because they are h@rny. I know mine is a very unpopular opinion in some circles, however, and I don't often volunteer it.

[happypamama]

The religion could be a problem. Faiths can and probably will change over time, but I would definitely warn her about possible pitfalls of that difference.

 

Long distance relationships as a teen are just plain hard. I'm envious that they have texting and FaceTime! When dh was in college for two years while I was still in high school, we were limited to long calls on weekends and a lot of letter-writing. Now we have an ongoing text conversation when we're apart for the day; I sure wish we could have had that back then! That frequent contact lets you share the little everyday things as well as the big ones.

 

A certain amount of working on things might have to happen while they're long distance. They have separate lives, friends, etc. But at the same time, they have the advantage of growing up together, of forming their life opinions together. And as for not talking about marriage until after she's done with college, good luck with that. They may already have talked about it. We certainly did, many years before it was even a possibility. Sometimes you just know. And sometimes hardships you go through and have to work on/through when you're in a teen relationship are necessary because they show you that the relationship is worth it, and you just don't know what hardships life is going to throw at you later. As long as at the end of the day, they still like being together, I vote it's worth the effort. Nothing dh and I have been through in twenty-five years together has come close to what we went through this winter, and I certainly hope nothing else ever does. But I also know that we got thrown enough curveballs and hardships at a young age for us to know we could get each other through this winter. So I don't know that anyone can answer the question of how much working on things is reasonable because nobody knows what that relationship is going to need later.

 

As long as both of them still want to be together, and as long as there aren't red flags (substance abuse, control or abuse issues, and even the religion), I wouldn't discourage it. I also wouldn't assume it was The One. It might be, and it might not be, but I'd be careful not to pressure them either way. Let them decide for themselves what they are.

[JoJosMom]

Here is all of my sage relationship advice for young people. 

 

Love can be real without being forever. Just because you break up doesn't mean you didn't have love for one another.

 

You can love each other, but not be compatible. When you recognize that you will always be working at cross-purposes, it's time to break up. 

 

You can love each other but not be good for each other. If one or both of you keeps getting emotionally hurt, or if you bring out the worst in each other rather than the best, it's time to break up. 

 

When there are more unhappy moments than happy ones, more tears than laughter, it is time to break up. 

 

If you find yourself making excuses to other people on your partner's behalf, it is time to break up. 

 

And again,  you can break up while still recognizing and valuing the love that was present. If you think that you are meant to be together, you should still break up for these reasons, so you don't permanently damage the relationship. If you are right about being meant to be together, you will come together again in the future, in a more positive way.  

 

This is such a fantastic post; thank you for sharing your thoughts.  My DD is 14/rapidly approaching 15, so we are at the start of discussing boy/girl issues.  We have talked about some of the things that you said, but you put it so succinctly.  This will be posted on the white board.

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by JoJosMom

[HS Mom in NC]

I remember a friend once asking me if I thought it was good enough to marry a guy who is good on paper, but for whom she did not feel "the spark." Solid guy, good with finances, kind and moral, shared her interests...just no Wow Factor. My opinion was, and is, it could work but I think it's a sad concession to make. I also think you are vulnerable if/when you eventually do meet someone who really ignites you. It's really handy to have that spark of passion in the background, at least, when life gets complicated. I've known plenty of divorces where one mate, usually the female, says, "Well, I settled for him and now I regret it. I want to feel alive."

 

Sorry; I kind of rambled off on a bunny trail there. ðŸ˜

 

I don't get the compatibility vs. spark thing.  No one is obligated to marry the first compatible person who comes along.  If they're compatible but there's no spark for one or the other, they can just move on and find someone else with whom they are compatible and feel a spark. 

 

The point is about choosing based on the spark and nothing else of substance. Sparks are very likely to fade over time and if you didn't have anything or you didn't have much to go with the spark then you're in real trouble if you and your spouse fundamentally disagree on major issues (AKA irreconcilable differences in divorce court) like finances, religion, lifestyle and child rearing.  Will a spark be a consolation when their ideas of child rearing are significantly different than your own? Will it be when their views on debt are very different?  It seems to me conflicts like those are likely to snuff out sparks.

[Pam in CT]

She's young, and it's her life and her relationship.  As a deeply loving parent you can lay out some of your own core principles, for her to take under advisement.  And most young adolescents do take parental counsel under advisement... in the same manner as most of us did, at that age.  Doesn't mean she'll do what you would do now with the benefit of hindsight or experience, any more than it did with us, at that age.  That's how this (exasperating, terrifying) stage of parenthood works.

 

On the issue of faith compatibility... sure it's an easier walk if both partners are on the same page... but *so* many people on these boards have described coming as adults to a more mature faith relationship than they had as adolescents.  Certainly that is true for me personally.  The Pew Religious Landscape data definitely supports that faith affiliations continue to evolve well into adulthood.  Where she and he are now, is not necessarily where either will be 15 or 30 years hence.  That's one of many rolls of the marital dice -- a bit disorienting to face, but there it is.  The mutual ability to respect and honor where the other is, even if its different, is to my mind a more enduring and important part of long term prospects.  

 

In my both my own congregation and in my interfaith circles I do know several couples in which both partners have deep roots in different faiths.  It can work if the mutual respect is there.

 

YMMV.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think if she is looking for advice (or at some point looks for advice), and you have no BTDT, just say so.  Say, I don't know rather than making something up or going by what some strangers told you.  This is the sort of thing I think a person needs to figure out for themselves. 

 

I was in a somewhat serious relationship starting at 17.  It lasted 4 years and then we parted ways.  He wasn't the right person for me.  I didn't marry until 26.  My parents couldn't have given me advice.  They married at 18.  KWIM? 

 

Interestingly his mother encouraged him to "work it out".  I said nope.  I knew after 4 years there was nothing to work out.  She liked the idea of us together.  She liked me.  But she wasn't the one in the relationship so... 

 

 

[marbel]

I think if she is looking for advice (or at some point looks for advice), and you have no BTDT, just say so.  Say, I don't know rather than making something up or going by what some strangers told you.  This is the sort of thing I think a person needs to figure out for themselves. 

 

<snip>

 

See, I think it's fine to say "I don't have any direct experience with [whatever issue], but I have known of people who have and this is what I've learned from talking to them."  Or something like that.  

 

I married stupidly at 22.  My parents had concerns but didn't voice them till it was too late.  I was divorced by the time I was 25.  No kids, so in some ways not a big deal, but that was 3 years of my life lost when I could have been doing other things.  If someone I trusted had said "hey, let's talk about this, maybe you want to slow down a little?" or something like that, I could have saved some heartache.  

Edited June 4, 2017 by marbel

[SparklyUnicorn]

See, I think it's fine to say "I don't have any direct experience with [whatever issue], but I have known of people who have and this is what I've learned from talking to them."  Or something like that.  

 

I married stupidly at 22.  My parents had concerns but didn't voice them till it was too late.  I was divorced by the time I was 25.  No kids, so in some ways not a big deal, but that was 3 years of my life lost when I could have been doing other things.  If someone I trusted had said "hey, let's talk about this, maybe you want to slow down a little?" or something like that, I could have saved some heartache.  

 

I think it is fine, but I don't know why parents don't just tell their kids the truth.  That they don't have all the answers to everything.  My parents had all the answers.  And they were wrong more times than they were right.  For some odd reason they couldn't just be honest.  My dad was an absolute know it all and now I know how much he doesn't know.  :glare:

[DesertBlossom]

I think it is fine, but I don't know why parents don't just tell their kids the truth. That they don't have all the answers to everything. My parents had all the answers. And they were wrong more times than they were right. For some odd reason they couldn't just be honest. My dad was an absolute know it all and now I know how much he doesn't know. :glare:

Not all young adults are going to listen.

[MercyA]

Even when I was a die-hard Christian, I had a very strong practical streak. There is a lot of advice between the onion-skinned pages of the Bible, but I look at what it says and say, "Is this practical? Logical? Applicable to the current century?" And there's a lot said in the Bible, "commanded" if you please, the does fail in one or more of those measures. Don't boil a goat in it's mother's milk? Not applicable to...my diet, or the current century. He who spares the rod hates his son...beat him with the rod and deliver his soul from hell? Not practical, logical or applicable to the current century.

 

I'm not trying to pick at you, Quill, but I just want to point out, for those who might not be aware, that the examples here are from the Old Testament. Christians aren't under the law given to Israel: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." 

 

It just drives me a bit bonkers when people (not you!) say things like, "Well, you eat shellfish and wear mixed-fiber clothing, don't you? Hypocrite!" Um, nope. I'm not a Jew.  :)

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not all young adults are going to listen.

 

Absolutely.

 

Although, I suspect given the OPs questioning that she has the sort of relationship with her kid where the kid will heavily consider what she says.

 

I didn't really listen because my parents didn't make sense half the time.  That's another discussion though.  LOL

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm not trying to pick at you, Quill, but I just want to point out, for those who might not be aware, that the examples here are from the Old Testament. Christians aren't under the law given to Israel: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." 

 

It just drives me a bit bonkers when people (not you!) say things like, "Well, you eat shellfish and wear mixed-fiber clothing, don't you? Hypocrite!" Um, nope. I'm not a Jew.  :)

 

Are you Catholic? 

 

Just curious. 

[MercyA]

Are you Catholic? 

 

Just curious. 

 

No.  :)

[Guest]

I'm not trying to pick at you, Quill, but I just want to point out, for those who might not be aware, that the examples here are from the Old Testament. Christians aren't under the law given to Israel: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

 

It just drives me a bit bonkers when people (not you!) say things like, "Well, you eat shellfish and wear mixed-fiber clothing, don't you? Hypocrite!" Um, nope. I'm not a Jew. :)

Not to pick on you back, ðŸ˜, but those are simply the first two examples to spring to mind and for which I could reliably quote without looking it up. The New Testament has its fair share of "commands" that I solidly ignored, even when I was devout. Women are not to teach a man; women are the weaker vessel, women must be quiet and at home, the Lord scourges everyone he calls a son, slaves are to obey their masters, errant members must be ex-communicated from the church, just off the top of my head.

 

Also, there is a pretty decent precedent for Christians cherry-picking "commands" from the OT which suit their purposes. Like homosexuality being an abomination or keeping the Sabbath. The Ten Commandments were part of The Law, but Christians don't say, "Yeah, but that was The Law, given to Isreal, so you don't have to observe them."

[Acadie]

Thanks for sharing this, Janeway. I'm sorry your inlaws did not see and treat you and your children as the blessings that you are. I know what you mean about how walking unsuspecting into a narcissistic or otherwise toxic family culture can be incredibly damaging, and truly change your perspective on the world. The rules you've known up until then about how love, trust and intimate relationships work simply do not hold.

 

From personal experience and what I've read on this board, I would encourage an adult child to walk away from a relationship if there seemed to be signs of narcissistic traits in the individual or the family, especially if my child voiced any misgivings at all about the relationship.

 

Amy

 

I hate to say this but, my husband and I had some big problems while dating. And we stuck it out. And that was a mistake. Sure, we have worked things out now. But the problems still happened. The problems were largely related to his nasty family. It was unworkable. Husband was in denial and let his mother abuse me and our children, and well, him too. We endured years of abuse before he finally faced the truth about his parents. It was not worth it. Emotionally, I feel like I have so many problems with anxiety now due to what I have been through. I went to counseling for a while to deal with the abuse. The counselor felt I have PTSD, but I feel that term is thrown around too much. But I have definitely changed, and not for the better because of what I have been through. I used to be so optimistic and always see good in everyone, or assumed good. I know now that some people are just evil all the way through with no good at all. Now, I don't feel an inner care for every single person out there. I no longer just assume everyone has good in them. It has permanently taken away so much of what was once me. IF I could go back in time, I would not be with my husband. I know that he himself was wrapped up in the abuse she was exacting on him so he was a victim too. But, being sucked in to that really has been an awful thing. So often, even daily now, something will happen and it will remind me of things she did and it brings so much pain to me. 

 

 

[wonderchica]

Specific to the OP's post- Boyfriend is in the Air Force. Military relationships have a way of accelerating MUCH more quickly than others, especially at young ages. It's pretty common to rush into marriage very young. This horse may be already out of the gate, ya know.

Edited June 4, 2017 by wonderchica

[gardenmom5]

Specific to the OP's post- Boyfriend is in the Air Force. Military relationships have a way of accelerating MUCH more quickly than others, especially at young ages. It's pretty common to rush into marriage very young. This horse may be already out of the gate, ya know.

 

I'd agree with this.  they can be stationed far away from home - and are lonely.  my brother certainly rushed into both of his marriages due to being stationed far away from home - and being lonely.   the 2nd divorce was particularly nasty.

[happypamama]

I'd agree with this. they can be stationed far away from home - and are lonely. my brother certainly rushed into both of his marriages due to being stationed far away from home - and being lonely. the 2nd divorce was particularly nasty.

Not to mention -- aren't there rights and privileges of being the legal spouse that wouldn't be granted to a girlfriend? I'd be very surprised if they hadn't already talked about whether or not marriage was on the horizon.

[Donna]

Don't have time to read the other replies so sorry if I'm repeating anything.

 

I think they have to decide how much they want to work out and what would be the deal breakers for them. As a parent, you can be there for your dd as a support and listener but I would be wary of giving too strong advice as it could backfire if you want dd to end the relationship over something that might be a deal breaker for you and she ends up not following your advice.

 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

 

 

Oops. Nm.

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[HS Mom in NC]

Not to pick on you back, ðŸ˜, but those are simply the first two examples to spring to mind and for which I could reliably quote without looking it up. The New Testament has its fair share of "commands" that I solidly ignored, even when I was devout. Women are not to teach a man; women are the weaker vessel, women must be quiet and at home, the Lord scourges everyone he calls a son, slaves are to obey their masters, errant members must be ex-communicated from the church, just off the top of my head.

 

Also, there is a pretty decent precedent for Christians cherry-picking "commands" from the OT which suit their purposes. Like homosexuality being an abomination or keeping the Sabbath. The Ten Commandments were part of The Law, but Christians don't say, "Yeah, but that was The Law, given to Isreal, so you don't have to observe them."

 

This is a source of confusion when people aren't familiar with differing Christian doctrines.  Not every Christian believes the Church has replaced literal, physical Israel as "spiritual" Israel.  There are Christians like me who believe the OT was addressed literal, physical Israel in the past before Jesus came.  They believe the NT is addressed to the Church (people regenerated by the Holy Spirit through repentance of sin and faith in Jesus  as God in human flesh and the only way to God the Father.) While somethings are the same in both, for example homosexuality being sin, there are differences in the NT like dietary laws being eliminated.  The NT is the deciding factor for us on what applies to us as Christians.  Yes, homosexuality is still wrong in the NT, but there are no commands to execute homosexuals in the NT. 

 

[MercyA]

Not to pick on you back, ðŸ˜, but those are simply the first two examples to spring to mind and for which I could reliably quote without looking it up. The New Testament has its fair share of "commands" that I solidly ignored, even when I was devout. Women are not to teach a man; women are the weaker vessel, women must be quiet and at home, the Lord scourges everyone he calls a son, slaves are to obey their masters, errant members must be ex-communicated from the church, just off the top of my head.

 

Also, there is a pretty decent precedent for Christians cherry-picking "commands" from the OT which suit their purposes. Like homosexuality being an abomination or keeping the Sabbath. The Ten Commandments were part of The Law, but Christians don't say, "Yeah, but that was The Law, given to Isreal, so you don't have to observe them."

 

You can pick on me anytime.  ;) I actually try not to ignore any of the New Testament. Regarding the items you mentioned: I wouldn't attend a church with a woman pastor; I do think women are, generally speaking, physically weaker; I do believe I am responsible for keeping my household running smoothly; I have been "scourged by the Lord" (Hebrews 12:6) and it wasn't at all pleasant; and I do support the Scriptural application of church discipline. As far as the New Testament's treatment of slavery goes, this article sums up my position fairly well.

 

As to your second paragraph, I couldn't agree with you more!! It drives me crazy when people quote the Old Testament to support their stance on homosexuality, particularly because the New Testament already speaks to it. 

 

As far as the Ten Commandments go, I have said and do say that they are part of the Law that Christians are no longer under. However, since Jesus repeated nine of them in the New Testament, I believe those nine are still applicable to Christians. He didn't command Christians to keep the Sabbath and in fact the New Testament specifically says it's not required (Romans 14:5-6; Colossians 2:16-17).

Edited June 4, 2017 by MercyA

[wonderchica]

Not to mention -- aren't there rights and privileges of being the legal spouse that wouldn't be granted to a girlfriend? I'd be very surprised if they hadn't already talked about whether or not marriage was on the horizon.

Yes. Plus things granted to the service member- like getting to live out of the barracks. That's a major plus to the younger guys usually.

[Chris in VA]

S

Thanks for all your thoughts--they really, really helped. <3

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Chris in VA

[MysteryJen]

Regarding the long distance communication, I am not completely convinced that the ability to be in communication so much is actually healthy for a long distance relationship. I do think the ability to go days without talking is helpful when young. It seems that especially in a military setting, the spouse needs to be able to develop their own personal life and be independent. The lessons that dh and I learned with letters and 2 phone calls a week during the college years helped us become stronger individuals which has made each of us happier in the long run.

 

ymmv, of course. 

[Guest]

Chris in VA, you're a champion mom. You get a PhD. I can't see anything that would bother me from what you wrote here most recently.

[Caroline]

I want to second this! You are an amazing mom.

 

Chris in VA, you're a champion mom. You get a PhD. I can't see anything that would bother me from what you wrote here most recently.