Wednesday, August 29, 2007


I was just reading an article (to which I was referred by Ladies Against Feminism. The site is listing a lot of good articles recently.) that said the average 18 year old 100 years ago (back when it was common for 18 year olds to marry) were more mature than the average 28 year old of today (who is just starting to think about getting married). The difference is in education, example, and the one they mentioned was responsibility. Families were thrust upon these "children" (by their own, adult choice of course). And the young adults rose to the occasion and matured.

In contrast, we have today the kidult, adultescent, Peter Pan society where the 28 year olds are used to the world revolving around them with limited responsibility, so they aren't ready still to start a family and make life-long commitments.

What bothers me is the addition in these descriptions of kidults of their residence. They are derided for living at home. My question is, if they are not living at home, where would they live? In a hotel? Under a bridge? With a friend? Shouldn't we be encouraging adults, wherever they live, to be at home? Don't couples who get married live at home? Doesn't the Bible teach the importance of having a home and family?

Is the Bible suddenly inapplicable because a person is unmarried and over some arbitrary age for adulthood? Can a person not be responsible, mature, and still living at home? Weren't those very mature 18 year olds a hundred years ago still living at home?

Over my vacation I read a book called Journey of the Heart, in which the main character went from 22 to 24 years old, I believe. And she lived (with her parents) at home. But she was still maturing. Why? Because she was leaning on God to grow her. And because her parents were fascilitating that. They were training her for life and responsibility more than a college usually would, because they were giving her hands on responsibility (on the farm with the animals, helping to teach homeschool classes and even make the lesson plans). Even the younger (non-adult) siblings were being brought up for responsibility. They all had jobs on the farm. One sister was responsible for making breakfast, and another for lunch.

May I point out that their home was more effectively producing mature Christians who are ready for real life responsibilities and relationships than the independence of a college student who on the days he doesn't have classes sleeps in, eats Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and watches TV. Or the one who parties. Or all those adults who learn how to go into debt in order to buy: education, houses, fast food, cars, movie tickets, etc.

Another article on Ladies Against Feminism talked about how our culture devalues children because they're a hassle, an interference to my personal agendas. If we as Christians are going to reject that perspective on pregnancy, infants, toddlers, school-age children, and even teenagers, why does it stop when they cross the threshhold of age 18? Some might say that adult children living at home is a burden. Sounds like the people who say having a baby is a burden. Except less correct, because an adult child is able to, as in Journey of the Heart, contribute.

I have personal and Bible-derived reasons for living at home at my age. My dad has figured out that my goal is for him to marry me off to get rid of me. But I wanted to point out the illogical nature of those who casually associate live-with-parents adults with immaturity. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

To God be all glory.

1 comment:

Lisa of Longbourn said...

Dennis Prager on the radio this morning talking about the 20's and 30's stubbornly still a child phenomenon said that college is kindergarden. He allowed that young adults who go to "commuter college" while staying at home with their parents are more likely to grow up than those who move to college and live in a dorm.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn