Monthly Archives: June 2016

Articles, Education, Prophecy, Teaching

BREXIT Prevails

THE QUESTION:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

Remain a member of the European Union  [   ] 

Leave the European Union                           [   ]

On the morning of June 24, 2016, the United Kingdom and the world woke up to the news that on the previous day the electorate, 52% to 48% with a 72% turnout, voted to leave the 28-member European Union (EU). Britain’s 43 years of membership is coming to an end. A four-month long, bitterly fought campaign between those that wanted to remain in the EU (called Bremain) and those who wanted to leave (Brexit – British exit) has culminated in a shock result – Brexit prevailed, though it was the underdog (BREMAIN had the support of key British political leaders, business leaders, billionaires, globalists, international allies, and EU partners). This is only the third time in Britain’s long history that there has been a referendum and it can clearly be labelled ‘historic.’
Democracy at work: First, we should all derive satisfaction that the UK EU Referendum was clearly democracy in action. Prime Minister David Cameron, who announced his resignation soon after the results, promised the people an ‘In or Out’ Referendum. On a matter of such fundamental importance, the nation was given a chance to have their say. In addition, membership in the European Union is voluntary and member states can choose to leave without armed conflict.
The Economy: Why did 52% of the electorate vote to leave the EU? One issue was economics. There is much dissatisfaction over the annual contributions Britain has to make to the EU ($16 billion in 2014). Recently, Brussels sent London an unexpected invoice because the UK economy had done better than expected. In addition, there are all kinds of rules and regulations that hamstring the economy and smack of protectionism.
Immigration: A second concern was immigration. As part of the responsibility of EU membership is that citizens of member states have the right to live and work in other member states (similar to citizens of Australian and American states can live anywhere in the country). Today, 13% of the residents of Britain are foreigners, a couple of million clearly being citizens of other EU countries. Perhaps what helped to tip the balance was British concern over the collapse of Europe’s borders during the great migrant rush of 2015, with 1.1 million unauthorised aliens coming into the continent.
Sovereignty: The biggest issue of all had to be national sovereignty versus being part of a European superstate. When the British voted in a 1975 European referendum, they were promised that no law from Brussels (headquarters of the EU) could be imposed against the will of Britain’s elected representatives. In other words, Britain was told that it had a veto. Yet, as more countries joined the union and new treaties negotiated, that veto became null and void. Since the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, the UK lost its veto 40 times in over 40 different areas. Over the years, the UK was outvoted again and again in the Council of the European Union, while it also lost 101 cases and won only 30 in the European Court of Justice.
Even more shocking is that most of the UK laws are made by Brussels, not Westminster. According to Jeremy Paxman in a BBC documentary and Toby Young of The Spectator, 59% of UK law came from the EU. And who made these laws? Not by the European parliament in Strasbourg, where 73 out of 751 Parliamentarians (MEPs) are British. They are made by the 28 unelected European commissioners. The parliament either accepts, rejects, or amends. Like the ‘law of the Medes and Persians,’ once the law is enacted, it cannot be repealed. Anyone who takes the notion of democracy seriously should find this very disturbing.
United States of Europe: The European Union was started after two disastrous world wars with the intent to unite the continent economically and politically for the sake of peace and prosperity. While it had fine ideals, its real goal has always been a European superstate, ‘ever-closer union,’ or, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel calls it, ‘more Europe.’ Already the EU has a common court, central bank, currency, president, criminal justice system, military, open borders between states (Schengen), passport, flag, and parliament – all these are the trappings of a nation-state.
A United States of Europe means that member states are reduced to mere provinces in Super Europe. What would happen to the British monarch, as well as the other European monarchies? In addition, the EU, though espousing democracy, has become very socialistic, regulatory, bureaucratic, post-Christian and postmodern organisation. Serious problems like broken borders, entitlement funding crises, non-robust military, regulation overload, and more, have caused a rethink about EU membership even beyond Britain’s borders.
As shared in an earlier article, the re-paganisation of Europe under the EU, and the reintroduction of mythological Europa riding the beast, has been a cause of concern for some British Christians. They have engaged in intense prayer and fasting for this referendum. They chose to ‘vote in the heavenlies’ by prayer before voting on earth at the ballot box.
National Identity: Ultimately, the British electorate was being asked about what kind of country they want for the future. Is Britain merely a little island off the coast of Europe which, having been stripped of its empire, needs to ‘get over it’ and accept is new and reduced status in an enlarged Europe?
Or is it still a great leader, with the world’s sixth largest economy, fourth largest military, and permanent seat of the United Nations Security Council. It contributions to civilisation are enormous:
The English language;
Parliamentary democracy;
Constitutional monarchy;
The Commonwealth of Nations;
Abolition of the slave trade;
Spawn the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions;
Twice helped defeat Euro-fascism;
Hosts great financial hub in London;
Common law;
Rule of law;
Christianity and mission;
Sport (cricket, bridge, snooker).
All these things – and more – have spread worldwide.
For those who voted to Leave the EU, far from being xenophobic and narrow-minded nationalists, BREXIT is about helping the UK, who has already given so much to the world, to stand on its feet and take its rightful role in Europe and the world. Now that the choice has been made, let’s support the UK in its brave new future.

Baptist

Tekivu Tale – Rebuild Fiji

The phrase “Tekivu Tale” in Fijian means to rebuild and that’s the goal of Tekivu Tale, to help rebuild and assist the beautiful people of Fiji.  

 

The nation of Fiji suffered catastrophic damage when on 20th February, 2016, cyclone Winston wreaked havoc on the island nation of Fiji. 43 people lost their lives, severe damage was inflicted on infrastructure, and the cost of recovery is estimated around 360 million dollars. The challenge to rebuild this country will require the efforts of the global community measured in years of recovery work.

 Tekivu Tale is the name of the volunteer network of parties (both indigenous and international) tackling this enormous challenge through a collective approach; combining resources, experience and a cohesive strategy. The goal is to build 30 homes in 8 months completing construction by the end of 2016.

Under the umbrella of Operation Foundation led by CEO Peter Schultz and volunteer Project Manager Mark Wilson in Australia, both local and overseas organisations, churches and individuals have come together in volunteer partnership to pool resources and maximise recovery efforts.

 

Mark Wilson and his wife Cheryl,  founding pastors of Katalyst Baptist Church in Officer, Victoria, with previous experience living and working in Fiji, have both stepped up to the challenge. They are playing a major part in the recovery effort both on the ground in Fiji and here in Australia raising awareness and support.

Other Victorian Baptist Churches have also been involved in providing financial support to the Fiji rebuild project, including  Hampton Park Baptist, Katalyst Church, Rowville Baptist , and Doveton Baptist.

You can read more about this project here

 

General Donations to Tekivu Tale can be made through Katalyst Church: Account: Fiji – BSB: 704 922  Number: 100014151

Tax deductible donations can be given for Rebuild Fiji through Pioneers of Australia via their website: www. pioneers.org.au. Click on the Fiji Cyclone bar on the right hand side of the home page then the donate now box. Specify the donation is for the project, Rebuild Fiji.

 

Source: BUV News

Baptist

Learning together for BUV’s cultural diversity

By Darren Cronshaw

I had been really looking forward to sharing with this year’s Multicultural Pastors’ Retreat. BUV staff gathered with more than twenty pastors, showing their commitment to sustainable ministry and encouraging one another. We especially appreciated Meewon Yang and Marc Chan for organising and hosting us as a group. 

I am the pastor at AuburnLife Baptist Church, which is seeking to grow as a vibrant, multi-cultural mission-shaped community. So I am an aspiring multicultural pastor in the sense that I am passionate about growing a culturally diverse church. Of course in multicultural Australia we need all our churches to be serious about culturally diverse ministry. Thus I enjoyed being part of the retreat as a fellow pastor with the group, and pastor interested in multicultural ministry. 

But I am also privileged to serve on the BUV Mission Catalyst team, with Meewon and Marc among my favourite colleagues who I love learning from. One of BUV’s three main priorities is to embrace our cultural diversity (and also connect better with younger generations and develop pioneering leaders). My role with BUV is research and developing teaching and ministry resources, and a main focus this year is exploring how we can best train Next Generation culturally diverse leaders. Rev Moo Hei, Rev Gail Moe Dwai, Rev Dr Si Khia and Rev Za Tuah Nguri who were at the retreat, and others have been invaluable in starting to help me understand some of the challenges and the needs for helping our churches to help 1.5 and second generation youth and young adults to develop in all God has for them as leaders. 

I am starting to better understand the sort of issues all the LOTE pastors are working with every week – how young migrants and their children have to navigate two cultural worlds, develop their identity, learn language and make the most of educational opportunities, and make their contribution to Australian society but also continue to engage positively with the churches of their culture. I want to understand how we can best help our young people to get a vision and develop the skills for effective mission to their own people, and to other Australians and beyond. I said to the LOTE pastors that their young people, as much as or more than other young people, understand intercultural communication and religious diversity and insights that are so valuable for mission in 21st Century Australia – we need them. They will make the best missionaries – here and cross-culturally overseas. 

Those at the retreat represented 21 different churches, from probably 15 different cultural groups. I maintain that our denomination or tribe of churches in BUV would not be the same without them. We need one another. Baptist mission in Victoria and beyond needs the contribution of your young people. I think we all need the different perspectives that our different cultural groups bring, so that we can learn from one another about the fullness of the gospel. Cross-cultural missionaries often say that it is from other cultures that they learn new things about God and the Bible; here in Victoria we can really bless one another’s faith as we listen and learn from one another. Let me say that my church – and all our churches – need the gifts and lessons in perseverance and insights into the Bible and commitment to communal and family values that LOTE pastors and their culture bring. We will be the lesser without it. That is why helping all our churches embrace cultural diversity is a research and ministry priority of mine.   

Australian Baptists would be the lesser in numbers and growth without LOTE and culturally diverse churches too. We have looked at the growth of Australian Baptists 2001-2011 from Census figures and have seen that 98% of our growth is from immigration growth (without Baptists from other cultures coming to Australia we would be in serious decline). Almost half of Australian Baptists are first or second generation Baptists. That is a huge challenge to all our churches – to be welcoming and hospitable to new arrivals, but also to get more fruitful in evangelism with Anglo Australians. (See Philip Hughes and Darren Cronshaw, Baptists in Australia, CRA 2013, for more details) We need your help with that too.       

BUV is developing two approaches to helping LOTE churches with the strategic need of Next Gen leadership development. Firstly, we are co-hosting training days for LOTE (Languages other than English) church Sunday School and Youth leaders, starting with Chin and Karen congregations. I am working on these training days with Marc and Meewon, and our NextGen facilitator Kylie Butler, and Rev Gail Moe Dwai at Werribee Karen Baptist Church, Rev Moo Hei at Croydon Hills Baptist Church, and Rev Arohn Kung and Chin Baptist Church. We are exploring another Chin church partner in the East, and are also keen for other hosting churches for other cultural groups.   

Secondly, we are developing a very long-term commitment to mentoring next generation leaders. This is for all our churches, but we are very eager for this to include and resource LOTE churches. The importance of this program is reflected in BUV appointing Jo Semple as Emerging Leaders coordinator to focus on recruiting suitable mentors and matching them with youth and young adults with real potential to grow and flourish as leaders. 

 

For me, and for all of us at BUV and in all our churches, this learning journey is about resourcing your churches for mission to your own people and all Australians, and beyond; but it is also about helping all our churches learn from you and be transformed by your heart and hospitality and communal cultures. 

This is why I invite ongoing conversations with LOTE pastors and leaders and others interested in these issues Moreover, all of us at BUV are available and interested in getting to know and resourcing and learning from LOTE churches and other churches interested in embracing cultural diversity and growing in culturally diverse ministries.  

 

Source: BUV News

Baptist

Migrant families and churches

(Training Next Gen Culturally Diverse Leaders Part 7)*

by Darren Cronshaw

 

Many immigrants who have come to Australia have amazing stories of courage and perseverance from their country of origin. The need for courage and tenacity continues as their families face challenges of settling in Australia including learning language, gaining education and employment, and coming to terms with a new cultural setting. The best way to learn about these challenges, and how our churches can support immigrants, is through coming alongside and talking with them. But I have also been learning form some of the existing research into the experience of migrants, migrant families and churches. As BUV explores how best to resource and train Next Generation leaders from our Languages other than English (LOTE) churches, it is important to understand the social and other challenges that migrants newly arrived in Australia face.   

For example, Mary Noseda investigated the Catholic Church’s relationship with Vietnamese Migrant women and how churches help migrants with resources as they arrive, and with stability and belonging as they settle. (2003: 10-13) She notes belonging involves some embracing and some letting go of their home and new cultures. Vietnamese migrants have maintained the central importance of family values and respect for parents and the elderly. Women usually maintain traditional roles of homemaker/mother but also become the main liaison with welfare and schools and extend into employed work, while Vietnamese men often take lesser jobs. She also notes other studies which underline that migrant priorities are English language mastery and employment – the basis of other goals including home ownership, children’s education and family reunion. There is overlap in what Noseda found among Vietnamese migrants and their challenges around English, employment and negotiating work roles and other migrant groups. Yet it is important for us to continue to talk with LOTE Baptist communities directly and understand what challenges they face with settlement and how BUV can help.

The most recent Christian Research Association (CRA) research relevant to LOTE Next Generation training explored how churches help or hinder migrant and refugee families as they settle. (Hughes 2015) Immigrants often find a sense of community in a faith community with whom they share language and values. Their children want to find a place in Australian society and necessarily navigate the cultural differences and family expectations. Other research has addressed the “tug-of-war” that second generation immigrants feel between their background culture that sometimes ignores their Western influences or education, and Western society that does not always recognise their cultural uniqueness (e.g., Tiatia 1998). But there has been minimal research on the faith of second generation Australians and how churches help or hinder. CRA interviewed small groups of youth, parents and leaders from a Sudanese and Chinese church about differences in culture and worship patterns.

The Sudanese church, mainly refugees, had struggled with English. They held a strong sense of community and interdependence. They appreciated church supporting them like a big family, and offering lots of youth activities – sport, music, socials and youth group. The Sudanese expressed a strong sense of faith and gratitude, despite famine and war they had experienced. They said they were not as distracted by material things causing them to forget God like Australian neighbours. The community was feeling the tension of different forms of discipline for children in Australia, and navigating age and gender-related roles. Sudanese girls felt pressure to look after younger siblings and do more housework, and there was some questioning of their dowry system. A strong respect for older people meant children were expected not to question parents, and younger leaders in church were expected not to publically disagree with elders. The church has leaders with an Anglo background and has morning services in English, which helps the youth negotiate Australian culture. Parents and students said they would especially appreciate help with English language and extra tutorial support for their young people to get to University. (Hughes 2015: 2-6)

The Chinese (Cantonese) Church interviewees also noted a greater respect for older people and parents, and more reserve with feelings and opinions than other Australians. They said that people in China and Australia both tend not to take religious faith very seriously and are more concerned with family life and making money. Most children of the first wave of immigrants worship in a neighbouring English church or nowhere. The Chinese church was doing more than the Sudanese church to preserve Chinese language and culture, but this may be isolating for some youth. They feel the tensions of cultural and generational differences. (Hughes 2015: 6-8)

Hughes concluded that most denominations are multicultural and need to understand cultural differences and sensitivities around values and roles. CRA is eager to extend this project among other churches. (Hughes 2015: 6-8) A similar study among BUV Chin and Karen churches could be valuable to help us understand how they are navigating life and faith in Australia, but also investigating how they understand and practice mission. BUV needs to help resource all our churches in helping immigrant families settle in Australia and maintain their faith.

Part of the challenge is that young people have arrived from Burma or via refugee camps where they had lots of free time and have missed school years. Rev Kung compassionately explains they can fall into a vicious cycle of purposelessness fuelled by stress, depression, local of education and English, unemployment, distrust of police, alcohol and drug abuse, shame and isolation, and gambling. (2016) Karen and Chin churches support people through all sorts of social care issues and it would be valuable for BUV to explore how best they might help. 

 Of 5,607 Burma-born people in Victoria in 2011, 31% are aged 0-25 and another 22.7% are 26-34. They are very young churches with a high proportion of teenagers and young adults. 63.4% are a couple family with children (compared to 47.1% in the broader population). Youth and family ministries are critical. Many parents and church elders want to maintain their cultural identity, but do not want to isolate themselves or their children as they learn English and adapt to local careers, gender roles and parenting styles. The young people themselves are usually eager to adapt, and sometimes struggle to decide to what extent they can honour or whether they need to leave their culture behind. 

It has been a privilege beginning to learn from the life and mission of Karen and Chin Baptist churches in Australia, recognising the new opportunities and challenges for multicultural ministry that 8,500 Baptists from Burma have brought to Australian Baptists over two decades.  ADDIN EN.CITE
Cronshaw20159419(Cronshaw
et al. 2015)941994195Darren
CronshawStacey
WilsonMeewon Yangalso
with Ner DahSi
KhiaArohn
KuungJapheth
LianDarren
CronshawRosemary DewerseGod<br /> called us here for a reason” … Karen and Chin Baptist Churches in Victoria:<br /> Mission from the Margins of a Diaspora<br /> CommunityWe are Pilgrims: Mission from, in
and with the Margins of our Diverse World263-2782015MelbourneUNOH(Cronshaw et al. 2015) They have tremendous strengths but also particular challenges, including English and employment help in general, and specifically the need for leadership training and hosting networks.

 Bibliography

  • Cronshaw, Darren, Stacey Wilson, Meewon Yang, also with Ner Dah, Si Khia, Arohn Kuung and Japheth Lian (2015). God Called Us Here for a Reason” … Karen and Chin Baptist Churches in Victoria: Mission from the Margins of a Diaspora Community. We Are Pilgrims: Mission from, in and with the Margins of Our Diverse World. Edited by Darren Cronshaw and Rosemary Dewerse. Melbourne, UNOH: 263-278.
  • Hughes, Philip (2015). “Migrant Families and Churches.” Pointers 25(3, September): 1-8.
  • Kung, Arohn (2016). Interview. Chin Baptist Church Pastor. Kings Park, 14 March.
  • Noseda, Mary (2003). “The Relationship of the Catholic Church to Vietnamese Migrant Women in Australia.” Christian Research Association Bulletin 13(3): 10-13.
  • Tiatia, Jemaima (1998). Caught between Cultures: A New Zeland Born Pacific Island Perspective. Auckland, NZ, Christian Research Association.

 

This article is part 7 of a 9 part series, drawing on a paper “Transforming Training for Next Gen Karen and Chin Leaders” to be presented at the Children, Youth and Mission Study Group at the Assembly of the International Association for Mission Studies, August 11–17, 2016 in Seoul, South Korea, and a longer version BUV background paper “Training Next Generation Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Baptist Leaders for Mission” to be published in Philip Hughes (ed). Changing Faith in the Australian Culture (Melbourne: CRA, forthcoming 2016). The research is part of a 2016 Collier Charitable Fund supported BUV project “Training Next Generation Multicultural Baptist Leaders”. As author, Darren appreciates conversations with LOTE Church leaders and BUV staff, and welcomes feedback to darren.cronshaw@buv.com.au 

 

Source: BUV News

Articles, Education, Prophecy, Relationships, Teaching

FROM ‘DE FACTO’ TO ‘DE JURE:

FROM ‘DE FACTO’ TO ‘DE JURE:’
Finding Legitimacy in an Immoral World
Kameel Majdali
‘Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.’ –Hebrews 13:4

DE FACTO: Existence without legal or ecclesiastical recognition or sanction.
DE JURE: Existence by right according to law.
The clerk handed an overseas tourist her visa application. Immediately her eye spotted the section called ‘Marital Status,’ from which she could choose one of five options. These included:
[   ]  Single;
[   ]  Married;
[   ]  Divorced;
[   ]  Widowed; and…
[   ] De Facto.
Unclear on the last option, she asked the clerk what it meant. ‘De facto is when a couple lives together without being married,’ he replied.
‘Oh,’ she blurted out, ‘where I come from, we call that ”living in sin.‘”
Cohabitation or ‘The De facto Factor’
One of the disturbing, yet prevalent, trends in the western world is the practice of de facto relationships, also known as ‘cohabitation’ (Note: these terms will be used interchangeably). Whether you call it ‘de facto,’ ‘living in sin,’ ‘live-in girlfriend,’ ‘cohabitation,’ ‘common law,’ or even ‘trial marriage,’ a generation ago it was the exception; it was considered unacceptable, even wrong.
Today this phenomena is on the rise and considered a legal status. One recent statistic in Australia suggested that a whopping 80% of the couples that wed in a single year have lived together in a de facto relationship prior to the wedding (2014, cited by the Australian Bureau of Statistics).[1] A (liberal) Christian denomination in 2001 struck premarital sex and de facto relationships off their sin list, as part of being ‘consistent with society’s ways.’
Acceptance of de facto-living came as a gradual process with the rise of secular humanism and decline of Judeo-Christian moral standards. The culture wars, sexual revolution, contraceptive pill, abortion on demand, postmodernism with its denial of absolutes, have all contributed to this situation. No doubt Hollywood has played a major role in the proliferation of cohabitation. Glamorous high profile actors, usually after one or more failed marriages, move-in with another famous movie star, father children and live a celebrated lifestyle, egged on by gossip columnists who offer bite-size instalments for news-hungry, celebrity-obsessed fans.
Three Types of De facto Relationships
For Most, A Temporary Arrangement: Motivations for cohabitation seem to follow several streams. The first involves those who have never married and have no intention of doing so. They want readily available sex, shared financial resources, and companionship in the home. These living arrangements tend to be temporary; only 18% of these will be together after 5 years. This attitude can be described as a ‘de facto spirit,’ meaning they want the privileges and pleasures of marriage without the commitment and responsibility.
Never married but want to: The second type are also those who never married and are interested in eventual marriage but have a ‘try before you buy’ mindset.
De Facto before Remarriage: Third are those who have undergone divorce, suffer from the ‘once bitten, twice shy’ syndrome, and hence choose a de facto relationship as a necessary precursor to remarriage (if there is to be a marriage). Some older couples may choose to live together outside of marriage so as not to endanger any pension entitlements. Others, afraid of giving up their freedom and identity, choose to cohabitate with their boyfriend or girlfriend. If things don’t work out, they reason, all one needs to do is ‘move out’ without all the complications divorce brings. It’s that simple.
           
Is it? (Short answer: No)
Are There Any Benefits?[2]
Just because something is commonplace and permitted by society does not make it healthy and right. After all, cigarette smoking is legal but it can cost your thousands of dollars a year and have a detrimental effect on your health. Gambling also is legal and look at the trail of trouble and sorrow it has left.
           
Some claim that a de facto relationship helps prepare a couple for marriage and prevents divorce. Does it? Research suggests otherwise: couples that live in a de facto relationship before marriage are more likely to divorce than couples that wait until marriage. One statistic said that of couples who were married twenty years or more, 56% of those who lived as a de facto couple before marriage ended up in divorce, while 29% of those who never cohabited before marriage ended up in divorce. According to the Jubilee Report on cohabitation: ‘The idea that first cohabitations that lead to marriage do not result in an increased rate of divorce is not reflected by this data set: prior cohabitation with a spouse is associated with 60 per cent higher risk of divorce (emphasis mine).
Another study concluded that 75% of married couples were still together when their child turned 16; only 7% of de facto couples can make the same claim. That’s a ten-fold increased for the married couples. In Britain, the direct annual cost of family breakdown is GBP 41.7 billion. The Daily Mail Online, ‘Married Parents Ten Times More Likely to Stay Together,’ Sarah Harris (February 2010).[3]
TO BE CONTINUED:
In Part 02, we will look at the other negatives as well as how to go from ‘de facto to de jure,’ and how to gain legitimacy with God and people.


 FACTS ABOUT COHABITATION[2]

•       Over half of all first marriages are proceeded by cohabitation (University of Wisconsin document)
•       Cohabitation doesn’t reduce the likelihood of divorce–in fact it leads to a higher divorce risk. One study showed 46% higher risk (1992 Journal of Marriage and Family).
•       No positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has ever been found, not even sexual compatibility, as usually suggest (1993 Journal of Marriage and Family)
•       Cohabitants tend not be as committed as married couples, or prepared to work on their differences (1995 Journal of Family issues)
•       Particularly problematic is the area of serial cohabitation. It generates a greater willingness to dissolve later relationships. (1993 Journal of Family Issues)
•       About 60% of cohabitation ends in marriage (1989 National Study of Cohabitation
•       In general, cohabiting relationships tend to be less satisfactory than marriage relationship-s, with cohabiting couples reporting lower levels of happiness, sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, as well as poorer relationships with parents (Bumpass, Sweet & Cherlin’s 1991 study)
•       After five years, only 10% of cohabiting couples are together. They do not tend to permanency (Bumpass & Sweet’s 1989 study)
•       Married couples have substantial benefits over the unmarried in terms of labour force productivity, physical and mental health, general happiness and longevity (1994 American Journal of Sociology)
•       Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples is more than three times the married rate. (1990 Psychiatric Disorders in America)
•       Physical and sexual abuse of a spouse is much higher. One study showed evidence of being twice as high (1991 Journal of marriage and family)
•       Abuse is 20 times higher for children with cohabiting, but biological parents, but 33 times greater if the parent was cohabiting with a non-parenting male partner (1993 Family Education trust: London).
•       The 1996 poverty rate was 6% with married parents, but 31 % with cohabiting parents (1996 Journal of Marriage and the Family).
–taken from Leadership NOW! January 2000, page 12.