Most people believe only half of U.S. marriages make it. But a leading researcher is announcing the true divorce rate is much lower and always has been.
Shaunti Feldhahn received her research training at Harvard. She and her husband Jeff help people with their marriages and relationships through best-selling books like, For Women Only and For Men Only.
This Atlanta-based couple often quoted in their writings and at conferences what they thought was accurate research: that most marriages are unhappy and 50 percent of them end in divorce, even in the Church.
“I didn’t know,” Feldhahn told CBN News. “I’ve stood up on stage and said every one of these wrong statistics.”
Then eight years ago, she asked assistant Tally Whitehead for specific research on divorce for an article she was writing. After much digging, neither of them could find any real numbers.
That kicked off a personal, years-long crusade to dig through the tremendously complicated, sometimes contradictory research to find the truth. The surprising revelations are revealed in her new book, The Good News About Marriage.
“First-time marriages: probably 20 to 25 percent have ended in divorce on average,” Feldhahn revealed. “Now, okay, that’s still too high, but it’s a whole lot better than what people think it is.”
Shaunti and Jeff point out the 50 percent figure came from projections of what researchers thought the divorce rate would become as they watched the divorce numbers rising in the 1970s and early 1980s when states around the nation were passing no-fault divorce laws.
“But the divorce rate has been dropping,” Feldhahn said. “We’ve never hit those numbers. We’ve never gotten close.”
And it’s even lower among churchgoers, where a couple’s chance of divorcing is more likely in the single digits or teens.
What do the data below from the study suggest to you?
Read it all and see if your conclusions mesh with the author’s.
Very interesting, especially coming from the Toledo Blade. Personally, I couldn’t agree more. See what you think.
What makes Mr. Kasich much man, in my estimation, is a willingness to jeopardize that presidential possibility by going to bat for medical care for the poor and their children.
I also respect him for this: After 18 years in Congress and 10 years as a TV host and commentator and making big money in the corporate world, Mr. Kasich decided to run for a job that, if you do it right, requires you to make decisions every day, and many of those decisions make you enemies. He could have spent the rest of his days second guessing, pontificating, and counting his fortune. But he thought he could contribute, build something. His tremendous impatience with political pieties, cul de sacs, and promises makes him a rare bird. A former Washington colleague says: “He’s not a beltway thinker.”
In the end, Mr. Kasich is a political maverick trying to get things done. That means checking ideology at the door. He’s not only green, and compassionate, but he supported an assault weapons ban when in Congress. He also wants to keep taxes low and reinvent welfare.
What makes Kasich highly electable nationally probably makes him unnominatable. He doesn’t seem to much care.
Mr. Kasich had a conversion, or reconversion, experience before he re-entered politics. He doesn’t talk about it. It’s private. But he is serious about his Christian faith. “Nothing much bothers me,” he says.
Mr. Kasich is also a “gym rat.” He works out every day. I ask if he attends to his inner life daily as well. He gives me an extended caveat: He is not saintly, has many flaws, and on most days feels closer to Gandolfini than Gandhi. “But,” he says, “only a fool doesn’t.”
When most politicians say they got into politics, or came back to politics, “to give back,” I reach for my Rolaids and check for my wallet. When this guy says it, I believe him. He’d be a fine neighbor.
McKenzie’s experience at UW was generally my experience at Miami and it should be worrisome to anyone who values real academic freedom. Conn and his ilk have no such desire to support real academic freedom (and that should also concern those who pay for the tuition). Once again, McKenzie cuts to the chase. Good for him.
If I were to characterize my experience since coming to Wheaton four years ago, these are the words that first come to mind–divided no more. Wheaton is not a perfect place, nor did I expect it to be one when I came here. But I can honestly say that I have experienced much greater academic freedom at Wheaton than I ever did at the secular university that I left. Conn’s assertion that, in leaving UW for Wheaton, I have necessarily abandoned reason for dogma also mystifies me. That he assumes such a trade-off suggests that Dr. Conn is not entirely free of dogma himself. I could tell Conn about the intellectual excitement that abounds at Wheaton, about the brilliant colleagues I am privileged to work with (trained at places like Harvard and Yale and Duke and UNC), and about the extraordinarily gifted and motivated students that fill my classes, but I doubt that such a reasoned argument would sway him. Reason is rarely helpful in changing an opinion not grounded in reason to begin with.