A (0:00)

Foreign It's Friday, September 26, 2025. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. We know intuitively that there have been huge shifts in the cultural moral landscape around us, and especially when it comes to the central institution of human society, which is marriage and the family. And we know there have been massive transformations, and not only that, but ideological subversion in recent years. Every once in a while, a piece comes along that kind of crystallizes where we stand and frankly, how Christians need to lean in very differently than the secular world on the question of marriage and the family, adulthood and expectations. So just recently, the Wall Street Journal ran an article. The headline was financial Shift Delays Marriage Age. Rachel Wolf is the reporter. The subhead, more Young People Are Now Looking for Financial St before the Wedding. All right, very interesting analysis here. I think, for one thing, we just need to face what we are looking at when it comes to the delay of marriage or the displacement of marriage in our society. So just to state the matter bluntly, throughout virtually all of human history and Western civilization, marriage has come relatively early as a defining issue of adulthood. And so adulthood equals married has been a basic formula. Now, there were always some persons who weren't married, clearly were adults, but those were exceptions to the rule. And in general, the expectation is that the life cycle would come to a relatively short adolescence, adolescence throughout most of human history, if recognized at all. And someone had to recognize that period of older childhood, transitioning into adulthood, and of course, physical changes that bring on reproductive capacity, all that coming together. But the fact is that most societies felt it absolutely necessary to keep that period of life relatively short. Not too elongated. Well, it has certainly been elongated. Now, the extension of adolescence throughout most of the twenties, at least, when it comes to issues of, well, say, marriage and family, that's come with devastating results. Now, the results come down to math as well. So listen to this. The estimated median age for a first marriage is as of last year, was 30 for men and 29 for women, according to census data. That's up from 28 for the man and 26 for women in 2008. So over the past, say, almost 20 years, you could just say like 18 years, 17 or 18 years. We're in a situation in which not only has the delay of marriage been continued, it has now even progressed such that people are waiting longer to get married again. The average age at first marriage for men is 30 and for women, 29. Now, let's just state the obvious before we look at anything, the Wall Street Journal has to argue, let's remember that our authority, first of all, is holy Scripture. And so if you look at scripture and you look at the expectation about childhood and adulthood, you're going to see marriage coming very quickly to the center of the horizon. So at some point when you have children, say, in double digits, there's a transition from thinking of them as merely coming from marriage. And the new transformation is parents have to see them as headed toward marriage. Now, I think a lot of Christian parents would be surprised by that, but that's deeply biblical. That's deeply rooted in history. I mean, at some point, you have to think that this is right now, the child is a product of this marriage, but soon to be the central story when it comes to the next generation pairing in their own way. And so you would look at this a generation as what, just something like 25 years, 40 years in terms of, say, encapsulating those who are early and those who are late, putting them together in a generational cohort. Demographers have often looked at about 40 years. But now we're talking about delaying marriage until age 30 for men, 29 for women. Let's just state the obvious. This is getting outside the most fertile reproduction, productive period. And it's also just outside any kind of normal expectation. Now, when you think about the history of Western civilization, two things are pretty well summarized by demographers. These are people who just say, let's look at the sociological reality. Number one, the first demographic transition. When did that take place? It took place at the end of the 19th into the early 20th century. And this was the reduction in the general size of the family. And a lot of this had to do with the moving of big populations from an agrarian culture on the farm, where a lot of farmhands were needed, into an urban situation where the place of work was primarily not in the home. And so you had marriage formalized and of course, the expectation of children, but the number of children, the size of the household began to be significantly reduced in the late 19th and into the 20th centuries. But the next one came, the second demographic transition. And this one was far more ideological. This is more about social liberty, liberalism. This was about shifting the main expectation in society when it came to adulthood away from marriage itself. It meant decoupling sex and marriage, which meant the sexual revolution, sex outside of marriage being the norm. It also came with birth control and abortion. And so it's deeply ideological. It has vastly transformed the landscape concerning marriage and the family. And you can't talk about the statistics we're looking at right here in this story. The average age of first marriage for men being 30, 29 for women, without recognizing. They're not saying that their sex lives have held off this long. No, it's just baked into the cake that that separated from marriage. And furthermore, childbearing is something that is now kind of a hobby. That explains the radical fall off on the birth rate. It's kind of a hobby for those couples who are into it once they achieve whatever moment they want to achieve in order to say they're ready for children. And that's a big part, by the way, of the demand for modern reproductive technologies. It's because people who wouldn't have had trouble getting pregnant in their early 20s are having trouble getting pregnant in their late 30s. Who would have thought? The Wall Street Journal points to two different models of marriage, two different understandings of marriage. This is in sociological language. The argument here is that the older model of marriage was a cornerstone model. That is to say that marriage was the cornerstone of adulthood, of adult lifespan, and thus it was definitional. You really weren't an adult if you weren't married. Being adult meant being married. That was just the marriage, the cornerstone model. The argument here is by sociologists that that's gone now. It's a capstone model. From a cornerstone model, marriage is central to adulthood to the capstone model, which is marriage is what you put in place. If you have enough money and have enough experience and you have the lifestyle expectations, then now you're ready to kind of settle down and get married. Married. But in the cornerstone model, you got married in your early 20s. In the capstone model, you might not get married until your late 30s. And just to state the obvious, reproduction, having children can't be one of your central concerns. And the other thing is that capstone in this sense, marriage is redefined so that children are just an option, they're just a possibility. And again, that explains the plummeting birth rate. It explains the population crisis we're going to face. Not of too many, that's hardly going to be our of too few. But we're also looking as Christians at the fact that this is a rejection of creation order. This is the rejection of something as Basic as Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. And so, I mean, in theological shorthand, this is going to go badly. And if you just make marriage a lifestyle issue economically, the point here is that people are now not marrying until they say they have enough money to get married. And under the cornerstone Model couples got married because it was just right to get married. And then they figured out how to create economic lives together. It was the marital unit creating the economic life. Now you have a situation in which young people are saying, no, I need to satisfy myself at economic terms and establish myself in vocational, career, and economic terms. Then I might decide to get married. And this comes with all kinds of things. So I think it's fair to say most people in my generation got married pretty young. And we built our economic lives together, husbands and wives together. We bought our first home together. We made our first major purchases together. And that was a part of being together. It was a part of growing up together. And we didn't have enough money to get married. We just got married anyway, and we made things work. And it created an enormous incentive for us to work hard. And very quickly, children are on the horizon, and the next thing you know, you've gone from being newlyweds to being parents. And, you know, I think that's just healthy. I think fundamentally for Christians, we need to understand that's biblical, an interruption or a diversion from that for Christians, it should go off with alarm bells for us. This article is telling us that in American society right now, marriage is becoming a capstone event, a capstone achievement for those couples in their, I'll say, almost middle adulthood who are at the point where they can decide to get married because they've already established their economic adulthood, they've already established their vocational adulthood. They have already established, by the way, ways of life that I would also point out from a Christian perspective, as a part of the problem. The biblical understanding of marriage is that you build your life together, not that you build two lives and then try to bring them together. I think we shouldn't be surprised that the model of trying to build two independent lives and then trying to bring them together at some point, say in the 30s, what could go wrong? Well, a lot of things can go wrong. I mean, for one thing, adulthood is also about establishing habits. And, you know, I think there has to be an enormous challenge for people who've established habits of being unmoved married for the better part of a decade, or much more than a decade, in terms of their adult, vocational lives. It is really interesting that this particular article is pointing to the fact that this redefines marriage. If now you are wealthy enough to get married, and you only get married if you are wealthy enough. And, you know, this brings up something else that's new for one of the first times in human history, not because of plague or war or some other kind of situation. Now you have wealthier people more likely to be married and less wealthy people less likely to be married. And it's because of the new economics of marriage. If you have to have all this money in order to get married, a lot of people aren't going to get married. There's another problem, and that is that the economy of marriage between men and women, they've been different throughout history. Now you have a situation in which you have many young women who are professionally advanced beyond young men. They may even have larger salaries than young men. Traditionally, women have not wanted to marry men of lower economic, vocational and income status. But nowadays they increasingly have nowhere else to go. And so all kinds of issues here, alarm bell should be going off all over in terms of the Christian worldview. But this also points to something else, and that is the fact that you have divorce rates and marriage rates really very problematic now in blue collar America. And that that had been the backbone of moral solidity for decades, generations in the United States. And now this is where marriage is perhaps most visibly and quickly crumbling. And a part of it is because at least this article would argue, of socioeconomic factors. And again, I think this gets the cart before the horse and really confuses issues from a biblical perspective. Krista Westrich Payne, identified as assistant director of the national center for Marriage and Family Research, says marriage has become a status symbol. Okay, I think Christians would understand that marriage really should be a status symbol. There's nothing wrong with that. There's everything wrong with that being the central definition. Marriage, first of all, is supposed to be the basic building block, the basic molecular structure of human society. It is supposed to be the, the context in general terms for most people of adulthood. When you make it just a status symbol, you're redefining marriage in terms of just money and cultural achievement. I think Christians should be among the first to recognize that is not what God commanded in Genesis. That is not God's plan. God's plan is that the husband and the wife build a life together, not that they build two lives and then see what they can do later on together. Christa Westrick Payne, I cited her earlier, later in the article. She says, quote, people don't want to get married until they have an education, have that job that can support them, and they can afford a house. And they're also looking for a partner that ticks all those boxes, end quote. Now, there's nothing wrong with some of that, but there's a lot wrong with all of that together. And There's a bigger wrong from a Christian worldview perspective in the biblical realities of marriage that are simply misleading, missing from that entire conversation. So I think we need to look at this and recognize that we are living in a society that is now redefining and messing up just about everything. And we've now reached the point of cultural insanity where marriage is seen as a capstone for adults who have become financially stable enough, vocationally professional enough. You go down the list, they can afford now to think about being married. You can see how this is the crisis in the birth rate. This is why you have so many people who follow this lifestyle who have maybe one child, maybe two children, maybe with the assistance of advanced medical and reproductive technologies. But you know, this is just not a picture of social health. This is not a picture of biblical wholeness. Alarm bells should be going off here. And I want to tell you the deeper problem as I have to move on and we'll get to questions, the deeper problem is this. There are too many Christian parents who are basically communicating to their children that this is their expectation. They want their children to be financially successful, then you can talk about being married. They want their children to be fulfilled, then you can think about getting married. Don't be surprised with the damage that comes from that. Christians ought to have a basic defense mechanism built into us by biblical instinct. And that is that if you're telling people who are, let's just say in their 20s, you need to delay marriage until you're ready for it. That's backwards. We need to be saying, hey, young man, young woman, you need to be getting yourself ready for marriage and fast. Okay. As always, I'm thrilled to turn to questions. And I'm stretched by encouraged by the questions who come in question from a 9 year old. This one's really good. If the man who killed Charlie Kirk were to repent and turn to Christ, would the death penalty still be needed for justice to be served on earth? And Mackenzie is a little girl whose dad sent this question in and he said reworded it for clarity's sake. Okay, Dad, I appreciate that. I really appreciate you sending this question from a very thoughtful nine year old. And you know, this is a good question for Christians to think about. Number one, the shooter of Charlie Kirk. We would certainly hope that he would come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, come to know his sins forgiven, to be given the gift of everlasting life. And this is where we understand that that's exactly how we should pray for this young man. Now I'm not going to get into the trial that's upcoming and the investigation. I'm simply going to say let's assume we know that this man killed Charlie Kirk, then we should be praying. Yes, that he would come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, that the gospel would reach him. And the promise of the gospel is that he, even he, as I, even I, can be forgiven our sins by the atonement achieved and accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. Then this very smart nine year old says, well, if so, would the death penalty still be needed? And this is where I want to come back and say, okay, we need to separate two things very clearly. And this is not just an issue for nine year olds, it's an issue for 90 year olds. Okay, we need to separate the state's responsibility from the church's responsibility. Those are two very different things. The death penalty is not given or withdrawn by the church. It is a function of the state in a rightly ordered penal system. The state does not baptize and does not share the gospel and does not define Christians. That's the church's role. And so I just want to say to this sweet nine year old, that's a very good question. But the death penalty is about the crime that this man committed, given the responsibility of the state to uphold the dignity and sanctity of human life by laws against murder and making the consequences for those laws very clear. Repentance is a Christian theological category, which means that we believe even those who are rightly punished by the state may be forgiven their sins based upon the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ and may be with us in heaven, with Christ in glory. Those are two very different things. And it's a smart question from a nine year old, as I say, or from a 90 year old. It's the one that should make us think the state and the church have two very different responsibilities and two very different sovereignties and, and roles to play in this age. Okay, let me get to another question. This is a different kind of question than I would normally take. It's not just addressed to me given the briefing. It's addressed to me as the president of Boyce College and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminaries. That makes it a little bit different. It's a deep theological question. And so here's a young man, and the mother of this young man is writing in because she and her husband are having conversations with their son about college and about Boyce College. And this mom writes saying, we have received some pushback from our church regarding Boyce's statement on election. And I anticipate our pastoral staff may not be fully supportive either. While our church encourages him, that is their son, to attend Bible college, we're concerned that such programs may not provide skills applicable outside a church setting. Visiting Boyce said Boyce's combination of biblical training and practical degree options is very appealing. They mentioned other things they really found attractive about Boice, and as much as I'd like to read them, but just for the sake of time, I won't read all those things. It made me very happy. But they go on to say that they really are trying to figure out where we stand on issues, including what's described here as Calvinist teaching on election. And then they say, this quote is my understanding of this article of election. That's article five in our confession of faith, the abstract of principles. Now, this may sound technical, but I guarantee it's interesting. This mom asks is the understanding of election as it's presented correct, and that God in his omniscience knows who will accept Christ and that while we share the Gospel, God moves in hearts. I struggle with Calvinist descriptions suggesting the elect are favored over the unelected or that Jesus did not die for all, which seems at odds with John 3:16. Could you please clarify? Okay, that's a lot to take on in this context, but I'll simply say that we're unapologetically Baptist and Reformed Baptist, and there's no doubt that our statement of faith is just really clear. It's a derivation of the Westminster Confession, which is a very Reformed tradition. And that's where the early Baptists in America went for theological identity. It's the context in which this school was born. I also think it's absolutely biblically right. And so I just want to say that, number one, it's a doctrine that is often misconstrued. And so it doesn't make God merely arbitrary. God, for reasons in his perfection that are grounded in his character are demonstrated in his sovereignty. And at the end of the day, the fact is we all have to explain how some people hear the gospel and others not, and how hearing the gospel, some people respond, believe, and are saved and others do not. Now, the premise here is maybe God in His omniscience merely knows how they're going to respond. And some people are going to say, I don't think that's. That's what the Scripture says. The Scripture very clearly puts the responsibility on God himself in his sovereignty and the exercise of his sovereignty to his glory. And so a term like the elect. That just doesn't come from some human theological system. It's pervasive in scripture. God chose Israel and we believe that God chooses those who will come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And you know, frankly, even people who would say, well, we're not Calvinists, they have a hard time explaining how they're going to make God fair. When many people don't hear the gospel by their standard, then they've created an insoluble problem because there are many people who will never hear the gospel. That's just true looking throughout history. So in that sense, if God is supposed to be fair, then how can there be anyone who has not heard the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? And furthermore, how is it that the unregenerate sinner comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it because the people who come to faith in Christ are smart enough or morally good enough to respond to the gospel and the others aren't smart enough or morally good enough to respond to the gospel? At the end of the day, all I want to say is this. The Scripture presents God as sovereign and the Gospel as a firm and certain promise. If you confess with your lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. And I don't know anything to say other than that. I think most anti Calvinists are a lot more Calvinist than they want to let on. One of the hardest questions for any theological system is just this, obviously. Is it biblical? Is it most consistent with biblical teachings? But in theological terms, you ask the question, is God satisfied with the disposition of these things on that day, that day of judgment? And I believe that God is presented as being satisfied that Christ died for his own and he knew who they were because they'd been given to him by the Father. I think there's strong biblical testimony for this. But you know what? I'm not campaigning for Calvinism. And we are firmly committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I, just as much as anyone else, believes that anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. So at the end of the day, we want a very high vision of God in his sovereignty, in his goodness, in his perfection. And we want to be faithful to scripture. So I certainly would love to have your son here. Finally, for today, sad news came, the sudden announcement of the death of Dr. Vodi Bakam. And this comes as a great sadness and as very much unexpected. And we are reminded of the biblical admonition that no man knows his days. And so Vodi Balakam nonetheless died having done what the Lord called him to do. And it's a shock now to know of his death. We're thankful for the power of his ministry and the clarity of his convictions, and it is a reminder to us that we must work as Jesus said to his disciples, while it is day, night is coming when no man can work. We'll pray for Voddie Bakam's widow and the entire family. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmohler.com youm can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to spts.edu. for information on Boyce College, just go to voicecollege.com I'll meet you again on Monday for the brief briefing.