The Pauline "unequally yoked" standard is a good and biblical one for Christians. Adding layers of meaning to it? Not so much. Mark Regenerus link
Butterfly Nebula- NASA
We ask our readers to bear with us over the next three weeks. Deb's daughter is getting married and I, Deb's best buddy, am hosting a shower, featuring Gigi's Cupcakes (a cupcake which, if consumed in its entirety, will necessitate repentance)! Interspersed in there will be family vacations. We will keep the blog going but our commenting will be a bit sparse. During this time, we may feature some unrelated posts instead of a series. We will also have a guest post or two. We plan to look at church roles and views on elders, pastors, etc in the following weeks.
Secondly, due to our schedules on Sundays, we will be slow in approving comments and will not be able to comment as much.
Melinda and Mark: A True Story (names and details changed)
Melinda is a dedicated Christian woman who volunteers with impoverished children. Due to health issues, she has had a hard time meeting eligible single men. One day, she took these children to a free clinic for checkups. In the course of the examination, she interacted with a pediatrician. At the end of the visit, he asked if he might call her. He did so and they planned their first date. Her girlfriends, all part of a conservative church, told her she shouldn't go out on a date with him because she didn't know if he was a Christian. She ignored them.
They dated several times and he admitted that he was not a Christian. She explained that she could not become serious with him because she was committed to marrying a Christian. However, her lifestyle and kindness so impressed Mark that he began to meet with her pastor and some of her other friends. Several months later, he was baptized and is now involved in the church. He is also planning to take a mission trip. Melinda and he are planning to be married in a couple of months.
A few of her conservative friends still disapprove of the relationship. Here are two of their "observations."
- He only became a Christian to marry her.
- He cannot be her spiritual leader since she has been a Christian so much longer than she has.
Dee will answer #1 at the end of the post. Mark Regenerus will discuss the problems with #2.
********************
Our children are in the that time of life when they are beginning to date with an eye towards marriage. Out of 5 children between us, one is about to be married and another one is headed that way. As we talk with them, we realize that some churches are setting up standards for one's future spouse. Females in many conservative complementarian churches are to "acquire" a man who is their "spiritual leader." Of course, just like other catch all words, a "spiritual leader" is ill-defined.
I asked one young woman, who said she wishes to marry such a leader, to define a spiritual leader in a marriage. She looked like a deer caught in the headlights. She muttered something about "He asks me about my prayer life and makes sure I read my Bible." I asked her what happens to women who do not marry. Do they have bad prayer lives or forget to read their Bible? She looked distinctly uncomfortable so I dropped the subject. But I became convinced that she was a victim of Christianese, spouting the standard without understanding how it is applied. It just sounds "right."
Before I begin, I want to stress we are not making any statements on the issue of interfaith marriages. We both know of such couples who have been successful and not successful. The purpose of this post is to highlight a very important, rarely discussed observation by Mark Regenerus which will affect people considering marriage within the evangelical sector.
I had read a number of articles on the difficulty Christian women, in particular, we having finding spouses. Christianity Today recently published an article that gave some potential reasons for this concern.
Is Interfaith Marriage Always Wrong, Given that the Bible Teaches Us Not to Be 'Unequally Yoked?' Link
The article featured responses from Mark Regenerus link, Naomi Schaefer Riley link, and Russell Moore link. TWW has covered Russell Moore's views on many subjects. Therefore I knew that his answer would be an emphatic "no." So, I was more interested in the views of Regenerus and Schaefer. It was Regenerus' response that startled me. However, it helps to begin with Russell Moore's response in order to better understand the wisdom of Regenerus' approach.
1. Russell Moore: "patriarchal authority"
Moore is Neo-Calvinist in his viewpoint. He takes a hard line approach to the roles of women, both within marriage and within the church. In fact, TWW has documented his strict views on this subject. Here is one post Russell Moore Tells Women to Stop Submitting to Men. He was trying to be clever but he means just the opposite of what he said. In fact,
Moore actually does not like the word "complementarian. He prefers the term "patriarchy."
Here are a couple of Moore's quotes from another of TWW's posts.(He believes a young woman should submit prior to even meeting her future husband which would make for a good episode on X Files.)
When a woman submits herself to her own husband or when a young woman who is not yet married submits herself to that future husband whose name she does not yet know, she is refusing to submit to men generally, so she's not seeing her identity in terms of how men view her in terms of sexual attractiveness and availability
For Moore, the husband and wife are to be… get ready… you can see it coming… get ready to duck….under the authority of the church. And, if the spouse is not a Christian, they can't "disciple" them. (Quotes from the CT article).
Marriage is not a merely social or biological construct, but an icon of the union between Christ and the church. Both husband and wife are held accountable to the community for the marriage itself.
But in a marriage of a believer to an unbeliever, the church has authority and discipling capacity over only one party. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit and the reign of Christ through his Word, only one party is able to live out explicitly the picture of the gospel embedded in the marriage.
It is important to understand that Moore is adding to the "marry a Christian" rule. A woman must now be submitted prior to meeting her husband. The marriage is supposed to be under the authority of the local church. Be assured. Moore has lots off rules and those rules, adopted by other Calvinistas and authoritarian based beliefs, may be causing trouble and pain, especially for women.
2. Naomi Schaefer Riley: Statistics on interfaith marriages, particularly involving evangelicals.
Naomi Schaefer Riley is a former Wall Street Journal editor and writer whose work focuses on higher education, religion, philanthropy and culture. All quotes are from the Christianity Today article.
According to a survey I commissioned in 2010 of 2,500 married Americans, about 42 percent of marriages today are between people from two different faith tradition.
About 30 percent of evangelical Christians are married to someone of another faith. Roughly one third of all evangelicals' marriages end in divorce, and that climbs to nearly half for marriages between evangelicals and nonevangelicals.
In my survey, interfaith couples did not report disagreeing about religion very often. Rather, the practices and rituals are more likely to affect our day-to-day lives and therefore our marriages. Religion informs how we spend our time, how we spend our money, where we decide to live, and how we raise our children. Disagreements over such issues can lead to unhappiness and divorce.
Riley did a good job of reviewing the potential pitfalls of interfaith marriages by using statistics to outline the particular concerns instead of being dogmatic.
3. Mark Regenerus: the unspoken/unrecognized real problem
Mark Regenerus is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, and a research associate of the university's Population Research Center and is well known for his studies on sexuality. Although Regenerus recognizes the issues surrounding interfaith marriage, he sees another serious problem with marriage between believers. (All quotes from Christianity Today)
But as marriage has shifted in purpose over time, many Christians have added layers of meaning onto Paul's wise command. "Unequally yoked" has evolved into a graded criterion for an optimal mate rather than a simple test for an acceptable one. This is a problem.
Why is this a problem?
Spiritual maturity is not equally distributed among men and women in the peak marrying years. Quality survey data reveal only two serious, churchgoing evangelical men for every three comparable women. Thus, one out of every three evangelical women is not in a position to marry a man who's her "spiritual equal," let alone "head."
Regenerus humorously translates the latest criteria for a spiritually "correct" man
Find that uncommon man who is your spiritual equal or leader, not to mention kind, virtuous, industrious, employed, and, if possible, handsome, and then figure out how to make him want to marry you."
Regenerus believes that these new idealistic rules for marriage are hindering marriage for many.
The pressure we put on marriage to be fabulously great is at an all-time high. Marriage is slowly becoming something that only an elite will attain on a natural timetable connected to their height of fertility. Thus, this is not the time to further restrict supply by adding layers of spiritual qualifications. Marriage is a good thing—a school for sinners and a source of grace—and I don't wish for Christians to miss out on it except by their own active choice or vocational call.
So, in review:
- There are only 2 serious churchgoing evangelical men for every 3 comparable women.
- "Unequally yoked" is being changed, in certain circles, to mean finding a spiritually equal or superior mate instead of finding an acceptable match.
- These new marriage "rules" are coming from the really "spiritually superior" pulpits.
- Therefore, 1/3 of all Christian women who are told they must follow these idealistic rules will not be able to marry.
- Besides, I am not sure if anyone can quantify what is meant by a "spiritual leader" anyway.
At the beginning of this post, I told you about Melinda and Mark. She was told by her friends that she should not continue the relationship because Mark only became a Christian to marry her. Besides bringing up the obvious "no,no" for judging the motives of someone that they do not know, I told her mother to have her daughter answer her friends, who grew up in Christian homes, this way. "I certainly can understand what you are saying. I have often felt the same way about kids who grow up in Christian homes. Don't most of them become Christians because of the teaching of their parents? They only become Christians because they want to please their parents. That, too, must be good enough, right?" Nuff said.
Melinda and Mark will be married soon, much to the delight of her parents and some of her friends.
Our musically gifted reader, Jeff S, just recorded this music video. Please enjoy.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 23:31-25:30 Acts 22:17-23:10 Psalm 2:1-12 Proverbs 18:13
i sure hope regenerus uses better statistical techniques in this study than he used in his gay parents “study”.
This jibes with the idea (first heard on Dr Laura years ago) that the female achieves neurological and personality “adulthood” a couple years before a male of the same age. My personal application was that the custom when I was of marriageable age was that bride & groom should be almost exactly the same age (bride no older and maximum three years younger than groom); this led to the potential problem that the bride would be psychologically older than the groom and drift into a permanent “Mommy and Teenage Boy” dynamic.
The joke is this is no joke. Back when I was flushing $$$$$ down the Christian Dating Service crapper, this should have been pre-printed on the women’s forms as “What I’m Looking For”. Every one seemed to want a Christianese Spiritual Giant so Spiritual that even Christ Himself couldn’t have measured up. Non-negotiable.
With the rise of Twitards, I finally had a name to put on it: “Christian Edward Cullen Syndrome”. (Shekinah sparkles and all.)
This is called (in Christianese) “Salvation by Marriage Alone”.
That is so much baloney pressure to put on a man and woman. What ever happened to real love? You know, the kind that bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. This doesn’t come from checking off a list of required characteristics for a prospective spouse. Love is the only thing that never fails, not a perfect “spiritual leader” husband. In my experience, that man does not exist. In the course of life, sometimes the husband will have greater faith and sometimes the wife will. You hold each other up when one is in need. These new requirements are more of the evangelical bubble that is ready to burst.
Regenerus’s study on LGBT parents is complete bunk. That said, his observations here don’t throw up any red flags.
On the “figure out how to make him want to marry you” thing, the relationship advice that was always pushed when I was in Navigators during college was that the woman was supposed to pray and wait for the man. Man = active. Woman = passive. How that fits in with everything else in the aforementioned list, I don’t know.
Hmm….if the woman is told to seek a man who is more spiritually mature the herself, wouldn’t that cause the man to be “unequally yoked?”
Another thought…historically, patriarchal groups have tended toward having there young girls married to much older men. Maybe that’s the hidden point?
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Ugh, shades of Morminism.
Lin wrote:
My thoughts exactly.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
This mess needs to be laid at the feet of the ones who created it: the pastors and high school/college ministry leaders who – I’ll grant, with the best of intentions – filled these young people’s heads with unrealistic expectations.
My two older kids were not only told to have “checklists” by their leaders, but the leaders guided all the kids in the ministry through a checklist development exercise in Sunday school. The checklists predictably promoted comp. stereotypes, which the leaders insisted were biblical deal-breakers for any potential date, let alone potential spouse.
Oddly, “loves the Lord”, “loves his/her neighbor”, and “desires to be like Jesus” weren’t included in the checklist for girls or for guys.
In another article in CP, http://tinyurl.com/msq5m54 Moore says something similar:
“God designed the one-flesh union of marriage as an embedded icon of the union between Christ and his church. Marriage and sexuality, among the most powerful pulls in human existence, are designed to train humanity to recognize, in the fullness of time, what it means for Jesus to be one with his church, as a head with a body.”
In this one, God actually DESIGNED marriage to be this “embedded icon” with the purpose to “train humanity…in the fullness of time”. Explain please?
I think the base assumption that marriage “pictures” the Gospel needs to be challenged strongly. At least one simple understanding of the Eph 5 passage is that the Gospel(Christ and the Church) is the example and married believers should follow that example. IE Christ “pictures” how a Christian husband should treat his wife– not vice versa.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
So very true.
There’s nothing wrong with godly characteristics for men or women, but often the Holy Spirit develops them in us while we’re in our relationship, not before. Kind of a trial by fire, I suppose.
A lot of the work in marriage is becoming who the Lord intends us to be in spite of what each of us brought into the relationship. If my husband and I had used these sorts of checklists, we never would have been friends let alone have been married for thirty years.
My kids have no hope of ever dating anyone from their (my former) church because neither of them measures up to the stereotypes being promoted. It’s such a shame that many loving, average church kids will lose out on friendships and potential marriages because everyone is being encouraged to chase after “gospel” fantasies.
@ Jenny:
@ Jenny:
“Gospel fantasies” for sure. With good odds of some very ungospelly miserable marriages.
“Unequally yoked” has been thrown in so many of our faces.
Believe me, a *lot* of women between the ages of 30-70 would be married (and possibly widowed as well, given the age range) if this wasn’t so relentlessly pushed on people.
Also, after 40 or so, the remaining bachelors in most churches tend to skew toward the fellas either being gay. Or just not interested. (HUG and other men, I mean *no* disrespect in saying this – it’s what I’ve encountered – especially the whole thing with gay men trapped in churches where they can’t tell the truth about their orientation without being treated as lepers at best.)
@ numo: I have little doubt that I would be married if this rule wasn’t so rigorously enforced.
sigh. If I’d stayed active in a Lutheran church, the odds would’ve been better, though not by much. A lot of men that I knew when I was younger wanted wives who would be stay-at-home moms who baked and cooked and all of that. (Again, *not* that I have any problem with moms staying home *if they want to,* but…)
Another thing not mentioned can be found in another one of Regnerus’ articles,”Sex is Cheap: Why Young Men Have the Upper Hand in Bed, Even When They’re Failing in Life.” A key quote is this: “An oversupply of women, however, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive culture.” While this is referring to secular life, and isn’t a perfect analogy (hopefully these few mature Christian men are waiting for marriage), it can also be applied. Because there are more Christian women out there (3 to every 2), a Christian man can be more picky. He can wait for the “hot” Christian woman he probably wants, and he can date other Christian women for fun in the meantime. While I don’t doubt that there are many, many Christian women who fall prey to praying for and only seeking that “Christian” Edward Cullen (btw, Headless Unicorn Guy, are you a fellow Brony?), I’m sure there are many men who want a “Christian” Pamela Anderson, Megan Fox, Natalie Portman, or other woman that fits their ideal physical attributes along with being a virgin and sweet and a good cook, or whatever their qualifications are, etc.
I guess you could say I was one of the “lucky” ones. (My standards were not even that high, other than the usual things any man or woman should want in a Christian mate.) I got that rare and uncommon man, but not until I was 33.
I can appreciate the desire for a woman wanting a strong man as her partner. When I was open to marriage, I wanted a Christian and a man with whom I could be weak. Not all the time, but someone who could the strong one on occasion.
The results: the men who were attracted to me were the ones who needed my strength. Didn’t happen. At the time, I couldn’t express my thoughts this way, but instinctively fled. One man saw that I was younger than he, was a Christian, and a chemist, as was he. He had decided that it was time for him to find a wife and marry. I was a good candidate. But, I wanted to play the field and felt suffocated by his desires. So it went nowhere, fairly fast.
Never did find anyone, and I stopped looking a long time ago. Probably best with my journey taking me around the country and from Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic. The guys I dated in grad school would have had serious problems with my conversion.
Had the spiritual life sucked out of you? A religious vine snake may be the culprit. http://calltorevolution.blogspot.com/2013/07/snakes-around-vine.html
Dave AA wrote:
lol that’s genuinely funny.
@ patrice:
It looks like I turned that phrase, rather than Dr Moore. 🙂 From the same article, another strange turn of phrase:(Especially in light of all the “discipline” discussion on the Stockdale thread.)
“For too long, we’ve refused to discipline a divorce culture that has ravaged our churches.”
CULTURE!!! If you don’t stop that divorcing RIGHT NOW there’ll be no dessert for a week!
Dave A A wrote:
It’s so sad that churches think that nearly all divorce is frivolous. It doesn’t occur to pastors that about half of divorces overall (and probably 60-70% of Christian divorces), are due to very serious situations. No sensible pastor would force their beloved son or daughter to stay in a relationship with felony assault and battery, infidelity, child p0rn, child sexual abuse, drug addiction, alcoholism, refusal to provide, etc.
Dave A A wrote:
There are no secrets from Sigmund. So tell me, Dr Moore, what do you reeeallllyyyy mean?
“For too long, we’ve refused to spank those divorcees for ravishing our church with their embedded culture!”
😆
Dave AA wrote:
Yes! I have heard that the primary purpose for marriage is as a picture of the Gospel. And that was followed up as it means that one spouse can do whatever they want to the other and not fear divorce, because marriages, like the Gospel, are unbreakable. Talk about going beyond what scripture says. I think the evangelical church has made an idol out of marriage, and this kind of talk proves it.
(I do believe the Gospel is pictured in marriage, but it is going too far to say that it’s entire or primary purpose is to picture the Gospel).
I do have one question, though. If the ratio is so high in favor of Christian men, where can I find all of those single women? (just kidding- don’t throw things!)
Dee, thanks so much for posting our video. I hope everyone enjoys it!
Jenny wrote:
Amen. Imagine a college student unwilling to talk with a cute adorable Christian girl because it “might cause him to lust.” These youth ministry people have filled kids with formulas that don’t work and promises that God won’t honor.
@ patrice:
Whether it’s Russell Moore, Wayne Grudem, or the bearded clerics of Iran, these guys are scared you-know-whatless of the primal power of women. In my own vain life under the sun, I have learned to celebrate the good that can come out of women of power. It was not John Brown’s insurrection at Harper’s Ferry that made Queen Victoria cry, it was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book.
As a man, I wanted to have a strong woman as my wife. One who could stand up to me, debate with me, and have an intellect equal to mine, and definitely not less. After 34 years, she is still the better exegete, debater, and has a will of her own. We are equals in all respects, just she has more skills in some areas and I in others. We share the cooking (both gourmets), she does the lawn and garden, I do the laundry, we split the child rearing pretty equally, with me doing two stints as Mr. Mom during transition times. At times, she did the finances, but I have now for ten years. I vacuum, she decorates.
New recipe: chop one med. onion, saute in 1-2 TBSP coconut oil. Add 1 c. sliced fresh mushrooms, and continue to stir fry. Add 1.5-2.0 c. peeled, “white tail” shrimp. Sprinkle sesame oil liberally, about 2 tsp. Add carrots sliced on diagonal and microwaved for 2 mins. Add 1-2 c. broccoli florets. Sprinkle very liberally with soy sauce, stir and cover for 2-3 minutes. Serve over rice.
Re: SGMOvercomer,
The Vine Snake blog post was very descriptive. I just ran into one that looked just like a strong branch, but it bit me. Fortunately, I’ve been building up my anti-venom and recognized the familiar bite marks. I have a wound, but it should heal quickly this time.
I asked women what a “Spiritual Leader” is supposed to look like?
Here are some of the responses:
1. The man is supposed to be the initiator in how to spend their money, time, efforts, in sex, in prayer, in choosing a house, in choosing a church, in choosing a political stance, etc…
2. The man is supposed to do the bills.
3. The man is supposed to find out God’s will for them and lead them in doing it.
4. The man is supposed to lead a weekly family time.
5. The man is supposed to lead prayer and Bible study daily.
6. The man is supposed to lead in the homeschool decisions and endeavor.
7. The man is supposed to do the talking for the couple.
8. The man is supposed to decide the opinions expressed by the family.
9. The man makes the decisions.
10. Etc….
It was then that I realized we are placing unrealistic expectations on these poor men to bear a burden that was not meant for them to carry alone. Just where is it that I want a man to lead to me? I kept thinking, “But I’m a person, too!” I’m an actual human being with emotions, thoughts, decision-making abilities, contributing wisdom, as well as one who is also responsible for for what I think, say and do.
No wonder the more we women talked of wanting strong male leadership the more the men vanished into the woodwork. I think we’ve been creating stress and unrealistic expectations for me for far too long, regardless of how you slice the submission scriptures.
Unrealistic expectations for MEN … not “me.”
Janey wrote:
More like he’s unwilling to talk to her because he already knows she’ll reject him. After all, she already has the Perfect Boyfriend, the Perfect Husband. His name is Jesus, and all mortals like us fall short.
Katie wrote:
As I said above, even Christ Himself couldn’t measure up to her non-negotiable expectations of Christianese Perfection. (I saw this too many times when I was flushing $$$$$ down the Christian Dating Service crapper.)
Never mind the how the man is supposed to have time for a job or a life with all those Spiritual Leadership demands.
Huh? So, is Doc Emmett going to get this hypothetical young woman into the Time Machine DeLorean, so she can meet her future husband then go back in time to submit to him? I hope she has a working flux capacitor.
Back In Time: Huey Lewis And the News, Back To The Future theme
I never totally understood the “spiritual leader thing.” Even at my most Christian-y, I just wanted a Christian guy, someone who had accepted Christ. I wasn’t really looking for a “leader.”
I’ve given up on the “equally yoked” thing, too. That keeps a lot of Christian women from being able to marry if they stick to it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
If it cheers you up, the females come across the male equivalents to the that, on occasion.
Some single Christian men (usually the idealistic 20-somethings in singles Christian forums) insist on a woman who has the spiritual chops and devotion of Mother Theresa but who looks like Scarlett Johansson.
I remember one guy on one singles forum a few years ago who was so spiritual and touchie feelie about his description of his ideal wife, I thought good luck, buddy, you’re going to need it, because he was describing a cariacature, not any real woman I had ever met.
He had stuff in his list of wants in a mate like, “someone who loves Jesus so much, she will have no love for me left, so much love for her savior that her heart will burst, that if I said No, I will not marry you, she will not blink and say ‘I can live with that because Jesus is all I need’. She will want to feed orphans by hand in Africa; she will read a book of the Bible in ten languages every day…” (and on and on like that). And reading his wish list I was like 😯 and 🙄 and 😕
But yeah, I’ve seen a lot of extremely spiritual sounding Christian women like that on singles forums.
I’ve met a few in real life, too. I don’t mean to insult anyone’s devotion to Jesus, but I cannot withstand (for too long) the company of any Christian who cannot talk about anything or anyone else.
Also, if it makes you feel any better – and I know I am supposed to be out of the demographic – but I don’t like Twilight.
I wouldn’t say I hate Twilight, but it’s silly. Even when I was a teen girl, and stuff like that was being released for teens, I thought it was ridiculous.
Josh wrote:
That’s what I’ve always heard, but in the past few months, I’ve heard from a few young single Christian males (one in his 20s, I think the other one was 20s, too maybe 30s) who say their preachers/ leaders are telling the men to wait too. I assume that the women at their churches are told to wait as well.
If the women wait, and the men wait, and they all just sit there like a bump on a log, nobody is going to marry. Someone has to approach someone and ask them on a date or ain’t nobody getting married.
The older I get the more idiotic I’m finding a lot of Christian views on things, and this is one of them.
I also don’t see how the Bible’s teachings on waiting on the Lord fit into the marriage thing anymore.
I’m seeing more and more women on the internet who say they are 50-something (and a few 60s ladies), they have never married, and they say they hoped on a spouse, they waited, they prayed and waited for one, and are still waiting!
So I’m wondering if God is a total deist on this, that He walks off, and leaves it all up to people? If that’s the deal, I don’t understand the teachings about waiting on God, and the stories of people who did not and messed things up (such as Sarah and Abraham and Ishmael/Hagar).
@ Dave AA:
It kind of bothers me that so many preachers continue to point to marriage between a man and a woman as the ultimate or best or whatever expression of God and the church, because singles also represent that relationship.
Jesus said after this world is done, there is no more marriage. Every one will be “single” in the afterlife/ kingdom of God, even people who are married on earth.
Singles are “married” to Jesus because they are part of “the Bride,” too.
Katie wrote:
The downsides to the man of this list:
11. Unfortunately is allergic to Kryptonite
12. Is in love with a woman named Lois Lane
13. Won’t make it to dinner most nights – too busy fighting with Zod or Lex Luther a lot
I have seen a few complementarian guys who act more than willing to take over a wife completely, so they might be fine with doing all those items on the list… I don’t think they realize that being a total king-like figure to another person will be very draining after awhile.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
To be fair to the Christian ladies, though, not all of them believe in that hokey “Jesus is my boyfriend” or “the Lord is my husband” stuff – I never thought that way and it makes me wince to read it or hear women talk about God that way – and we would sit around wondering why men wouldn’t approach us to ask us out in churches.
It’s all well and good to find fulfillment knowing God, but I do think some women carry the analogy of “Jesus = Boyfriend” too far. At times I have seen women do the “Jesus = Boyfriend” shtick on singles forums on the internet, I don’t say anything to them, but inwardly, I’m like 🙄
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Look HUG, I can’t buy that! Kal-El found a way to work full time at the Daily Planet, change into Superman’s costume, battle Lex, and romance Lois Lane.
If he can do all that (and sometimes fly home to visit Mom Kent on the farm), you can too. 😆
I have a theme song for you, for these kinds of ladies:
“Personal Jesus” by Depeche Mode
@ Jeff S:
I really enjoyed your music video!
Dave AA wrote:
Exactly! There is not one word about authority in that passage. It reflects Christ’s laying down His life for those He loves.
Daisy wrote:
We’ve seen some of these widows who’ve had men like this (Criteria 1-10 + yours Daisy + the husband did all driving + all shopping). When the men pass, the women are empty shells. They have no thoughts, no plans, no goals, no future. They are like little rag dolls. Far from being honored and admired, their friends pity them and are shocked at the selfishness of a man who didn’t want his wife to be competent. And of course the woman went along with it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Don’t get me started on that topic. One of my closest women friends calls it “Pay-per-rejection.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
She ended up marrying a real nut job. He was so immature, it was hard to sit through the wedding. Even the pastor who presided couldn’t figure out anything to say about his character other than he was always punctual. (Punctual?) Her family was shocked and tried to maintain dignity, but certain family members were outraged.
How did he get such a gem of a girl? He ranted and screamed over and over in his “vows”: “I will pursue you and pursue you and pursue you.” I guess she got a “spiritual leader.”
Thanks for letting me rant.
Arce wrote:
That’s fantastic. I’m glad you and Mrs. Arce are happy. Insecure men need to marry down so they always feel competent. It’s always wonderful to see a great marriage of equals.
As Homer said 2500 year ago:
So let me get this straight. The male in a marriage must be more spiritual than the female, and the female must defer to the judgment of the male in all things, even before she marries him. And that is supposed to show how God relates to the church.
Except, consider the marriage of Mary of Nazareth and her husband Joseph. Oh, my. Do we not have to conclude that Jesus himself did not grow up in a home like that? Did Mary check it out with Joseph concerning a certain unusual pregnancy? Who said what when Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem at age twelve? Did Mary tell the people at the marriage in Cana that they better ask Joseph? Who went looking for Him when people said He had lost His mind? Who all stood at the foot of the cross while He died? Who wan mentioned by name in the upper room at Pentecost? Even if one does not value extra-canonical traditions there is ample evidence in scripture alone to conclude that that marriage did not live up to neo-calvinist requirements.
I am waiting for the neo-calvinists to criticize her for an inappropriate marriage, setting a poor example and perhaps even some poor parenting as a result of her poor choices of a spouse. Oh, wait, we protestants are not supposed to even mention her name. I forgot. Sorry about that.
@ Deb:
Thanks!
@ Nancy:
There was a woman who commented on ACFJ that her church told her she need to pray and read scripture less so her husband (an abusive man) didn’t feel like she was subverting him (or some nonsense, I actually don’t understand the logic).
At some point this stuff looks so little like the church described in the NT you have to wonder what is going on. I really think it’s like the frog boiling to death in the pot. You accept a little misguided theology, then you just keep turning the heat up and you don’t notice what’s going on (but everyone on the outside sees that you are in hot water).
Daisy wrote:
That doesn’t sound spiritual to me. The actual test for loving God is that you can love people (John was very clear on that point), so someone who has so much love for “Jesus” that she/he has no love left for her/his spouse is no spiritual giant but a desperately deceived spiritual invalid. Though you’re right, of course, Daisy, in that such people don’t really exist.
I wonder if the chap who wrote that bit of surrealist poetry had just finished a bottle of wine or something. Or perhaps he’d been listening to a seminary graduate Preaching The Biblescriptures™ and thought it was from God.
P.S. At least, I hope such people don’t really exist.
A marriage is under the authority of the church? Russell Moore is a philosopher first which is why he is able to utter such elementarily errant thoughts.
1Cor. 11:3 states that in the context of marriage the office of husband (the man) is accountable directly to Christ, his head.
There are two and only two officers in a marriage, the husband and wife. This is true from Adam onward. There is no precedence for ecclesiastical interference in the government of human marriage in the Bible, explicit or implied.
This oversight by Moore is common with Neo-Calvinists who have a rational?ized theology which often retro-fits or overlooks plain declarations of Scripture.
@ Jenny:
These checklists of banal academic stereotypes are strongly reminiscent of medieval (and neo-medieval Victorian British) Christian thought. Specifically, Christian teaching on sexuality, marriage and relationships in general was presided over by a celibate clergy for many centuries. In some parts of the church it still is, of course.
Which is why so much of this teaching is not simple, living truth upheld by the same Holy Spirit who authored scripture. Instead, it is evolved teaching that has blended the academic trends and culture of the time with fashionably-quotable fragments of scripture, to create a plethora of man-made rules that only someone whose heart is far from God could truly fall in love with.
Nancy wrote:
Good points. Nor did Mary ask her father if she should be speaking to angels. Also, there is no mention of her asking permission ( from betrothed or her father) to go visit her cousin Elizabeth either. And as recorded in scripture, she was young. 🙂
Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Since I’ve oft been quoting the WCF to point out the differences between what some neocals do and historic Reformed Theology, it seems fair that I point out a statement from the WCF I disagree with that supports this idea the marriage is “under the church.” Concerning divorce, the WCF states:
“. . .a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.”
This idea that it is for the church to judge a divorce situation is something I disagree with. I DO think the church needs to get involved in a situation where someone is “treacherously divorcing”- that is, a spouse leaving for a new partner and expecting to be left in good standing with the church, but this idea that a victim in a divorce must yield to the church and “not be left up to his/her own will” is not a good idea, or Biblically warranted as far as I can tell. The “not left to their own wills” language is the kind of thing that is the church overstepping, and is an attitude rightly criticized by this blog.
Lin wrote:
So right. I had not thought of those examples. Some of us need to pay more attention to Mary’s life and example.
@ Arce:Awesome wife and awesome recipe. Many young men in churches are being taught to find submissive women. Strong women are looked upon as usurpers.
And, to be frank, many women have bought into this paradigm. Mary Kassian, purveyor of the invention of complementarianism, cannot define what she means. In one instance she is talking about staying home with the kids and taking care of the house. In the next breath she denies this is the case.
Then we have John Piper decrying muscular women.
We have confused leaders and speakers who cannot define their paradigm. So they just keep on talking and talking about if and never reach a consensus or conclusion.
I do think it is rather funny that these folks push everyone to get married but have set up a system which guarantees 33% will not marry.
@ Katie: GReat comment.
Janey wrote:
Punctual? I would love to meet this guy. Pursue and pursue and pursue… Sounds a bit weird to me.
Nancy wrote:
You forgot-even before she meets him…
Good comment about Mary.
Marriage is not a merely social or biological construct, but an icon of the union between Christ and the church. Both husband and wife are held accountable to the community for the marriage itself.
But in a marriage of a believer to an unbeliever, the church has authority and discipling capacity over only one party. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit and the reign of Christ through his Word, only one party is able to live out explicitly the picture of the gospel embedded in the marriage.
What do you think? Should this be called the Gospel of Authoritarian Hierarchical Lifestyle, or simply the Gospel of Subordination? The first is more descriptive but it’s a bit cumbersome. The second is much easier but assumes pre existing understanding of the issues. I’m torn….
Katie wrote:
Agreed.
dee wrote:
Well, perhaps she’s late a lot. 🙄
@ formerly anonymous:
Or the Gospel of Overbearing Ecclesiastical Tyranny. Still a bit cumbersome, though. 😕
Daisy wrote:
I hope the guy had enough $$$$$$ to pay for a mistress or prosties on the side, because he won’t have a marriage to speak of. She’d be too Spiritual, so Gnostic Pneumatic she wouldn’t even exist in the physical universe. Why would she want anything to do with a mere mortal like him?
The thing is, during the Xian Dating Service fiasco, that wasn’t the male “what I want”, it was the female self-description. The female “What I Want” was a gender-flip of it with added Shekinah Sparkles.
At the very least, this does not sound like a realistic expectation. I’d have a better chance with Twilight Sparkle or Fluttershy for real than that. (Though the description sounds more like he’s aiming for Princess Celestia…)
P.S. And to kick it up another notch, did that “What I Want” ideal Uber-Xian Wife above also include 44DDs and fulfilling every sexual fantasy the guy had been building up over the years of virginity?
dee wrote:
The way I look at it, we’re headed for hard times. In hard times, a “What Is Thy Will, Milord Husband? How Might I Better Submit?” piece of domestic livestock is a liability. In hard times, you want a Partner who’s got your back, and when things really go south a household pet with Benefits(TM) is just a liability that’s gonna get you killed.
dee wrote:
I have always had a soft spot for the Amazon archetype.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Not just “celibate clergy”. Celibacy Uber Alles clergy. Celibates who had been to sworn to celibacy around age six, with the Law of God and Nature that Celibacy = Highest form of Spirituality.
I belong to a church with celibate clergy, and it’s nothing near that level these days. The Middle Ages firewalled celibacy literally to the point of absurdity. And paid for it in clergy sex scandals and Driscollian “Visions” among Uber-Celibates who really weren’t cut out for it but figured they had to.
Found via Facebook – makes some interesting points about marriage:
http://theartinlife.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/my-husband-is-not-my-soul-mate/
In that case it is involving itself still only with an ecclesiastical master, church membership, and not the marriage itself.@ Jeff S:
@ Alex Guggenheim:
It’s really, really close to the line. When a church refuses to allow a marriage to be dissolved, then it is making judgments about what has gone on within that marriage and whether said behavior was acceptable.
It’s not hard to get from there to an attitude where the marriage is controlled by the church.
Deb – What an exciting (and busy) time for you! Congrats on the happy event.
Nice video, Jeff! Love your partner’s voice as well.
Daisy wrote:
That’s what Patriarch-Arranged Marriages are for.
I’m close to 60 with a bum prostate, AND the gender-flip version of that. At least after my breakup with Ann some 30 years ago.
You don’t mention all the “Pray About It, Trust The LOORD, Be Content With Your Singleness” Christianese coming from those who all married at 18.
Arlene wrote:
In my experience, A Soul Mate(TM) is NEVER the one you’re married to. Every time I’ve heard the term used, it’s the one you’re screwing on the side.
Main Exception: Used by a Bella gushing over her abusive EDWARD (sparkle sparkle) or a Harley Quinn gushing over her Joker.
Jeff S wrote:
A thousand years ago in Europe, “primary purpose as a picture of the Gospel” was vowing celibacy at age six and entering a monastery to spend the rest of your life in Prayer and Meditiation. Or becoming a celibate priest.
@ patrice:
Maybe he’s been reading too many tawdry romance novels!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Could that be where crazy-dom is headed? I know a number of home school families in my area with post-school age daughters who are still at home beyond the expected time. Arranged marriages would be one way to fix that. With courtship, they’re already almost there.
@ Bridget:
Thanks! Jenny has a great voice- about 1,000x better than mine. I’m grateful to have her sing with me.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
As conservative evangelicals are slowly waking up to the fact that ex-gay
enterprisesministries don’t work, I suspect we’ll see the recognition of a new class of Protestant celibacy. I wonder, how will this newly visible class respond to being told that, despite their obedience, they’re still second class citizens when it comes to modeling the “gospel”?But in a marriage of a believer to an unbeliever, the church has authority and discipling capacity over only one party. Without the indwelling Holy Spirit and the reign of Christ through his Word, only one party is able to live out explicitly the picture of the gospel embedded in the marriage.
So, let me get this straight, the purpose of a person being a believer and being indwelled by the Holy Spirit and experiencing the reign of Christ through his Word (as interpreted by Russel Moore) is so the church can have authority and discipling capacity in their life? And marriage has no any purpose outside of the church and its authority then? What happens in a marriage of unbelievers when one partner becomes believer? The marriage is a waste?
I didn’t become a Christian so that the church could have authority and discipling capacity in my life. Maybe many of us turned to Christ for the wrong reasons? I’m sure Jesus Christ doesn’t mind being put on a shelf for the sake of authority and discipling 🙄
These guys are power mungers in the church, in marriage, and hopefully NOT anytime soon in government.
What dies this mea
Evangelicals, take heart! Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and their buddies are working overtime to browbeat men into spiritual maturity (as they define it) and restore a masculine feel to Christianity! This problem won’t exist in another decade.
(NB #1: this is sarcasm. Feel free to sprinkle the modifiers “biblical” and “gospel” throughout.)
(NB #2: there are several Amys posting now, so I’ve changed my handle to AmyT for clarity.)
@ Bridget:
Ick! Accidentally posted too soon.
What does “to live out explicitly the picture of the gospel embedded in the marriage” actually mean? How does anyone do this?
AmyT wrote:
I hope you don’t mind if I add “winsome” in there at least once. It adds even more gospelly feng shui. 😀
AmyT wrote:
“WOMAN, SUBMIT! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!!!”
Josh wrote:
All that’s missing is paying the bride-price (cash on the barrelhead) and/or negotiating political alliances between families a la Game of Thrones.
Occasionally you hear of the first in the Christianese Courtship Movement. The secondhand example I heard somewhere on these blogs was guy paid $2000 to the girl’s father for the girl and got very pissed when she bailed out before the wedding.
Josh wrote:
I knew I was forgetting something!
AmyT wrote:
Mark Driscoll’s SEXY BACK gospel being brought to your assembly soon!
Sectarian*
Elitist
Xtreme
Youth
Bestowing
Authoritarian
Calvinistic
Kingship
*Because them other boys don’ know how ta act.
Get yo sexy on. 😎
Josh wrote:
Yes! What we’re seeing now would have been seen as fringe 15 to 20 years ago. Now it’s going mainstream. Arranged marriages is only the logical progression.
@ Janey:
When the woman only does “women roles” and the husband does only “men roles” and then one of them is gone, there’s going to be an awfully hard time coping with day-to-day tasks. Nobody should be so utterly dependent on another.
Bridget wrote:
As it was explained to me, it means that you offer endless forgiveness no matter how much your mate transgresses against you. It’s a picture of the Gospel because you sin against each other and forgive each other without measure.
@ Jeff S:
. . . and all sin is equal – NOT
I just watched the video interview between Mark Brown and Barbara. It was great! I’m in total agreement with what was said there. I need to get Barbara’s book for a close friend who became a believer (her husband is not), is married to an alcoholic, they have three children age 11 and under. I am concerned about what her church is telling her, or what she herself believes, about her situation. 🙁
@ Jeff S:
AND how does that exhibit the kingdom of God coming to earth! Does letting sin and unrighteousness continue, without any change or repentance, really exhibit the kingdom of God to the world? Continuing to live with an unrepentant (unchanging) abuser is ENABLING that person to continue to sin. The world at large seems to understand this better than Christians.
@ Bridget:
Her book is EXCELLENT and I would definitely recommend it to anyone struggling with this question. Also David Instone-Brewer’s book “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible”, though Barbara’s is more accessible to the lay reader. They actually approach the question from different angles, but both are very compelling.
And of course, ACFJ is a good place to send anyone who is struggling with an abusive marriage. Just reading the comments alone and hearing other people’s stories can help abuse victims validate that they really have experienced what they think they have.
@ Bridget:
The real issue is that likening a marriage to the Gospel breaks down at some point. It wasn’t intended to be a complete analogy in scripture. When Paul tells men to love their wives as Christ loved the church, we have to be careful about trying to turn such a man into his wife’s savior.
There IS a dynamic of intimacy and forgiveness in the marriage that models the church and Christ. But there is a sinless partner in the Christ/Bridegroom relationship, and that’s a pretty big difference.
Incidentally, when I listened to R.C. Sproul teach on marriage, he said the primary purpose of marriage was a cure for loneliness. How unspiritual, eh? (And yet, this is completely supportable from scripture, if not definitive). He goes on to say that marriage is a mirror of our relationship to God because it is the only relationship where we can be naked and vulnerable, and yet accepted and loved. Wow- that is quite a different definition of marriage from “a picture of the Gospel”. And he goes on to say that the reason that divorce is so bad is because it is taking the vulnerability and intimate trust of your mate and saying “I reject you”. Of course, this is the same statement being made in an adulterous or abusive marriage as well (Sproul is not a permanence guy), and I find it a very moving description of the dynamic of marriage.
@ Jeff S:
It’s not unspiritual when you consider God saying that it is not good for man to be alone 🙂
@ Jeff S: I’ve gotta say that I believe viewing marriage as a magic cure-all for loneliness is just so wrong in all kinds of ways.
No matter how close a couple is, no matter how well-matched, there is *no* way that all of any human being’s emotional (etc.) needs can be met solely by a spouse or partner.
I think this is part of the pack of lies being foisted on many, and not just by evangelical churches. When I was in grade school, one of the pop songs that got played on the radio a lot was “You’re Nobody Until Somebody Loves You.” The poison contained in the lyrics was deeply harmful to me, and – I’m sure – to many, many others.
And yeah… I thought for a long time that marriage would cure my loneliness.
Our society is fragmented in a way that makes it harder for people to form longstanding friendships and to keep up good family relationships. You’d think that – logically speaking – we’d gravitate toward a more community-oriented model in churches, but no…
Of course, the emphasis on Marriage Above All is awfully hard on those whose spouses have died… see Internet Monk’s latest post, which speaks to that and much more re. aging. (Am in my late 50s now, so it really hit home for me.)
Oops – “You’re Nobody ‘Til Somebody Loves You.”
@ Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You could say that celibacy was just one aspect of self-inflicted privation that was firewalled in the Middle Ages. But there are, perhaps, other parallels today with the creation of a whole culture on sexuality by a clergy class knowing little or nothing about it. I rather think “nouthetic counselling”, complementarianism and a whole host of other doctrinal potions brewed from selected fragments of Biblescripture™ owe their existence to the firewalling of “the sufficiency of scripture”.
This notion has been used in many circles to exorcise the Holy Spirit from the church. Hence Moore’s bizarre phrase “the reign of Christ through his Word” (capitalisation in the original). Even Jesus himself has been returned to his tomb so that an elite few Biblescholars can rule for themselves in his name, unhindered by any attempt on his part to speak in real time to his people today. At the same time, it fosters the delusion that if one has a little Bible training one is competent to pronounce with authority on any and every subject.
@ numo: Coda (somewhat unrelated, but): I wish there were pop songs about close friendship and children and grandchildren and long-term partnered love (whether in marriage or out of it), not just songs about intense romantic passion.
We lionize certain things about life that are rather fleeting, and ignore all that which lasts but is, by nature, more mundane.
And that makes me sad.
@ Nick Bulbeck: I’m not entirely sure that the “clergy class” knew nothing about sex – if your do some digging into medieval (and later) history, it becomes clear very quickly that many monasteries and convents and bishop’s palaces were pretty rife with people having sex… the non-strict orders were part of the privileged class, after all. Many monks (and, to a lesser extent, nuns) lived surrounded by luxury. Monastic reform movements were, in part, attempts to get rid of all that and go back to basics and/or make the basics almost unbelievably austere.
numo wrote:
Numo, I was wondering about something related to this.
A lot of things I was taught as a Christian kid/teen, or just heard in sermons, or from reading Christian magazines, seems to rely on scare tactics to make people stay in line.
When it comes to interfaith marriages/ mixed marriages, for instance, when I was looking up articles about it a few years ago on the web, most of the Christian pages I found were filled with warnings and all kinds of scary examples of what can happen if a Christian marries an atheist (or Jewish person, or what have you).
One page I read was a very long one by a Christian lady who said she married a Non Christian, and she got quite detailed about how awful the marriage / husband was, and I think she divorced him.
So she warned Christian women to don’t take the risk by marrying a non believer, just stay single.
The other pages on the topic seem to be by Christians who aren’t in a mixed marriage themselves, but they rattle off bullet point lists at Christian singles of all the things that can and will go wrong if you marry a non-believer.
Every time Pat Robertson gets a viewer question to his program about a Christian dating a Non-Christian, he loves to quote to them (he attributes this to evangelist Billy Graham), “a Christian who marries a Non Christian has Satan for a father in law.”
Robertson tells them to “move on” and sometimes he says
“find someone else to date, a Christian next time” – as though there is an endless supply of single Christian men for women to choose from (there is not).
There’s this dreary portrait painted by many Christians who offer commentary on this topic that if you, a Christian, marry a Non Christian, your marriage will be ‘demonic Heck on earth’ and you will be miserable.
I did find a forum about a year ago on a Christian board about interfaith marriage. But several of the Christian ladies said their marriages to their non-believing spouse was going okay. They did not say their marriages were awful or that their atheist husbands beat them up.
The Bible does appear to teach the “only marry another believer” idea (via the ‘yoked’ verse), but living this out in real life does not appear possible.
Christians are instructed to ‘marry if you burn with lust,’ but then, at that, only marry another Christian.
So what do you do if you want to marry and ‘have Tex’ (put an ‘S’ on the word ‘Tex,’ don’t want this post sent to moderation), but there are no Christian partners??
I also can’t reconcile any of this with teachings about God is supposedly the great provider, rely on Him, ask Him for whatever you want/need, and He will provide it. So you do all that – but then God does nothing.
I see Christian, adult, single men on other sites upset or complain that Christian women who marry Non Christian guys, and I feel for them.
But I hope they understand women like me, who was a Christian for years, kept holding out for a Christian male, but I never came across one (other than my ex, but that relationship did not work).
At my age, the reality is, there aren’t many single Christian guys my age, so I may have to marry a non-believer, if I want to get married. Or else a divorced guy, which is also considered a “no no” among many Christians.
But then, I’m not sure I’m quite Christian anymore, so this might be all moot for me, but I’m still interested in discussing the unbearable, bizarre, unfair situations Christian singles get backed into by the Bible and by preachers / churches.
Christians are more than willing to tie up burdens on the shoulders of singles (the never married adults, and the divorced) by telling them they can never marry a non believers/ cannot remarry. We’re supposed to live without companionship until we die, never getting our Texual (put the S on there) itch scratched.
All the Christians gung-ho about Christian singles not getting married to atheists, or divorced folks not being able to remarry are usually, it seems to me, the guys that got married at 21, are still married to the same lady, and are likely getting their Texual needs met.
Some of these guys teaching this are famous preachers who later get caught with underage girls, or with prostitutes, which adds insult to injury.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I picked up on that as well. He has made the Word (Bible) supreme as opposed to Jesus himself!
@ numo:
I agree! And God didn’t say “it is not good for man to be unmarried.” “Alone” is the word used and alone describes a wide variety of circumstances.
@ numo:
I agree, and I don’t view it that way. And in fact, I don’t actually think Sproul really views it that way, despite him making the statement. I DO like that he makes marriage about serving OUR needs and desires rather than only about “a picture of the Gospel” which takes what we desire out of the picture completely. That’s what I intended to emphasis, though I realize making the statement that marriage is a “cure for loneliness” is ultimately an error in a different direction.
@ Bridget:
Yes, I think women ARE necessary in the grand scheme for our race to be what it is, as are men. That is more the context of “alone” I think of when I read that scripture.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Why should black civil rights, gay rights, and medical marijuana be the only things “seen as fringe 15 to 20 years ago” to be going mainstream?
Very often “fringe” becomes “mainstream” becomes the new “that’s the way we’ve always done things” on a three-generation cycle.
Jeff S wrote:
Which in a generic sense turns “Gospel” into just another crushing System.
“Our Duty to The Party…”
numo wrote:
I’ve had to slake that desire with large doses of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic streamed from YouTube (at least until I got the whole-season DVDs).
How come colorful cartoon ponies get the point and all these pop singers and Spiritual Giant Bible Scholars don’t?
(Either Tolkien, Lewis, and/or Chesterton claimed that the core of a culture’s storytelling was their children’s literature — especially “fairy tales” with all-ages appeal and demonstrated staying power.)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Wait! I think I can answer that.
“For God chooses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.” (from memory)
Even the foolishness of colorful cartoon ponies from a magical land.
Janey wrote:
Yes, that is a problem with the complementarian teachings, which as I’ve said before, is codependency under another name.
The fact is some women may never marry. Some may marry but the husband dies of cancer or something else.
With some women, their husband develops Alzheimer’s in his 50s or so, and even though he is alive, she becomes a “living widow.”
I have an Aunt whose spouse, my Uncle, was in an auto accident, when they were in their 50s. Brain damage occurred to the uncle in the accident. My Aunt had to put him in a nursing home, and he died about two years later.
This blog did a story a couple years ago about the young wife who had to take on all responsibility because her military husband (IIRC) came back home (from Iraq?) in a wheelchair with brain damage.
The gender complementarian teachings keep women too dependent on the spouse. The reality of life is that a woman might not always have a husband to depend on.
And with churches idolizing the traditional family/marriage, people who are single (never married, divorced, leaving abusive marriages, widowed) do not usually get the emotional or financial support they need from the rest of the church. They become shunned or forgotten.
Shannon H. wrote:
I never married. While I sure wouldn’t mind someone doing the “women role” of cooking (especially if she’s a better cook than me), I’ve always done my own cooking, my own laundry, my own basic house maintenance. (Cleaning’s a whole ‘nother matter; when you’re an absent-minded messy and your roomie’s a borderline hoarder, it’s pretty much impossible to keep the place straightened out.)
Janey wrote:
Holy cow! 😯 He sounds unhinged. Very stalker-like.
I had a some very persistent guys like that in my teens and 20s – not quite as bad as screaming at me like that, but guys who would not back off. It can be scary.
My Mom put me in a quandry on that, because guys like that don’t pick up hints or social cues that the gal isn’t interested. You have to be blunt with them to get through.
But my Mom taught me, no, nice girls don’t do that! You can’t let someone know how you really feel. You must always be smiling, sweet, and gentle.
So I would sometimes suffer in silence for weeks or months from some creepster’s unwanted attention.
Daisy wrote:
When I read that from Janey, my first thought was “they have Outlived their Usefulness to the male”. My second was “driven out into the street like they do in Afghanistan?”
Daisy wrote:
I know I did some things in my 20s that could have gotten me up on Stalking charges nowadays, but that was out of sheer cluelessness. This guy sounds way beyond Clueless; this sounds like a Domestic Violence/Stalker Homicide just waiting to happen. “I’m sure we’ll hear all about you and her in the news tomorrow…”
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Bearing in mind it’s been about six, seven years or so since I read that guy’s post in the singles forum, but that was the gist of his attitude.
The idea that a Christian woman would be interested in him for him at all (instead of being all 100% about Jesus all the time), was a sign to him that she does not take Christ seriously.
I’ve seen other single Christian males on other blogs and forums express similar sentiments.
They want a woman who is so “on fire” for Jesus, that they are all-consumed by Jesus, and don’t feel they “need” a Christian spouse.
If you are a Christian woman who wants a spouse, you’re not going to get one. They think if you want to get a spouse, you have to stop wanting one, and that some how demonstrates you’re godly enough, or something, to merit one.
I also see similar views by Christian married males/females in Christian publications that dole out marriage/dating advice.
Supposedly, if you are a single who wants a husband, that is wrong. You’re not supposed to want marriage. Only when you stop wanting a spouse will God send you one.
Which is screwy thinking, like that weird quote at the top by Moore about a women needing to submit to her future husband, who she doesn’t even know yet.
A lot of married Christians (who act like dating/ marriage experts) expect unmarried Christians to be capable of Star Trek, time travel- like feats. I am sorry, but I do not own a time machine.
The unmarried are supposed to not want something before we want it, we’re not supposed to want something before we can get it.
Bridget wrote:
And as Nick stated the Holy Spirit has been exorcised from the church. Which makes way for these little god men to get away with emphasising the supremacy of scripture, all the while forgetting it is the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart.
I disagree with the whole premise that God intends marriage to be a picture of the gospel. The only verses that might possibly be construed like that are in Ephesians 5:21-33, but when read carefully, they don’t say that at all. Rachel Held Evans kindly put up my thoughts on this as a guest post on her blog:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/kristen-rosser-marriage-christ-church
I also did a piece, if anyone’s interested, on why expecting all men to be spiritual leaders is harmful to both men and women– it agrees with and amplifies much of what has already been said here:
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/11/men-must-be-spiritual-leaders-real-life.html
Daisy wrote:
Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the exercise?
1) All these Experts on Singleness seem to have themselves married at 18 at the latest. Isn’t a good chunk of the Book of Job about similar clueless counsel?
2) Never mind Star Trek time travel. Can you find a way to jump Planck’s Wall into Equestria? Right now a My Little Pony unicorn or pegasus mare sounds like a lot better match than all these Christianese human girls.
dee wrote:
They will never get married, not to an woman who is mentally healthy.
Women who are willing to enter a marriage like this are typically “people pleasers,” who were abused or ignored in childhood. They don’t have healthy views of relationships, and they often develop depression, and the marriage falls apart, eventually.
I’ve seen young gender complementarian males on the internet who wonder why they can’t get dates or a wife, but they insist on a “submissive” wife – submissive as in, they picture marriage as a chain of command, where the husband is Boss and the Wife is a staff member who takes orders.
These sorts of young males keep blaming feminism for their singleness, women having careers, etc.
They will not even consider that times have changed, or that Christian complementarianism teachings are precisely one of the reasons they can’t get dates, wives, etc.
Dee wrote,
It’s not only these views telling Christian women to wait for a spiritual head that is doing it, but other views as well.
Christian dating and marriage advice to singles tells both genders to be suspicious of one another.
Christian relationship articles and books repeat the idea that all men are interested in is Tex (put an “S” at the front of Tex), men cannot and will not emotionally connect with women, and that all unmarried women are skanky ‘Jezebels’ willing to hop in the sack immediately.
Married Christians are trying to eradicate fornication among singles, so they tell the men and women never to be alone with each other, don’t meet at coffee shops or for lunch – even adult singles are given this type of advice, not just the teenagers.
All the Christian advice on dating is playing a part in why Christians are staying single, even if they want to get married.
But the same people giving this stupid advice cry and complain on their radio shows and blogs about Christian singles not marrying! They keep blaming “feminism” or “liberals” instead.
dee wrote:
Aw, my post above in reply to Dee is in moderation. There are other Christian teachings keeping Christian singles single, not just the “find a man who is your spiritual leader” one.
Anyway, about the “pursue pursue pursue” guy, he sounds like the cartoon character Pepe Le Pew, the skunk who always chased black cats for a kiss, and the cats spend the whole show trying to run away from him.
Just a few random thoughts:
Daisy is quite right on, in my opinion, that this gospelly marriage thing is codependency under another name.
As to it being in the Bible not to marry an unbeliever, it is. It doesn’t say you will have a lifetime of horrific abuse, just to not do it.
And it is true that may mean a life of being single when that isn’t what you want.
But the simple truth is the Bible does tell us all to do some hard things. I’m sure my neighbors at time find me as hard to love as I do them. But we are commanded to do so–not told to do so if it feels good and is what we want for our lives.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Him specifically, I do not recall, but yes, other guys like him also expected the wife to be a stripper type.
I remember one unmarried guy on the same forum (I think he was in his 20s), kept saying that he thinks ten pounds overweight is too much. He considers ten pounds overweight “fat,” and he will only date/marry blondes.
The guy’s “deal breaker” list was so unrealistic, I forsee him going to the grave never having married.
You might as well go all out, and add on all sorts of other requirements to your list, such as,
“My dream spouse must have one blue eye, one green eye; his/her last name must end in the letter “q,” the right leg must be exactly 1.45″ shorter than the left, and his/her favorite song must be More Than A Feeling. Any one not filling those all these specs exactly will be automatically rejected.”
I 100% agree that much of the picture of marriage in Christiandom is codependency.
I basically have 0 trust for relationship advice from within the church (or from without it, for that matter).
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
The Zombie Apocalypse marriage test
I think the submissive wives would probably spend all their time hiding behind their husbands in a zombie apocalypse.
A guy in that situation would probably benefit more from a Michonne-with-a-Katana sort of woman, instead. 🙂
@ linda:
I will grant that some people will end up single who do not want to be single (and this is the product, I think, of living in a fallen world- not all of our God-given desires will be met), but the church needs to do a MUCH better job of meeting the needs of these singles.
If you aren’t married, you are pretty much “off the path” as far as the church is concerned. My church does a pretty good job, to be fair, but there’s still a lot of room to grow.
Daisy wrote:
Considering “normal weight” for women these days is based on 6’4″, 80-lb supermodels and anything more invokes the War on Obesity, what happens when said perfect-weight wife gets hit with some serious illness that can make you drop 50 lbs before recovery?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Oh, believe me, I know it’s out there, but I’m afraid if I keep mentioning it, I will sound like a broken record.
There’s the classic,
“Jesus is all you need!”
“Stop looking for the one; that is when he/she will appear”
“Stop looking for the one, BE the one! Be the kind of person you wish to marry”
“As soon as you stop wanting a spouse is when God will send you one”
“Don’t let your singleness go to waste”
“Try eHarmony dating site, it’s how my friend Janet met her spouse Brian!”
To the single Christian ladies (and it’s a contradiction of sorts):
“You can’t get a man because you are obviously fat and have lesbian-short hair. Grow that hair long, diet, and jog! Men are visually stimulated, so you must look like a busty fashion model! But remember, God loves you for you, not what you look like. Also, don’t expect the man to look handsome or be trim, even though you are; just expect that he’s spiritual/godly!”
And the not- as- common,
“Serve! Be so busy serving others, that is how you will meet someone!”
The even less- heard- of (a twist on the “be content” line), but it does crop up occasionally in blogs and books for Christian singles:
“This life is not about you or what you want! It’s not about your happiness! Stop wanting to be married, remember eternity is all that matters! God doesn’t care about your happiness now. God cares about your holiness!”
@ Josh:
Christians who are virgins past 30, such as your truly, already got those messages.
We are usually ignored. Our existence is rarely acknowledged. When it is acknowledge, however…
We get scolded from some (Al Mohler, Debbie Maken) who say we are to blame for being single, it’s a sin to be single, it is Christian duty to marry and have children.
Most Christians (conservative think tank groups, famous preachers) do not believe it is possible to remain a virgin over the age of 25 (some have gone on record in blogs and speeches as saying this).
Staying a virgin in adulthood, abstaining from Texual activity, is considered an impossibility by preachers, so concessions are made since it is assumed that singles are going to have pre- marital Tex.
KR Wordgazer wrote:
Really good post!
@ Jeff S: No worries – I understood what you were saying. I just chose to take off with it in another direction – one that is, I think, pervasive in society as a whole, not just in certain kinds of churches.
I recently watched a TV series where one of the characters views himself as “a loser” (his words) because he’s still single (in his early 30s). Hmm…
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
and folk tales, mythology et. al.
I think they were right; people need stories.
Jeff S wrote:
It’s really not, but the church has made it so.
Which is one reason of a few Christ told his followers they were supposed to put him/other believers first, not their spouse or kids. Because not everyone marries, not everyone has children. Some who do marry, the spouse dies.
The Christian community is supposed to be there for people without biological relations/spouses, but they are not, because they’d rather tend to their little flesh- and- blood relations instead.
I’ve (and I’m unmarried) have tried going to church going Christians (family and friends) in times of deep need/loneliness, especially after the death of someone close, but I mostly got lectures, brushed off, was given advice.
I had to deal with everything alone. That is not how the Body of Christ was meant to work; they’re supposed to be there for each other.
at 57 and never married and never had kids, get over it!!! get out there and live your life. if you want to marry and aren’t finding anyone at your church, go check out the real world.
@ Daisy:It really is what psych professionals call “magical thinking,” and – in many cases – outright superstition. (or white evangelical folklore, at least.)
As for marrying people *of good character* who are not xtian, well – FAR better that than being married to a so-called xtian who has whatever problems (from indifference to being emotionally immature to far worse things), no?
@ Daisy: I felt a lot of pressure to be passive and just wait.
Well, I waited and waited and then some.
Still not married, a few decades down the pike!
@ nmgirl: Agreed, though there are no guarantees… and checking out other situations isn’t easy for most folks. (Pushes comfort levels and all.)
I would rather meet someone via common interests than EVER try to d”date” again. It was a lousy system when I was young, and I don’t think it’s improved any since then. 😉
@ Daisy: At this point, I think Paul’s “better to marry than burn” passages were directed at people in their teens/early 20s, mainly.
@ numo: And there *is* some common sense there as well, like not rushing into marriage just because…
@ numo:
“We Are Family” by Sister Sledge
(song seems to be about close female friends, not people who have the same parents)
“You Got A Friend” by James Taylor
“(I Get By) With A Little Help From My Friends” by The Beatles
But most songs are about not being complete until you have a romantic partner.
My son is in his mid-20s and grew up SBC. He is college educated and is working in a professional field. He will not date “girls” who are from an evangelical background. He said there is so much pressure from them to get married, and he said with some they only want someone to date better than the the 12 Apostles.
Daisy wrote:
Or else they would find out that there’s more to them than they had believed… people can change, though that’s a tough one.
@ linda:
What about all the people who marry so-called “believers” and end in marriages from h*ll?
there’s more than one side to the coin, I’m thinking…
Daisy wrote:
It’s called Focusing on their Families(TM).
Just like 2000 years ago; Family, Tribe, and Clan are EVERYTHING.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I have a few favorite TV shows (that are not Christian ones) that often ‘get’ things more so than Christian preachers do.
Sadly, though, on occasion, even the Non-Christian land of entertainment caves in to things like romantically pairing up every single single! It drives me nuts!
On one of my favorite shows, one of my favorite characters is single, but there’s a huge, clamoring “fan girl” base who are harassing the show writers online constantly to pair the one character up with another, in a romance.
Why can’t single people have at least one or two characters that stay single?
LL Carwin wrote:
This touches on a lot more than “Christianese Edward Cullen Syndrome”.
The incredible pressure to get married young, especially for females (“going for her M.R.S.Degree”, “Ring By Spring or It’s Too Late”.) Purity culture bribing Christian kids to keep their virginity by idealized dynamite married sex, resulting in rushed marriages of continence, i.e. marriages entered into purely to legalize the sex. (And massive slut-shaming if they don’t.) Singles over 30 branded as pervs. You name it.
As one commenter years ago at Internet Monk put it: “If you’re not Doing somebody, You’re A NOBODY.” Just in Christianese there has to be a ring and wedding ceremony in the mix. Other than that, No Difference whatsoever.
I have long held that Christians are just as screwed-up sexually as everyone else, just in a different direction.
Daisy wrote:
Probably because that would be too close to Real Life – after all, TV shows and movies are Entertainment, and there are certain cliches that are rarely ever dropped.
otoh… I’m currently watching the original (Danish) TV series known in English as The Killing (Forbrydelsen), and the central character is a woman detective (divorced mom) who is very introverted and brainy – she comes across to many other characters as aloof, but I don’t think that’s a good description. It’s SO nice to see a lead – a very smart lead (who also makes some costly mistakes during the course of an investigation) – who’s an independent woman. She is attractive, but she really seems not to care what other people think of her clothes and how they see her, so she dresses to please herself; ditto for makeup (or lack of it).
*So* refreshing!
Daisy wrote:
This is called “Shipping”.
“Slash” if it’s same-sex action. (Kirk/Spock, Starsky/Hutch, LaVerne/Shirley, Luke/Han, Aragorn/Legolas, Chip/Dale, Baloo/Kit, Babs/Shirley/Fifi, you name it.)
Without any rhyme or reason. (Two years ago while scanning fanfics, I learned more about the gay-bar scene in the My Little Pony world than I ever wanted to know. Ia, Ia, Cthulhu, Fthagn…)
linda wrote:
I don’t know, I’ve seen it debated on other sites that the “yoked” verse may not mean that, I don’t know. But it doesn’t matter to me, because I’ve already changed my mind and am willing to date Non Christians (and marry one).
Jeff S wrote:
I have noticed that Non-Christian dating/marriage advice is downright stupid at times, too.
Sometimes Christian dating/marriage advice echoes the Non Christian advice.
Both Non Christian and Christian relationship experts, for example, are keen on women having long hair, because (both sides say), men refuse to date/marry women with short or medium length hair.
I’ve also seen a few Non Christian relationship advisors tell women to act passive, submissive, etc, if they want to catch a man.
I’m not sure, but are the lady authors of “The Rules” Non Christian? And in that book, they tell women to be passive, submissive, etc? From the Wiki page on the book: Others noted that Fein [who is one of the book authors] was an accountant and Schneider [the other author] a freelance journalist without professional qualification in the subject matter. Fein has married once and is divorced; Schneider has never married.
Daisy wrote:
For the record, the only girlfriend I ever had wore her hair in a short bob cut. Dark golden, not-quite-blond hair, sort of a golden otter-brown.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I am fine with people wanting to date or marry someone they find physically attractive, but I see people who are too nit picky about it.
If you marry the person but they later become a little heavy later, due to medical problems or something, I think that person deserves some slack.
On the other hand, I’ve seen relationships where one partner works to stay at shape, and the other just sits around eating Twinkies, or puts no effort into staying in shape, and it grates on the trim partner.
nmgirl wrote:
I am living my life.
Please define “the real world.” Standing by for the usual cliched advice:
1. Try a book club
2. Try the produce dept at Kroger!
3. Try eHarmony or another dating site!
Tried all that, still single.
Daisy wrote:
I’ve heard anecdotes where it’s most often the woman who does this; the attitude seemed to be “I’ve landed a husband, why should I take care of myself any more?” (Note that this does not mean women do this exclusively, just that’s the gender casting in the versions I’ve heard.) Which always seemed to me to be marrying under false pretenses.
Daisy wrote:
Don’t forget the singles bar/meat market scene…
numo wrote:
Yes, that is something else.
I’ve seen so many people say they are Christians married to other Christians (even regular church attenders), but the one Christian spouse has multiple affairs, or abuses the other, etc.
So what is the advantage in marrying a Christian?
Contra Linda’s post above, I care not if the Bible says “do not, just do not.”
She also said on an older thread (unless it is a different Linda?) if I am single and live alone, she would not want her husband to come to my house to change my curtain rods.
I’m stuck, since Christians don’t want to help me… I have to marry if I want my curtain rods hung.
It’s either marry a Non Christian man (since there aren’t many single Christian men my age) or remain curtain-rodless forever; no thank you.
Getting back to the original point…
Conversely, I’ve seen some Non Christian people who act more loving and caring than Christian people.
P.S. eHarmony’s a scam. They cherry-pick their applicants for maximum chance of marriage, then tout the success percentages of these pre-screened selections.
And how did eHarmony ever get the rep as THE online dating service for Christians(TM)?
Daisy wrote:
Or learn to do it yourself. That’s what I’ve always done (I come from a family where males were expected to maintain-to-rebuild their own houses). And though I have a weakness for damsel-in-distress scenarios, I have no sympathy for the Professionally Helpless.
@ numo:
I’m in the same spot. I waited, and prayed, but also did a little pro-active work, since some Christians do say you have to get out and look. I went to churches, tried dating sites, etc, to cover all my bases.
I also tried not focusing so much on the singleness and just “living life,” as nmgirl was saying.
And I’m still single.
Daisy wrote:
First, I’m sorry. 🙁
Second, I am unfortunately all too familiar with Mohler’s comments on singles, thanks to Deb and Dee. Discussions of SBC shenanigans are off limits with people in my circles, because some practically think Mohler is the Messiah for resurgence-ing the SBC and snatching it away from the jaws of the antichrist (ok, I’m being slightly hyperbolic).
At first, I was inclined to disagree about the concessions on premarital relations, until I thought about the difference in severity of response between that and … other related issues on which pastors like to pontificate. So, yeah…
@ numo:
I was luring at a site for ex IFBs (ex fundy Baptists), and someone on a thread at the site said they knew a Christian lady who was more egalitarian than she wasgender complementarian, and the Christian man who dated her pretended to not be a gender comp, so she married him, thinking he was egalitarian.
After they got married, he became very demanding and controlling, bossing her around, being rude etc, and admitted to her after so many months of marriage that he is a gender comp. She divorced him.
@ Daisy:
That was meant to be “lurKing” not “luring” 🙂
Daisy wrote:
How else can We Outbreed The Heathen(TM)?
(Which is a real kicker when you realize “Outbreeding the Other” is straight out of Darwin. “Survival of the Fittest” originally referred to relative reproductive success.)
Daisy wrote:
Or “lurid lurking”?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That reminds me, I saw an article where the guy said that China, which does not like Christianity and doesn’t permit it openly, none- the- less permits “Focus on the Family” radio broadcasts in their nation, because the Chinese culture is big on family and “family values.”
The guy writing this pointed out there is something wrong with this.
If a Christianity- hating, communist government is so easily willing to run a Christian show something is up; because that ‘Focus on the Family’ show is more about family than it is about Jesus Christ. He said that was the problem.
Most Christians in America do not even recognize just how much they have made marriage/ family into an idol. It’s considered part of the Gospel itself.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And we all know how much of a fan of Darwin Mohler is. 😀
numo wrote:
I watch that show! I still liked it even when other fans hated on it for not solving the Rosie murder by end of season 1.
That was not the same show I was referencing to HUG above, but I do not think I want Linden to have a romance with her partner, Holder. Holder tried to kiss her last episode (but he was drunk/ upset at the time).
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Some very famous “Tex” symbols (movie stars and so on) have short hair, and did not have a problem getting dates, male fans, or husbands, so I’ve never understood the long hair fetish dating advice people have.
My Mom’s hair was usually short or medium, and my Dad dated and married her.
Mine is usually medium, and when I wore it short to medium as a teen and in my 30s, guys still flirted or sometimes asked me out.
So I think it safe to say all the relationship experts can take their “long hair” qualification for women and chuck it out the window!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It does usually seem to be a lady thing, but every so often, I do see a reverse gender situation on that – if not at weight, with personal hygiene.
I’ve seen many letters over the last 30 years of reading Ann Landers, Abby, etc, where a wife says her spouse stopped brushing his teeth, stopped using speed stick, and some only shower once a month.
Also in regards to “Tex.” Evangelicals assume only men want Tex, but I’ve seen women online, and have female friends/ relatives who like “Tex” a lot, but their male partner has no interest, and this really bothers them. The ladies go for weeks or months without Tex.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I tried eHarmony several years ago. The moment I stopped the fees, I got no more matches. Not that I got many before.
I read around that time that they mess around with the matches, that even though they have zillions of both gender as applicants, they will send a female only like, 4 matches a month, but send the men 200,000 matches a month.
I don’t remember the rationale for it, but eHarmony feels it’s better to give men tons of matches and ladies next to none.
Daisy wrote:
Yes! 21st century idolatry. Yet so few recognise how the family unit has become THE picture of the church, the newest icon of evangelism.
Daisy wrote:
Actually, it’s not so much “communist” as Chinese cultural; a deep distrust of “Not Invented Here/Not Really Chinese”. It took China over 1000 years to accept Buddhism (originally an import from India); it might take as long for them to accept this new Foreign religion. (When your civilization has a solid historical trace of over 2000 years, 500 years is “newfangled”.)
numo wrote:
… yeeessss… well, that’s true, but I was trying to steer around that particular minefield…
😉
@ Josh:
Christian culture and big- name Christian leaders will of course say they are opposed to pre-marital “Tex,” but, since they look at stats saying that X% of evangelicals/ Baptists are doing “it”, they tend to downplay the seriousness of it.
They assume most Christians are having pre-marital Tex, so they soften their rants to remind people who are doing it, ‘God loves you, you’ll be forgiven of it.’
It’s like they’ve just sort of accepted that Christians will cave in and do it, but they put on a face to the public where they slam their fists on pulpits and say how horrible pre-marital Tex is.
The anti- premarital Tex rants are for public show. Among Christians, they soften it and make concessions.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I usually visit the ex IFB sites to see the posts about IFB preachers spazzing out over a woman’s skirt being 1/4″ above her knee and that kind of insanity, but every so often, they post lurid stories of randy IFB preachers who get charged with Tex crimes.
On occasion, it’s the very same preachers who scream in sermons about pre marital Tex being wrong; how much they hate homosexual marriage; and how all un- married Christians are fornicatin’ Texual savages.
Sorry, everyone – two more points before I go to bed (it being nearly midnight here in Blighty).
All this **** about anyone who ever wants, likes or enjoys anything, ever, being an idolater who lacks sufficiently pure “devotion to Christ” – may I indulge myself with a little satire?
Jesus said, for instance, that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness are blessed because they will be filled. Surely, though, they can’t be, because they shouldn’t hunger after anything but Christ. And as for all those idolaters whom Jesus asked, “What do you want me to do for you?”, and they didn’t say, “nothing, Lord – I want you to erase my entire physical existence so that I can enter Nirvana and truly have nothing but you”…
The “nirvana” reference is deliberate because, on a more respectful note, this idea that we should want “nothing but Christ” (which is invariably a specious accusation thrown at someone who likes something the accuser happens not to like) is actually closer to Buddhism than to Christianity. And a bit of a parody of Buddhism at that.
Daisy wrote:
Both inside and outside the church, you’re better off with Leprosy than Virginity.
And the second: I’m happily married with two adorable weans the noo. But I wasn’t always; I was (I felt) permanently single and conspicuously surrounded by dating peers throughout my teenage and university years, and very unhappy about it. So as hollow as it may sound – Lesley and I were both 24 on our wedding day, and as of this Friday we’ll both be 45 – I can at least make an educated guess as to what it’s like to be 40+ and dealing with a singleness one didn’t choose. Incidentally, I can think of two analogues – childlessness, and joblessness (the latter of which has afflicted me in some form throughout my adult life).
It so happens that I was only single because I had no idea how to relate to girls, and my only point here is that church was the one place that never helped me on that score. In fact, it was only as I began to drift away from church and into one of university rock-climbing and mountaineering clubs that I finally got a life. Through a secular peer-group, in other words, God was able to build a vital life-skill that I lacked. There are many reasons for being single, I know; but I’ll bet there are many answers that Christians are ruling out on ideological grounds when God may not have done.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I personally had a pretty good experience with eHarmony. Met some really great ladies, though nothing has “stuck”. However, I did meet Jenny (the girl in the video above) on eHarmony and we just didn’t “click” romantically. We did musically though 😀
BTW, I can’t imagine how they could give guys more matches than girls, since every time you get a match, your match gets you back (so there have to be the same exact number on both sides).
eHarmony started out as a Christian dating site, but certainly is not any more. However, it does allow you to be pretty specific about religious preference (most of my matches seem to be somewhere along the Christian spectrum). From my experience, though, it is the best of the dating sites. I’ve tried a few others and there’s just a lot more people trying to scam and matches that aren’t right for me at all.
Your mileage may vary, but that’s my experience.
Katie wrote:
Am I the only one creeped out by this list? Is she a child in need of a father? Can she not make any decisions for herself? Why would she want this at all?
As a Christian myself, I am perplexed by this. This is beyond the unrealistic wanting of a “Christian” Edward Cullen. This is wanting another human being to decide her life.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Sad, but so very true….
Jeff S wrote:
I have have used the incorrect terminology, but that’s what I read around the time I used their site. The women will get sent a tiny number of male profiles to look at, while the guys get one million female profiles in their in boxes.
As for other eHarmony disappointments, some of the “Christian” men state up front in the process things of a Texual nature, or they say they want a woman with Texual experience (so they leave no room for a never- married, adult Christian woman who has followed biblical teachings of staying a virgin), some tell vulgar jokes on their profiles, etc. Those things were all turn offs to me.
On another dating site someone asked me to join, I keep getting men 15 to 20 years my senior, and so far, they have all lied about their ages. They will claim to be late 30s to mid 40s on their profiles, but they are obviously 65 or up. (Some of them have full heads of white or grey hair.)
Yes, I filled out my site prefs for only men of my age, but I still get sent these 75 year old guys who say they are 44.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It is true that both within the Christian and Non Christian culture, virginity is treated like a disease, but I have had a small number of Non Christian online friends who when they found I was over 35 and still a virgin were genuinely respectful of it.
I saw a news story about a woman who was 75 and she said she never married and never had sex.
This story was linked to on a secular site, some with atheists who are normally very hostile to Christians and are sexual libertines. (Have no idea if the senior virgin lady in the news story was Christian or not.)
Anyway, I was expecting them to mock the lady relentlessly and say what a loser freak she was, but every one in the thread (even the atheists) were like, “I totally respect that, good on her for sticking to her principles! That is great, I think she is awesome!”
But the vast majority of society, most of the time, does treat post-age 25 virginity like a negative. Including many Christians.
Virginity (or celibacy) sure gets mocked in movies and TV sit coms a lot. They make jokes all the time in shows, like, “Oh, it’s been six weeks since you last had Tex!,” and we’re supposed to find that funny, or there are entire movie plots revolving around “experienced” guys trying to get their virgin friend deflowered.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Since I have departed Christianity to a degree, I have become more free. I don’t feel shackled to the Bible or its commands, or by other Christian’s expectations or guilt / shame trips, and so I feel a load has been lifted from my shoulders.
There’s an expression that trying the same thing over and over but expecting different results is the definition of insanity. When it comes to getting married, I think I am giving up on the “pray and wait” approach, or the “be yoked to a believer” view. Doing that stuff over and over did not get me married, and I don’t see the point in following it any more.
@ Jeff S:
Jeff
The problem of course is that the state and not the church is commissioned by God as the institution to ratify marriages and their desolve and not the church.
Daisy wrote:
I had a standard comeback to that IRL:
Him: “I haven’t had any in six weeks!”
Me: “I haven’t had any in 45 years — what are you bitching about?”
The movie 40 Year Old Virgin took that situation and turned it on its head. The titular 40-year-old virgin, though eccentric, is shown to have his head on straighter than his “experienced” friends, most of whom have been messed up in various ways by their “experience”.
Jodie B. wrote:
Not that perplexing. I’ve read on the Web about similar situations with young British women converting to extreme forms of Islam. When you’ve been raised and hammered from all sides with decisions and responsibilities, it’s actually a relief to have someone structure your chaotic life, tell you exactly what to do, exactly what to think. Just to make the thrashing stop.
Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Why do you say that. What source are you referring to? Civil marriage has always existed in America, but in Western Europe only in the past 200 years. And Lebanon? Still no institutional civil marriage. (They allowed the first civil marriage this year.)
@ Nick Bulbeck: I hear you, but… it’s a big minefield!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Major parody, imo… 🙂
@ Jeff S: Would you believe… 7-8 years ago I filled out a profile there, and got 6 matches in *the entire continental United States.
I didn’t pay for the profile, thank God!
Oh and… all of the guys sounded like they were deeply involved in strange-ish churches. NOT my cuppa at all! (This was only a couple of years after That Church had given me the boot.)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yeah, I mean, I know some women want this, for whatever strange reason … but dealing with decisions and responsibilities is part of being an adult. And here these women want to be treated like a child.
I am never married, so I have no ax to grind, but I don’t agree with a lot of the views of Mefferd or her guest on this topic:
Janet Mefferd Show-7/23/2013 Hour 1- Pastor Matt Fletcher from Webster Bible Church discusses the divorce epidemic
The guest says that:
1. Divorce rate high because people are selfish,
2. grew up in divorce culture, so divorce is the norm
The guest says Bible/Christ only permits divorce for…
1. Immorality
2. Abandonment by Non- Christian spouse
The guest says, Moses never permitted divorce, only regulated how to handle it when it happens.
Guest also says marriage is a mirror that reflects relationship between God and church.
Mefferd and the show guest seems to believe that a divorced guy/lady remarrying is a sin and amounts to adultery.
Guest mentions phrase “biblical counsel” (in terms of what he says to married couples who see him who are thinking of divorce) which raises a red flag with me.
He sort of hammers on doing what the Bible says, not what the culture allows. Which sounds real spiritual, unless you’re the one in the bad situation.
Mefferd and guest discuss physical abuse. Guest says church needs more material about it. He says abused women need shelter/protection.
The guest mentions legal separation… he seems okay with divorce IF situation severe, but feels Bible stressed reconciliation, so he and his church does. He seems most in favor of separation.
Mefferd says staying in marriage glorifies God -strange statement. I don’t recall that being in the Bible (is it?).
He says to look for root of marriage in the Gospel itself.
(If you ask me, it’s stretching marriage to so strongly liken it to the Gospel itself.)
So I pose the question to all here. Why do otherwise intelligent and savvy people buy into this stuff hook-line-and-sinker? Is it because they feel a need to be told what to believe and thereby take the onus off of themselves to think and be responsible for their own destinies?
Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man’s benefit and not for the glory of some distant deity. Could it also be that the Almighty had pretty much the same thing in mind with marriage?
Muff Potter wrote:
I think some churches want to control young people, and they offer a magic formula. They say, “If you do it all the right way, and follow all the rules, you will get a wonderful marriage — or at least an okay marriage.” But no one ever pushes back and asks if this bears out in reality.
@ Muff Potter:
Why? Because I was a sincere Christian from a young age, was dedicated to following the Bible as I understood it, and from what preachers taught about it. (It was not that I was using other people to do my thinking for me.)
Jeff S wrote:
If I was American, I would agree. Their detailed questionnaire on attitudes and habits and what you find acceptable/ good in a partner would give way better matches than the superficial star sign/ length/ eye colour details that most dating sites ask. (Really, how many people are there who say “I don’t date Scorpios or Libras, my ideal is a Sagittarius”?)
Being a non-American, I ventured there and their closest (geographical) match was about 100 miles from me, the second closest more than 500 miles. That is really to far to get to know them in real-world circumstances, unless I want to leave my job and move in with him to get to know him. Their data base of non-Americans seem very small, and the currency exchange rate makes it very expensive for someone who earn in Rand to pay in dollar.
Daisy wrote:
On the Christianese end, another major factor is unrealistic expectations.
1) On a Christian cruise many years ago, the speaker denounced attraction based on appearance, personality, shared/common interests, anything except COMMON SCRIPTURAL VALUES COMMON SCRIPTURAL VALUES COMMON SCRIPTURAL VALUES. My response varied from “OK, if you never meet through appearance/personality/shared interests, how are you ever going to know you have those CSVs” and “What is this? Our Duty to The Party?”
2) Christian Courtship Cult encourages NO interaction before the wedding day. Marriage becomes just a Duty; you search to acquire “A Wife” and the female is just the necessary piece of equipment. No emotional bonding necessary. There’s a “Hannah” over at “Wine & Marble” who’s on the receiving end of a divorce right now because her husband married her in Christianese Courtship and did not bond to her at all.
3) Christianese Purity Cult bribing the boys to save themselves for marriage by promises of barn-burning swinging-from-the-chandeliers dynamite married S*E*X 24/7/365 starting the first night. And the expectation on the bride to flip from virgin-unto-death to personal porn star fulfilling every accumulated fantasy the instant she says “I Do”. This does not sound like a realistic expectation; I have read blog tales of such Christianese wedding nights that vary from farce comedy of errors to truly horror stories.
4) Salvation by Marriage Alone — the extreme pressure to marry. As one IMonk commenter put it, “You get married and then you are allowed to sit at the grown-ups’ table with the other grown-ups.” (Again, the goal is To Be Married and the guy/girl is just the required piece of equipment to do so.) Outside of church, I encountered the attitude that you weren’t really an adult until you popped your cherry/broke your melon; this is just the same with a Christian coat of paint.
5) Put all these together, and I think I have a reason why the Christianese divorce rate is so high. And some comp/patrio/male supremacist shtick might be a reaction to hold it off by forcing the issue.
Here’s a question to be tossed out there. How much of this legalism, patriarchy, Neo Calvinism, authoritarian church leadership, how to find a wife IN THE CHURCH, etc… a result of many Christians who grew up in or just after the 60s in the US trying to erase that period of history. I.E. Fix it so future generations will not become heathen hippy atheists? Or at least not sappy hold hands in a circle singing “kumbaya” to solve all of the worlds problems?
Janey wrote:
I’ve come to the sad conclusion that a majority of people want someone to tell them how to “just do this simple thing or things” to fix their problems, make life perfect, answer all their questions, whatever. Which means that preachers, shamans, politicians, etc… all have a message that attracts people to them. Evidence of this not working is ignored and dismissed.
So despite some of my recent concerns with RC Sproul, I am still reading a book of his for a class at church (“Truths We Confess”). This is from page 290 in vol 2:
“History is replete with instances of the church trying to be God, taking authority and saying, ‘Since we are God’s earthly representative, we can bind your conscience by telling you what you must believe and how you must behave’.”
later:
“Even the Christian church can rob people of their Christian liberty. This is especially bad because we are called to model the highest ethical standards before a watching world. The prophets were the conscience of Israel, but they had the right to function as such only when they were faithful to the Word of God. Had they substituted their own traditions for the Word of God, they would have been no different from the Pharisees”.
Finally:
” . . . we are called to be patient and long-suffering with Christians of other persuasions. Many different denominations want to be and try to be faithful to the Word of God, but wherever they differ, someone must be in error. Where we are in error and we teach that error, if we try to bind people to that error, then we are usurping the role of God.”
Wise words, I think, that do not seem to be greatly heeded in the evangelical church (regardless of how Sproul himself has applied them). Perhaps not directly on topic here, but it seems that there is a lot of unwarranted “binding of conscience” going on with gender relationships and ideas about dating and marriage.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It’s strange how far the church has swung. In the early church, Christian leaders looked down on marrieds as morally inferior because Jesus and Paul so clearly recommended singleness and offered themselves as examples. Choosing to marry was evidence that you were either carnal or you put your family above Jesus Christ. One early church father even saw second marriages as being no better than legal prostitution.
• “Celibacy is to be preferred to marriage.” — Augustine
• “Celibacy is the life of the angels.” — Ambrose
• “Celibacy is a spiritual kind of marriage.” — Optatus
Christians need a renewed emphasis on singleness/celibacy, and not treat singles as damaged goods, mentally or emotionally deficient, or selfish. (Anyone who had spent time in small group fellowships knows that marries are just as screwed up as singles, in some cases more so.) And singles must be treated as equals in the church — encouraged to be pastors, lay leaders, etc.
NC Now wrote:
I can see that. The Baby Boomers wanting to reject the free love, flower power, anti-war, pro-drugs culture. And the other side of the same coin is to be seen as the spiritual elite: “We’re the people who really take our Christianity seriously. So we are better than you are.”
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, I think I can partly understand your angst as an older single man; as I have been single and celibate for over 20 years. I know I’m very fortunate to have my wonderful children and grandchildren from my otherwise unfortunate marriage. And I completely agree with you about how respect for single adults needs to be restored in the church. That said, I’m respectfully that you stop using that expression involving the word “cherry.” It is to me as fingernails scraping on a blackboard. I think it is demeaning to women (which I am sure you don’t intend.) Thank you!
That should be respectfully asking, obviously. 🙂
Janey wrote:
But don’t you know that’s a terrible idea? Single people in leadership positions might have affairs!
… (I now wait for the blatantly obvious retort to my satirical statement) …
@ KR Wordgazer:
Thank you so much for this input. I would love to highlight your post at some point if that would be alright with you.
@ Janey: CS Lewis advocated for two types of marriage. Church-for those who believe in Christ (or other religious traditions) Civil-for those who do not.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I did not know this. How can I get more info?
@ Jeff S: I cannot believe those quotes from Sproul They remind me of a post I read over at 9 Marks which discussed the problems of authoritarianism in the church. Yet they are one of the most authoritarian churches i know. Are these guys in denial? Good night!
Anybody here ever heard of the book Unhooked Generation? One of the things it talks about a similar “superspouse” phenomenon in the secular, where people make endless checklists and have ridiculous “dealbreakers.” Must love dogs, must have blue eyes, must drive X car, etc. My mom even overheard a cashier at McDonalds telling a story about her friend who went on a date and ordered mayo with her french fries. The guy saw her dipping her fries in mayo, got up and walked out without another word. Apparently that was a “dealbreaker” for him.
The author of the book compared a modern “checklist” with the checklist of her grandmother around 1910:
1. Has a job.
2. Isn’t a drunk.
3. Doesn’t beat me.
Those three things often never make it onto “checklists” now…
BTW I’m pretty far out in the country right now so if I don’t answer someone promptly it’s because I may not have reliable wireless internet.
Question: when I first read the passage about being “unequally yoked” (if it’s the one I’m thinking of and I’m not forgetting something), I don’t seem to recall marriage being mentioned. It was my understanding that the don’t-marry-unbelievers thing came from somewhere else.
Also if you can be unequally yoked w/unbelievers, and that’s a bad thing, does that imply that being equally yoked with them is okay? What does it mean to be “yoked” in the first place? And if marriage isn’t mentioned in the original context of this phrase, shouldn’t this have applications outside of marriage (which no one ever makes)?
Per the idea of someone only becoming a Christian to get in their significant other’s pants, I think this can be a valid concern, but only if you have prior evidence that the person is manipulative like that, or they don’t really have their own interests but always change to suit the people around them.
Of course, you probably shouldn’t marry those kinds of people anyway (Christian or not), and Mark in the story showed no evidence of being like that at all.
@ dee:
He was expounding on this statement in the WCF: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”
For my money, I’ve found Sproul more open to dealing fairly with dissenting opinions than a lot of evanglical teachers- I know some have a different impression of him, but that’s mine. My concerns with Sproul are more linked to employing his son and the way Ligioneer has been run.
Either way, I really like that last statement in the WCF: “. . .the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”
dee wrote:
Remember the TV Tropes entry “People’s Republic of Tyranny”:
The more adjectives about Democracy in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.
Hester wrote:
1) So the Super-Spiritual Spouse among Christians is just another example of “Just like Fill-in-the-Blank, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!” ANd we wonder about the rise of the Nones? What’s so special about the Kingdom of God if it’s just like everything else with a different coat of paint?
2) You DO know this kind of crap really makes a case for forced arranged marriages. When you have Salvation by Marriage Alone plus Superspouse Syndrome, how else can you get A Wife for the Mandatory Marriage unless she has NO choice in the matter?
Janey wrote:
I credit the shift to the Protestant Reformation and the Reformation Wars. The previous Church firewalled celibacy to the point of absurdity, so the Protestants went to the direct opposite, firewalling marriage to the absurdity of Salvation by Marriage Alone.
Communism begets Objectivism.
@ Hester:
The “unequally yoked” is not directly related to marriage, but it IS a clear application:
2 Cor 6:14
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”
I think he is implying all unbelievers are “lawless”, which means we aren’t talking about “lawlessness” in terms of civil law, but that which is pleasing to God. I would say the application is BROADER than marriage, but that marriage would be a clear example of where this would apply.
However, I think we should also be careful about making this into a “law”. Does it mean I don’t go into business with an unbeliever? Well, before I do I should definitely consider what it means and how much that will constrain me. And Paul clearly says that believers should not divorce unbelievers, so there are circumstances where other concerns override being “unequally yoked”.
That’s my take, anyway.
My stance is, I would not marry an unbeliever. I think marriage is difficult enough and my faith is such an important part of my life, I couldn’t imagine trying to share my life with someone without also sharing core beliefs. I would date an unbeliever, though, if she was interested in the things of God and willing to consider exploring faith. Mainly, this is just a pragmatic thing, because how can I really assess a woman’s spirituality, even if I meet her in church? I probably wouldn’t ask out someone I knew for a fact wasn’t a believer, but since I usually won’t know at that point, I’m not going to ditch a girl for a date just because she doesn’t claim Christianity. She might be a work in progress.
(Yes, I’ve had reason to think about this subject recently :p )
@ Hester:
I was just pondering this “checklist” obsession that seems to be invasive in all realms of society. All checklists aren’t bad. Some can be helpful. But at the same time, obsessive, to the tee, I won’t settle for anything less, I can’t be happy without every item checked, seems to be, to me anyway, a form of self idolotry. How in the world do you ever learn to love other people if everyone (especially your spouse) has to fit into some mold that makes “you” happy? This list fullfilment ideology could be the worst form of self centerdness out and about. And for believers to demand that God give them their perfect list fulfilling spouse is, well, sick on many levels . . . maybe even narcissistic? I’m not saying that one should be able to go out and marry any old Joe or Jane, but the Christian list just seems to mimick an “it’s all about me” mentality. It needs a bit of balance. I’d run from someone who came with a list for me to fulfill!
@ Bridget:
. . . besides, I know I’ll fall short at some point 😉
@ dee:
Dee,
I would be honored. 🙂
@ Jeff S.:
Seems like a good take on unequal yoking. I think the real problem isn’t whether or not to marry an unbeliever, or unequal yoking, it’s making the standards for believers so high that they can’t be humanly met. Or eliminating huge chunks of Christianity because they’re not the “right kind” of Christians (i.e., it’s not “unequal yoking” for a Calvinist to marry an Arminian). So I suppose, for some, this may require looking in regions of Christendom they may find a bit…unsettling? 🙂
I did think of the business thing and wondered, how long before some of these guys claim that Christians shouldn’t work under non-Christians supervisors, bosses, etc.? And then, in the face of an entirely unemployed congregation, watch these same people try to get around Paul’s clear instructions to work and provide for your family…
Addendum @ Jeff S.:
Or, as a courtship proponent I once heard put it, “looking for Billy Graham in Brad Pitt’s body.” One of the few sensible things you’ll ever hear from your average courtship proponent.
BTW Deb, congratulations on the wedding! And I hope Dee feels better soon.
@ numo:
James Taylor, “That’s Why I’m Here”, & “You Are My Only One”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkpc02Fkzws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSsHyaH7t5s
I really wish we could stop referring to “Christianity” when what mean is a specific brand of it.
There may be this insanity in one branch of evangelicalism, but not in all evangelicalism, and of course more Christians are NOT evangelicals than are.
Maybe we can call them radical, gospelly Christians instead?
@ NC Now:
Janey wrote:
I think some churches want to control young people, and they offer a magic formula. They say, “If you do it all the right way, and follow all the rules, you will get a wonderful marriage
NC Now wrote:
I’ve come to the sad conclusion that a majority of people want someone to tell them how to “just do this simple thing or things” to fix their problems, make life perfect, answer all their questions, whatever. Which means that preachers, shamans, politicians, etc… all have a message that attracts people to them. Evidence of this not working is ignored and dismissed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps this boils down to people being terrified of making mistakes, and professional Christians capitalizing on the opportunity to meet the need (which incidentally adds to job security, and the sanctified chance to CONTROL PEOPLE :))!)
Perhaps professional Christians created the fear in the first place. With the solution ready to purvey. (like seedy advertising campaigns)
Hester wrote:
As an ardent fan of mayo and french fries I’d say she’s better off without him!
@ linda: sadly, there are many, many people out there who have never experienced anything other than this brand of supposed xtianity.
@ numo: and who don’t know that there are alternatives, or trust that the alternatives might be any different if they do know about them.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know if it’s the same guy or not, but I saw a web page/video by a guy who teaches that “You must both have Common Scriptural Values,” stuff, on top of other standards, in dating advice he was giving.
I can’t remember the specifics of every thing he said, but to make up a silly point that was similar to his thinking: he thinks if you are a Christian, you should only marry a Christian who shares the same exact eschatological views as yours, which, to him, should be, let’s say, Mid Trib, so if the gal you’re dating is Pre Trib, you should break up with her.
It’s not enough that your date believes in Jesus and believes the Bible is true, but she/he must agree with your particular interpretations on everything (or the topics he felt most important).
He had several other standards just as odd and limiting as the prophecy one.
You’re very likely not to get married if you set up silly parameters like those (or have a list that is too long).
Expecting people to completely disregard physical appearance, personality, hobbies, etc, is stupid and not realistic.
(Some people go to the other extreme and can and do place too much stock in that stuff, that is true, but to say nobody should factor it in at all is just being stupid.)
On the same note, there are Christian marriage speakers I’ve heard on TV and seen on the internet who say the only common factor a man and women need for marriage to happen or succeed is that both are Christian, both “know Jesus.” That isn’t realistic, either, in my opinion.
I know people who are Christians who I have a hard time being platonic acquaintances with, so I have to limit contact with them, so how do these marriage guys think that the only glue needed is Jesus and nothing else, if it does not work for acquaintanceship, Christian family members, or friends?
“As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take whichever course he will, he will be sure to repent it.”
-Socrates
Janey wrote:
Married Christians in churches often think of unmarried Christians as being Texual (put the letter “S” at the front, I’m trying not to trip off the moderation filter, if that word is one) – they think singles are Texual libertines who have Tex with 100 partners a night.
Christian singles are thought to be temptresses, they cannot be trusted around people (especially single females with married guys, or single males with youth of either gender).
You do have singles such as myself who are virgins into our 30s, 40s, 50s.
We singles who have stayed celibate past 30 years of age have a normal sexual drive and have had opportunity to have Tex (I was engaged myself for years), but we practiced self control, and we don’t all use dirty sites or magazines.
Most “Tex” scandals I read about are by married Christian men, some preachers, who get caught using dirty sites or having affairs.
But still, the singles get stereotyped as the Texual sinners in churches.
Nancy wrote:
For sure….the women too. 😉
dee wrote:
I don’t know if this is specifically what HUG meant or not, but when you sign up for eHarmony (I was a member there several years ago), you have to fill out a very, very long questionnaire.
When some people fill it out and hit the “submit” button, they get a reply from eHarmony saying something like, “We’re sorry, but looking at your personality profile and your lifestyle, and your preferences, we don’t think you would receive many matches with our service, so we will not set up an account for you.”
Shortly before I joined eHarmony, and when I later left (because they were barely dribbling out matches my way), I read up on them.
I read a lot of negative feedback about them on online dating review sites, and on people’s blogs.
Some people on those review sites said they got the “we’re sorry, but we don’t feel there would be any matches for you on our site” message from eHarmony.
I also read about that time that eHarmony prefers to send men tons of lady profiles, but the ladies only get a piddling.
I don’t remember why they say they do it, but according to one or two articles I read a long time ago, they feel it’s better to send single men one trillion female profiles to choose from per week or daily, but the ladies only get two to four a month, (if that), even if there are one billion potential male profiles in their data base who would be suitable for that female.
It has been years since I read those articles, so I only vaguely remember this stuff, but I think it had something to do with some traditional views of the gender (or assumptions about gender), that eHarmony feels men should pursue (or prefer it) and women are, or should be, more passive, or something like that.
Hester wrote:
There’s a joke about that, where a woman’s check list is very long when she is 25, a bit smaller at 35, and by age 90, her check list is:
1. Must have a pulse
That also fits into what I said above. I’ve given up on the interpretation that a Christian should be married to another Christian – not that I’m fully on board with Christianity anymore.
Even should I revert back to fully, devout, “on fire for the Lord” type of Christian, I am so over the “you must marry another Christian” teaching.
Hester wrote:
I have seen a few preachers here and there apply it to business deals.
They don’t think Christians should have Non Christian business partners, but like several teachings in Christianity, some are weirdly reserved only for singleness.
For example, another one:
Most Christians are fine with Christians pursuing or praying for the following:
a new house; new car; healing from cancer; college education; owning a swimming pool some day; losing 20 pounds of weight.
But the minute a single Christian confesses a longing for a spouse, you hear from the average Christian,
“Wanting marriage is idolatry!”
“You should wait on the Lord for a husband, not seek one yourself”
“No, I will not pray and ask the Lord for you a spouse. You are being selfish for wanting marriage.”
“You should be content with your singleness and not try to change your marital status.”
You seldom hear this:
Joe Christian says,
“I sure would like to go back to college and get an advanced degree. It might help me advance in my career.”
Hank Christian replies,
“No way. You should be content with your education where it is.
It’s idolatry to want a better income or a promotion! You should not try to get a better job by going after a degree.
Just wait on the Lord, and if he wants you to get the corner office, he will give it to you.”
formerly anonymous wrote:
AMEN!!! Love mayo and fries.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I wrote in posts above yesterday that some Non-Christian dating/marriage advice is the same as Christian, and is often just as bad, and is based on generalities and gender role expectations.
@ Hester:
Sometimes Non Christian husbands are more loving and faithful than Christian ones.
I’ve seen story after story of “Christian” husbands who beat their spouses, Texually abuse children, get arrested for soliciting “Tex”, who admit in polls to being addicted to dirty sites, etc.
One Christian married guy went to church weekly, but turned out to be the BTK serial killer.
He was even using his church’s computer to type up his harassing, taunting notes to the police about not being able to catch him.
@ Hester:
A lot of single Christian men, are, as I wrote above, looking for a spiritual equivalent of Mother Theresa but in an Angelina Jolie body.
I’ve heard a few preachers use that example in sermons on marriage to get the males in the audience to arrive at more realistic mate selection ideas, but it’s rare for them to do this.
Usually, in the sermons and books I read, preachers are busy telling Christian females to strive to look like Jolie, because men are supposedly so darn visually oriented and will settle for nothing less.
@Daisy
I may get in trouble for this post…But….I am friends with a couple who are one of the best around. She is devout Pentecostal, he is well, being nice a heathen.
It works for them and it works well. He treats ‘Liz” so much better than some of the so-called Christian husbands it is not funny. I do not blame you in the least if you look outside the faith for a spouse.
Bridget wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4zqtX6SH40
linda wrote:
Oh gosh no, when it comes to views on singleness, this stuff is rampant among Christianity in general, across denominations, across fundamentalism, evangelicals, and all other types.
I grew up Southern Baptists, and SBs are discriminatory about singleness and have awful views of singleness.
It’s not just a few odd balls, or just Neo Calvinists, etc.
Weird views on singlehood cross the borders in Christianity.
Extreme views on singleness that used to pretty much confined to the truly fringe, such as Reconstructionists, for instance, have been bleeding down into run of the mill Christian groups.
The garden variety evangelicals, SBs, etc, are in a panic about declining Christian birth rates, declining marriage rates.
US Marriage Rate Drops to New Low (July 22, 2013 article)
The result is that even run- of- the mill SBs, evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc, are doing stuff like telling single Christians to marry at age 18, telling singles that marriage is better than singleness, being single is sinful, that they are obligated to have ten kids a piece, etc. I’m seeing this stuff in blogs by these groups, in TV shows by Christians, etc.
I’ve actually heard guys like Pat Robertson (and a few others) argue that Christians should “out breed” (the term they use) their “opponents” (such as Muslims).
Bridget wrote:
Bridget, this is also part and parcel of all those “How I Met My Husband/Wife” Testimonies. How they just prayed (or did whatever they keep “advising” you to do) and POOF! God materialized their Perfect Wife/Husband on their doorstep!
formerly anonymous wrote:
Pretzels in a little mustard can be good too. 🙂
@ numo:
My post to her is in moderation, I don’t know why.
What I said in that post in a nutshell:
weird or untrue stereotypes about single people are not confined to just one or two or fringe groups in Christianity, it is every where in Christianity.
Prejudices against single Christians and singlehood runs across even “run of the mill” groups, all of evangelical Christianity, fundamentalists, and Southern Baptists.
I see it everywhere, not just one or two groups.
K.D. wrote:
Thank you. 🙂
I was a devout Christian for years and held out for a Christian spouse but never got one.
After seeing so many stories about Chrisitan men who cheat or beat their wives, and having known some nice Non Christian males, I am open to marrying a Non Christian at this stage.
If it is important for God that a Christian marry a Christian, He should have sent me someone years ago.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That is like the OCD workplaces where staff meetings are considered actual work (this is like one job I had):
you can’t just have a staff meeting.
You have to have a pre- staff meeting meeting to discuss what to talk about at the staff meeting.
But before then, you have to have a pre- pre- meeting to discuss who should be at the pre-meeting.
On Mork and Mindy, when they got into a fight, and Mork was picking on Mindy for being a neat freak:
“You’re so clean, you wash your soap with soap before you’ll use it!”
Daisy wrote:
Outbreed the Heathen.
The basic core of Quiverfull.
Also preached by Extreme Islam — “We Conquer the Lands of the Infidel! Our Wombs Shall Be Our Weapons!”
And is actually straight out of Darwin — “Survival of the Fittest” originally meant relative reproductive success over time, not genocidal wipeout.
Um–regardless of what we say, fundies, evangelicals, and Southern Baptists are not the only Christians around.
Singles lead and are ministered to abundantly in the ELCA and UMC, just to name two. My single Catholic friends look at me like I’m nuts when we talk about the issue. Not an issue for them.
For most of the world, evangelicals ARE fringe groups right from the get go. If you add up non evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and groups like the Coptics I believe you find the evangelical subculture is in the minority to begin with.
Pentecostalism is high number in Africa and South America, but from what my missionary friends tell me it isn’t at all a part of this “gospelly” patriarchal subculture. More akin to traditional father head of the home is there is a father, yes, but that is very different than this weirdness.
linda wrote:
I just disagree – I see anti single bias in general among Christians. It’s not limited to a small portion, or only evangelicals
linda wrote:
Also, if it were true that those groups were that great at meeting the needs of singles, or at lest not treating them like garbage as is the norm in Chistendom, you’d probably see tons of single Christians attending… but they don’t.
Singles are very lowly represented among churches period, from what I’ve read.
Especially single males. Christian single females who want marriage cannot meet partners at any church, because the males do not attend.
Also, if you’re the same poster I’m thinking of from an older thread, given your antagonistic attitude towards Christian married people in assisting single Christian women, if that attitude is representative of ELCA and UMC, I doubt as a single woman I would be welcomed at either place, or helped if I needed help.
Is UMC considered liberal, on doctrinal matters? If so, I would not feel comfortable attending. (I’ve read that some types of Methodist churches have split off and become liberal. I’m not an expert on all things Methodist, though.)
Daisy wrote:
Yep. That’s good too!
Daisy wrote:
Do not judge each individual church by the mothership. I know of some excellent Methodist churches in our area. The same goes for Lutheran churches. Visit each one and judge them on their individual beliefs. John Wesley was a fantastic preacher and I am partial to Luther.
@ Daisy:
yes try to find groups of people who share your same interests. i was never quite hypocritiacl enough to husband hunt at church. checking for wedding rings during the meet and greet was a little much.
But my primary advice is be happy in the life you have. since i am not a christian any more, i believe this life is the only one i have and i will live it to the fullest, not wait for someone else to make it complete.
Another thing that makes no sense at all is the fact that all these alleged leadership roles are determined solely by plumbing received at birth with no regard to aptitude whatsoever.
dee wrote:
This is very true. There are still conservative churches in both the UMC and the ELC. You might find what you are looking for in one of these denominations. I know right now the SBC ain’t cutting it for me personally right now!
Daisy wrote:
Yeah, and I grew up in these circles. (22 and still single, kool aid didn’t take :p)
I observe what is happening to many of these families who drank the kool aid. Funny, we all came of age at the same time because the fad starts at a specific time period (late eighties/early nineties)
Lots of the now-twentysomthings are still pretty much children, never having matured. Sure, they may have jobs and may be living on their own, but they are socially inept and immature. The ones who aren’t this way are actively going against the grain of everything their parents trained them.
These Godly Warriors(TM) that are supposed to take back the world for GOD have turned out to be mostly nothing but socially awkward adult-children who can’t even figure out how to be in a relationship, much less take over the world. And thier parents are confused and can’t figure out for the life of them what went wrong. I mean, THEY FOLLOWED THE BOOKS. DOUG PHILLIPS SAID IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!
The experiment is an unmitigated disaster, with a terrible toll on the guinea pigs, and maybe an even more terrible toll waiting in the wings. As HUG said earlier, hard times are coming.
—–
As for myself, I’m looking for someone like Arce described further up. Hopefully I will meet her eventually…
I’m not insecure and have no need for a sex slave object piece of property, I want a real person to be a partner with.
This whole thread is reminding me of a scene from “Pride & Prejudice” when Caroline Bingley is describing “the ideal woman” to Mr. Darcy and co…seems to be an age-old problem, and Jane Austen hit the nail on the head with Elizabeth Bennet’s reply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=easb3acV3ns
I’ve been reading a lot of this comment forum, and part of me finds it hard to believe some of this stuff. I don’t doubt anyone, mind, it just seems so extreme. Even worse than the Christian self-help singles group I briefly attended that I will talk about below. Not like normal Christians at all. Which I guess I must be. A normal Christian, that is. This stuff seems so … fringe.
I was never told by any Christian it is bad to want to marry. I was never told by any Christian it is bad to be physically attracted to someone else. I was never told by any Christian it is bad to kiss someone before I married them. I was never told I had to marry the “right” kind of Christian. It was expected that I find someone with other things I had in common with besides Jesus … you can’t live Jesus 24/7. Of course I would only marry a Christian. I had no weird physical intimacy hangups. Was a virgin until I married at 33, and I now enjoy the physical side to marriage.
Spiritual maturity … I knew one very successful couple in which the wife was far more spiritual and the spiritual leader, and I called them family, though they were not related by blood.
I even knew a couple similar to Melinda and Mark, mentioned above. They dated before he became a Christian, and I knew her anguish over it before he did become a Christian. I went to their wedding. Met them 10 years later at a church I later attended. They were still happily married, both attending church with their children.
I had no impossible lists of what I wanted in a spouse. And I never knew anyone who had the insane beliefs that some of these fringers have.
I had a successful time on eHarmony (and one other Christian dating web site, though eHarmony is the one that worked out in the end.) No creeps approached me. All the guys seemed normal. And I met my husband there, and we are still happily in love years later.
Anyway, none of the churches I have attended have ever taught any of these weird beliefs on marriage, to my knowledge. My husband did get the whole “you have to be content to be single first, and then God will give you a spouse” thing, which is a very works-based idea … “be good and Jesus/Santa will give you what you want.”
I do identify with what they said about Christian women outnumbering men. After my prospects in Christian college fizzled out (as many normal relationships do!), I could not find any single guys in any churches. The few guys I met were already in dating relationships with, or engaged to, very attractive women. I also briefly went to a rather large Christian youth group. Women were about 80-90 percent of those in attendance. I was about 25 years old or so. Most of the rest were 35 years old and up. Topics of the small groups seemed to center around dealing with bad past relationships. It seemed less a Christian singles group than some kind of Christian self-help group. I found I had next to nothing in common with them. I eventually gave up on it. (I worked nights then, which made it hard to get that night off anyway.)
Anyway, back to this topic … Mark Regnerus wrote a similar article (in Christianity Today in 2009) called “The Case for Early Marriage.” Here are some quotes (with some changes to avoid triggering moderation.)
“Evangelicals make much of avoiding being unequally yoked, but the fact that there are far more spiritually mature young women out there than men makes this … difficult to follow. … If she decides to marry, one in three women has no choice but to marry down in terms of Christian maturity. … Given this unfavorable ratio, and the plain fact that men are, on average, ready for (physical intimacy) earlier in relationships than women are, many young Christian women are being left with a dilemma: either commence a (physical) relationship with a decent, marriage-minded man before she would prefer to — almost certainly before marriage — or risk the real possibility that … she will wait a lot longer than she would like.”
When I read this article right here this previous article by Mark Regnerus is what I thought of. Not these weird, unrealistic expectations of men and women for a “Christian” Angelina Jolie or Edward Cullen. But that even Christian women often have to “compromise” on physical relationships if they hope to maybe get married, otherwise the men will move on. Remaining a virgin until marriage was a non-negotiable for me when I was single. And this is what I faced. That if a woman wanted to wait for a physical relationship until marriage, which is taught in the Bible, she had a good chance of not getting married. And I don’t think a Christian wanting to be a virgin when they marry is an unrealistic expectation.
LL Carwin wrote:
Ditto
@ Jodie B.:
“That if a woman wanted to wait for a physical relationship until marriage, which is taught in the Bible,…”
++++++++++++
Hi, Jodie, B.,
Where in the bible is this taught, and what are the rules?
@ Daisy:
“There’s a joke about that, where a woman’s check list is very long when she is 25, a bit smaller at 35, and by age 90, her check list is: 1. Must have a pulse”
Haha.
I actually get the impression I’m pretty unimaginative about this sort of thing… I never married Barbie and Ken when I was a kid (never even had Barbies), and it honestly astounds me what some people put on their “lists.” Seriously, isn’t it more important that he isn’t a drug dealer or a KKK member, than that he likes jogging? It’s probably an easier standard to meet anyway.
nmgirl wrote:
I’m not “waiting for someone else to make my life complete.” I am fine at times with being single, there are times I’d still like to marry.
There’s nothing hypocritical about wanting to find a Christian partner at a church if you are a Christian. Both my devout Christian parents instructed me when I was younger it was the place to go to find a godly mate, and they instructed me to steer clear of bars, as bars were considered seedy.
You said, “checking for wedding rings during the meet and greet was a little much.”
I wouldn’t do that for every man at a church,but you know, if you are a single who is shuffled off to the singles class, it’s safe to assume any men in that class are… wait for it… single.
dee wrote:
I was asking precisely because I do not know.
Jodie B. wrote:
It’s not just the churches teaching this stuff, but also information and advice about relationships, marriage and dating in Christian books, blogs, radio programs, television shows, and magazines.
So if you don’t see it in a church, it might be in a sermon you see on TV, or an article in a Christian magazine.
Jodie B. wrote:
Mark Regnerus’s studies are usually very interesting. But I disagree with his conclusions on this one. The U.S. Census shows us loud and clear that marrying under the age of 25 is highly correlated with divorce. Early marriage might assuage some of the yearning for sex, but people who marry young divorce at a high rate.
Much of the “Christian” “teaching” – and I deliberately put each of those words in its own set of ironic quotation marks – referred to on this thread shares, if I understand matters aright, a common problem.
It’s the same problem that afflicted “science” for centuries in Europe and that only began to be solved around the time of Newton and his contemporaries. In fact, science as we know it today, namely as the building of theory founded on evidence that can in principle be reproduced anywhere and by anyone, is only a few hundred years old in the west. Before that, an educated elite set the intellectual fashions and a few “learned” and eminent “scholars” would simply present their own speculative and superstitious conjectures as fact. Their ranks were, naturally, swelled by a few others who were not learned but were clever and assertive self-marketers. Everyone else had to believe them. That explains the crackpot medieval “cures” you hear about on Horrible Histories. (If you want a laugh, be sure to check this lot out. “Man-child – do you want to be a gallant hero? Then you must wee on that man’s head!” Priceless.)
This sort of thing is worth bearing in mind next time you read a trained Christian teacher (sic) picking out scriptures and brewing them into some kind of crackpot spiritual principle or law that makes little sense and, more importantly, simply doesn’t stand up when tested against real-world data. Of course, they have a cop-out clause for that: it doesn’t work for you “because of sin”.
@ KR Wordgazer:
These were great articles! I’ve come to similar conclusions in the past few years, after 26 years of marriage 😉 I hate that we were sold such a distortion of what marriage “had” to look like 🙁 I think my husband and I both spent too much time and energy lamenting over what we weren’t doing right.
Yes, Daisy, I’m probably the poster you find so antagonistic to singles re another thread stream.
But the truth is, my experience in the UMC and the ELCA is that they are chocked full of single men and women. Those folks are treated like fully functioning adults and they act like it.
My experience with those single women who’s needs could only be met apparently by MARRIED MEN were in the SBC. I think they had drunk enough of the koolaid of patriarchy to honestly think they could not take care of getting the oil changed in their own cars, or fix their own faucets. I think they honestly believed they needed the emotional intimacy of a man to be functioning adults, which we both know isn’t true. And landing in a church where most if not all of the men were married, they looked for that from the married men in the church.
There are liberal and there are very conservative churches in the ELCA and the UMC. But my experience across three states is that all the adults–indeed all past confirmation age–are treated as fully functioning adults. The churches I’ve experienced have quite a lot of singles in them. The women, married or single, hold roles and responsibilities just the same as the men.
But there is a big difference from evangelicalism: people tend not to come looking to get their needs met, but to serve and to worship. The mainlines don’t try to control your life, but neither do they see it their job to make you happy or meet your emotional and psychological needs. They more see their jobs (speaking of the services and meetings) as proclaiming Christ and then offering all the chance to roll up their sleeves and get busy improving the world.
I think evangelicalism sees itself as a hospital for sick souls sometimes, and sometimes as some sort of uber parent to rule all our lives. And I think a lot of people come to evangelical churches with the thought “its all about me and the church is bad if it doesn’t focus on my needs, wishes, and stroke my ego.”
I’m glad–so very very glad–to have encountered such abuse in that sort of system that I left. And I’m grateful–so very very grateful–to have found a church home where all adults are treated like adults and expected to act like adults.
linda wrote:
Similar subject today over at Internet Monk:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/42358
“Longing for a Mother, not a Babysitter”
Janey wrote:
The formal name for this is “Marriage of Continenece”, i.e. marriage solely to “assuage the yearning for sex” and to make the sex legal. An unintentional side effect of the Christian extreme emphasis on virginity and purity.
Made worse by the practice of bribing Christian kids to stay pure with promises of barn-burning swing-from-the-chandeliers married S*E*X as a reward.
linda wrote:
Sounds like a setup for soap-opera-level Adultery, as all said single women go after the married men. Win-win for male philanderers.
Jodie B. wrote:
Jodie, that also holds when you have a Y chromosome. Saving yourself for marriage becomes a guarantee that you’ll never marry.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
What does a born-and-raised living weapon do when they have to live a peacetime life?
nmgirl wrote:
Sorry you had to get completely out of “being a Christian” to live your life. From what I understand, that is the main thrust of Judaism (and by extension, early Christianity). In Judaism, God’s tone seems to be “Keep my Commandments, but LIVE YOUR LIFE! L’CHAIM!”
JMJ over at Christian Monist credits Greek philosophical ideas (primarily Plato’s hard division between Spiritual Archetypes and Physical Reality) with messing this up, until denying living life for 24/7/365 Being Spiritual(TM) in monasteries and hermitages and prayer and contemplation and Holy Orders became THE way to please God. (St Benedict started the modern Western monastery because too many solitary Monks — the normal Monastic practice at the time — was causing a lot of flakeouts. Bringing Monastics together in a community provided a reality check.)
elastigirl wrote:
I’m really not a Bible scholar. You will need to make your own decisions on your life and relationships, and research this for yourself. I don’t know any exact rules on this, though it seems generally accepted in most Christian churches that one should wait for physical intimacy until marriage. (I’m using physical intimacy instead of the three letter “S” word as it might trigger the moderation filter of this forum.) A lot of what is said in the Bible uses other terms, like becoming “one flesh.” If you are asking about other forms of intimacy that allow you to remain technically a virgin, again, you will need to decide for yourself. My rules were not to do anything that I would not do in front of other people, but that is, again, what I decided for myself. Each person needs to decide for themselves.
Hebrews 13:4: Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled …
I Thessalonians 4:3: For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from (“S” word ending in “ual”) immorality …
This next one is at the end of this passage. It can be taken in the context of divorce that Jesus is discussing marriage, and contains the phrase “one flesh,” which is generally thought to mean the “S” word.
Mark 10:2-9: Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
I Corinthians 6:18: Flee from (“S” word ending in “ual”) immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins (“S” word ending in “ually”), sins against their own body.
I Corinthians 7:2: But because of the temptation to (“S” word ending in “ual”) immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
Those are just a few. Again, please make your own decisions.
So, Jodie B., not questioning your personal choices at all; but you did just contradict yourself; in spite of the way you backed away from it by telling elastigirl to make her own decisions. No blanket prohibition against premarital sex is taught in the Bible. I think we need to be very, very careful about throwing the phrase “taught in the Bible” around. It isn’t at ALL the same thing as “generally accepted in most Christian churches.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Not necessarily. My husband was 38 when we married and he was a virgin. I remember thinking (and I still think it) that the other women he unsuccessfully pursued had to be blind and stupid not to see what a great guy he was: romantic, kind, interesting, hard-working, handy around the house (just a week ago he replaced the broken power steering of his own car … by himself! … which saved a lot of money, I’m sure), a good cook, and a good Christian. (Of course, I was glad they did not notice him, because I got him!)
So, sometimes women can be blind to great guys out there, for whatever reasons they have, from unrealistic expectations, to … well … whatever their motivations are.
Btw, it’s nice to meet a fellow Brony!
Phoenix wrote:
I believe it is taught in the Bible. I see it in those verses. When I said “which is taught in the Bible” I meant what I see being taught in the Bible, and what I personally believe to be true, and also what is “generally accepted in most Christian churches.”
I think what you may be talking about revolves around the phrase (“S” word with “ual”) immorality, which is taken from the Greek word “porneia.” (It can be found in I Corinthians 6:18) Porneia is sometimes translated as a general term for “S” immorality, and other times as “fornication.” Fornication is defined as “S” between two people not married to each other.
But, of course, and I think this is what you are getting at, this is a translation of the Greek written approximately two thousand years ago, so there are some that doubt that premarital relations are explicitly mentioned, and that only “S” immorality is mentioned. This is the difficulty of all translation work, especially with words that can have more than one meaning.
But, I take these things in context with each other. I do think that Jesus is talking about marriage in this verse in Mark 10 (he was refuting the pharisees when they were talking about divorce, and was reaffirming the importance of marriage) “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” I see “one flesh” as both the “S” word itself (the physical act) and as the marriage covenant (the spiritual/emotional act) which binds two souls together in love, ensuring they treat the other’s body and soul as important as their own, because they are now “one”. It was meant to last … “let no man separate.” Many married couples also use this verse in their wedding ceremonies.
Another verse I mentioned was I Corinthians 7:2: “But because of the temptation to (“S” word ending in “ual”) immorality (porneia), each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” It does seem to indicate being married avoids that kind of immorality, and thus, that premarital relations are “S” immorality.
Another person might have their own view of what the Bible says, if they even believe in it. Again, everyone comes to their own decisions, and other people’s lives are their own business, not mine! Please, make your own decisions about what God says in the Bible, if you are a Christian. If you are not, then make your own decisions the way you deem best.
Also, remember the saying: “Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has two that really stink!” Maybe this is one of mine! 🙂
Janey wrote:
I don’t think he was recommending it for everyone.
First of all, by championing “early marriage” he meant early twenties, and not teen marriage.
Quote from his article: “First, what is deemed ‘early marriage’ by researchers is commonly misunderstood. The most competent evaluations of early marriage and divorce note that the association between early age-at-marriage and divorce occurs largely among those who marry as teenagers (before age 20). Although probably all of us know successful examples of such marriages, I still don’t think teen marriage is wise. But the data suggest that marriages that commence in the early 20s are not as risky —especially for women — as conventional wisdom claims.”
He also mentions “especially for women” as women do tend to mature faster than their same-age male counterparts, and thus these younger twenties women might have the maturity to handle marriage.
He also talks about “several roots to the link between age-at-marriage and divorce” and how they can be overcome.
He doesn’t believe in marrying only for sex:
“Yet in our culture of shallow marriages and easy divorce, marrying simply for the lure of sex is not what Paul had in mind. He reminded the Corinthians — and us — of the only two callings for believers in this matter: a season or lifetime of singleness, or marriage. In other words, our freedom to serve as singles or our submission as married people is never intended to be about us. It’s about God. While I certainly understand the biological urge to mate, we need to remind young adults that values like generosity, courage, dependability, compassion, and godliness live on far longer than do high testosterone and estrogen levels. Simply put, family and friends ought to do their best to help young couples discern whether there is more to their love than sexual desire.”
He also deals with unrealistic expectations:
“Marriage is a remarkable institution in many ways, but it cannot bear all of the unrealistic expectations that we moderns have heaped upon it. So enough of the honeymoon banter: insiders know that a good marriage is hard work, and that its challenges often begin immediately. The abstinence industry perpetuates a blissful myth; too much is made of the explosively rewarding marital sex life awaiting abstainers. The fact is that God makes no promises of great sex to those who wait. Some experience difficult marriages. Spouses wander. Others cannot conceive children.
In reality, spouses learn marriage, just like they learn communication, child-rearing, or making love. Unfortunately, education about marriage is now sadly perceived as self-obvious, juvenile, or feminine, the domain of disparaged home economics courses. Nothing could be further from the truth. In sum, Christians need to get real about marriage: it’s a covenant helpmate thing that suffers from too much idealism and too little realism. Weddings may be beautiful, but marriages become beautiful. Personal storytelling and testimonies can work wonders here, since so much about life is learned behavior. Young adults want to know that it’s possible for two fellow believers to stay happy together for a lifetime, and they need to hear how the generations preceding them did it.”
Also this:
“If a young couple displays maturity, faith, fidelity, a commitment to understanding marriage as a covenant, and a sense of realism about marriage, then it’s our duty — indeed, our pleasure — to help them expedite the part of marriage that involves public recognition and celebration of what God is already knitting together. We ought to ‘rejoice and delight’ in them, and praise their love (Song of Sol. 1:4).”
Note he says “if.” “If” they are mature. “If” they are committed to understanding marriage as a covenant. “If” they have a sense of realism about marriage. I do not think he is advocating young marriage for those who aren’t mature. But I know couples who got married young (20s) and are still in deep love. They were mature, more mature than many people in their thirties. I think these people are what Mark Regnerus is talking about. People that are mature, that are ready, but that are told not to marry young by others who believe that no one can possibly be ready until at least their late twenties or early thirties.
Well, some can be ready earlier. Many others can’t.
I have 2 sons, both single, aged 23 and 27. From the time they were born, I prayed for them that they would be godly men who loved the Lord and loved his word, and God has answered that prayer. I also prayed that if it were God’s will for them to marry, that he would provide a godly wife, and that if marriage was not God’s will for them, that both they and I would be content with that. I didn’t want to be that mother who made my kids miserable because they weren’t getting married and having babies, and frequently reminded them that “it’s better to be single wishing you were married, than married wishing you were single.”
So, my older son, who is now a member of the Roman Catholic church, has been accepted as a seminarian and will start studying for the priesthood next month. One of the things he appreciates about the Catholic church is that both marriage and Holy Orders are seen as vocations, and as sacraments. The gift of singleness is celebrated and appreciated in a way rarely, if ever, seen in the Baptist churches he grew up in.
I admit that, despite my talk about contentment, his decision was a very difficult one for me to accept. God really had to smack me upside the head with the realization that I was unhappy about it because it wasn’t what *I* wanted for my son — or for myself. And that really isn’t what it’s supposed to be about. My focus needs to be, what does *God* want for him?
I still would be happy for him to meet someone and get married and have kids, but I am having to let go of my expectations for that, just as he has. It’s still a struggle, and I expect it will continue to be. But, what a blessing as a parent, to see his faith and his love for the Lord. When your child tells you, “If I’m serious about following Jesus, I have to be willing to give him everything” — you can’t disagree with that.
Daisy wrote:
Luckily, not in the Christian magazines I read! I tend to avoid sermons on TV, as they are often from televangelists, and I think the whole “health and wealth” movement at the very least borders on heresy, if it isn’t outright heresy.
But, yes, you are right. And I do know about a lot of stuff that is out there. Or, at least, I have found out mostly due to the internet.
Like the whole “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” thing, that evolved into all of this “emotional” purity nonsense.
(I read a portion of the book online at amazon, and [I hope I am remembering the story right] I had a good laugh at the dream – or daydream or something – in which the person [the author of the book, maybe?] was getting married, and all the “ghosts of girlfriends past” were there, and he apparently felt so guilty that he had dared to date and even love all these girls before he met his wife and now they stood in the way of his love for his wife because he had loved them first and had not saved all of his love only for his wife and it was soooooo horrible … I think he even might have cried … I mean, really, this is so unrealistic and melodramatic. And not even true! When I got married, I was not thinking of the “ghosts of boyfriends past,” I was thinking of the one I loved! And I’m sure I am not the only one! In fact, I bet few people think of past relationships on their wedding day (like that weird dream/daydream of Joshua Harris), unless an ex actually decides to physically crash the party or something.
And of course, related to that, there are the Duggars and their “saving the kiss for the marriage.” Because if you don’t wait (the Duggar parents didn’t wait themselves for the kiss – ha ha) it is “defrauding” or something. More “emotional” purity stuff there.
And the stay-at-home-daughters movement of the Botkin’s et.al. Which leaves me like this ???????
A lot of this is really fringe stuff and very weird stuff and certainly extra-Biblical.
Jodie B. wrote:
I agree. Evangelicalism has always had an ambivalent relationship with human sexuality. On the one hand it is highly touted as a gift from the Almighty but only within strict confines and parameters, and on the other hand, any deviation from said parameters can result in excommunication from place of worship.
I say let each individual decide the matter for him or herself using reason, responsibility to others, and conscience. Or as HUG put it briefly above: L’CHAIM!
@ Jodie B.:
Thanks for your reply, Jodie. I’ve started saying grrrrrrr whenever I hear or read “the bible teaches”. Or “scripture commands…”. I’m liable to bite someone with that one.
I’ve found in most cases that in order to make those statements and believe them, one becomes a “contortionist for Christ!:)”, jamming selective verses into a preconceived mold which leads to extremely nonintuitive constrictions for living (while ignoring a bunch of other things that are more important).
All to say, I appreciated very much your nondogmatic reply.
Jodie B. wrote:
It’s “Jesus Plus” —
salvation = Jesus plus homeschooling, Jesus plus courtship, Jesus plus daughters staying at home, Jesus plus the trend du jour.
No, dear friends, it’s *just* Jesus.
I have heard about how “it’s SO important” to save your first kiss for marriage. Haven’t found that in the Bible yet. However, I did find:
Romans 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss.
I Corinthians 16:20 Greet one another with a holy kiss.
II Corinthians 13:12 Greet one another with a holy kiss.
I Thessalonians 5:26 Greet all God’s people with a holy kiss.
🙂
Jodie B. wrote:
Jodie B,
Thank you for your full and humble replay. This quote of yours is precisely what I’m talking about. I think it is very, very important to make this disclaimer; although, of course, I don’t do it with complete consistency either:). I am coming from somewhat the same place as elastigirl about that phrase “is taught in the Bible.” I don’t trust it. I have heard it used for a lot of very questionable things and when the person who uses it is questioned they quote verses that don’t specifically address the issue at hand or even verses that can be interpreted in the to allow what they are prohibiting. Again, thanks for the reply.
@ elastigirl:
Jodie B,
to clarify, you seem reasonable, sensible, sincere and NOT a Contortionist For Christ. Which is a true compliment.
elastigirl wrote:
Elastigirl,
I completely agree and I absolutely LOVE the phrase “contortionist for Christ.”
Jodie B. wrote:
This thing of seeing love as a pie that get used up as you love is even weirder if you consider the courtship people largely overlap with the Quiverfull.
If the heart/love was really used up as you love, then you should not give a piece of your heart to your husband: God wants you to love Him with your whole heart. A woman would rather choose a husband who hates his mother than one who loves his mum, as she can get every piece of the mother-hater’s heart. And having many children would be a terrible idea – by the time your 6th child is born, all the pieces of your heart was already given and there is no love left for child 6, the poor little thing.
Yet I never heard of a Quiverfull wedding where they preached: “Do not give your whole heart to your husband. Keep some for your children.”
@ Phoenix:
in case “Contortionist For Christ!” ever takes off, remember elastigirl said it first.
elastigirl wrote:
Elasti – I’m with both you and Jodie on this. Very many who consider themselves evangelicals (small “e”) fail to realise just how interpretable the bible is, and therefore just how much interpreting of it they actually do.
I decided a few years ago that I would no longer debate scripture, since that only leads to divisions and quarrels. “Debating scripture” is different, to my mind, from stating how one’s own principles sit alongside scripture, at the same time allowing others to do the same. That’s actually provides a better platform for mutually teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
I will probably start responding to “the Bible teaches” with “no it doesn’t – it doesn’t teach anything, because it’s a book”. It can be made to teach almost anything we want, as you know.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
like how ladybugs are a type of christ. urban legend in the works, complete with gender role significance.
@ elastigirl: what???!!!
@ numo:
after hearing one too many contrived Mother’s Day “sermons” wherein a pastor pores over his bible & cooks up something original about “biblical” teaching on motherhood and its spiritual significance (or else crusty old leftovers if it’s inconvenient or simply not possible), I decided to give myself a similar challenge:
to pore over my bible and cook up biblical teaching on ladybugs and their spiritual significance.
For added fun, i’ll be concocting an urban legend with a highly detailed history of ladybugs in spiritual formation over the millennia, develop a doctrine drawing heavily from paul, tie in gender role significance, introduce it somehow into the internetworld, and see how long it takes for Christian culture to catch on.
In time, it will make its way into sermons, blog discussions, children’s books, sunday school material,…. by that point i’ll have already copyrighted my (legend), so i’ll begin introducing my own line of ladybug greetings cards, ladybug tear-off daily devotionals, ladybug tote bags, ladybug Tshirts, ladybug rings, ladybug-on-a-chain for girls, peuter ladybug-on-a-leather-cord for boys. After that, it’s only a matter of time until Sanctity of Ladybugs Sunday makes its way onto the calendar.
Jeff S, you get first rights in writing a worship song touching on the doctrine of ladybugs.
@ elastigirl: aha! It’s *your* urban legend. 😉
and it sounds like the equally ridiculous (imo) stories about candy canes and mistreatment of animals (lambs, to be specific) that have been making the rounds.
@ elastigirl: We could have ladybug-shaped chocolates…!
@ numo:
the candy cane nonsense was the inspiration for the urban legend bit. and yes, there is no end to spiritual ladybug merchandise. you can be in charge of the art department if you like. although, I get the feeling ladybug cuteness is not your style. Feel free to be as abstract as you want.
@ elastigirl: I think ladybugs are wonderful, but you’re right, ladybug cute isn’t quite my style…. *unless* someone makes a pair of Vans that look like ladybugs, that is. (I really like some of their more outré prints, like the one a few years back that was bandanna-inspired but had scorpions throughout. Then again, I have some nice skully Day of the Dead shoes… but it’s usually too cold here to wear them when the time is right.)
@ numo:
yeah, irony in footwear!
Jodie B. wrote:
I know I wasn’t. VERY late bloomer, probably a side effect of being a kid genius. To this day, I seem to be a 30-year-old in a 57-year-old body; by the time I grew psychologically to marriageable age and stability, the opportunity had long passed.
Jodie B. wrote:
He sounds a lot less clueless than I was at that age, and handier around the house than I’ve ever been. I’m the type of guy who’d be best in a library somewhere, researching something obscure.
I have been slammed for it. In this blog, on one of the other recent threads. My interest is mostly in the derivative arts from it — the fics, the artwork, the original comics, the original-composition music, the fan-made animations. I’m old enough to remember the start of Star Trek and Star Wars fandoms, and I have NEVER seen this amount of fan-generated creative output.
numo wrote:
Like these? 😀
http://www.johnandkiras.com/product/Red-Lovebugs/Ladybugs-Bees-9pc
@ formerly anonymous:
ok, you get to be product manager.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Headless,
Fanfic away. (as in, keep on) You are appreciated here. An entertaining & thought provoking presence.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Forgive my jumping off on rather a large tangent, but…
I am 45 years old today. My family got me… a skateboard. Woo-hoo!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Really?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Happy BD to you and yours!!
elastigirl wrote:
My fiercely liberal Christian friends would say that nearly every right-leaning Christian non-profit stoops to fear mongering to raise funds. I’m worried that she might have a point.
emr wrote:
Amen. I’m with you. It’s hard to say goodbye to the dream of grandchildren, but there you are!
@ elastigirl: You know it!
Janey wrote:
I’m no liberal, but the more I learn about Christians and LGBT issues, the more I see fear mongering in just about every bit of PR put out by practically every conservative Christian (evangelical or Catholic) organization with “family” or “marriage” in the title. So, I’m with you on that worry.
Josh wrote:
I recently got a call from one such group, and on the gay issue too. Fear mongering for sure! I told them to take me off their list. And I’m not liberal either.
Phoenix wrote:
Thank you, Elastigirl and Phoenix!
Retha Faurie wrote:
Oh, I agree. That whole pie analogy … “Love too many people and you’ll only be left with the crumbs to give your husband! You don’t want that, do you!”
They seem to differentiate between kinds of love. I guess it is different depending upon whom you love. Mrs. Duggar, if I remember correctly, teaches (something similar, I can’t remember her words) that love grows within a person for each of their children.
But not, apparently, for a romantic relationship. Then it is giving pieces of your heart away, and you have to give your whole heart only to the one you marry. I guess they are teaching “heart” virginity, too.
This reads like the dream of every Christian woman. The men in the church are no good (or not good enough for you) so I’ll step outside the church. You know the Lord works in mysterious ways. And guess what – he’s a doctor, too! Now I can have the best of both possible worlds, money and love.
Lucy
You may have misunderstood. She would have dated someone inside the church. She was not asked. She, in the midst of doing a church related activity, met this gentlemen. He became a Christian. If you knew this young woman, you would understand that money was not part of the equation for her. Since he became a Christian, why is that “stepping outside of the church?”
Josh wrote:
I agree. I’m now convinced that a lot of the “data” and “studies” fed to us were deliberately re-framed to appear a certain way.
Am reading this and it is excellent!
http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/free-art/ao_response_to_the_danvers_statementw.pdf
formerly anonymous wrote:
Really really.
Bridget wrote:
Thanks, Bridget!
Lucy wrote:
There are no men in the church.
Single females late 20s and older tend to out number single males in most churches in the same age ranges.
The only large number of single males in the church tend to be teen agers or in their early 20s. If you are a single woman over the ages of 25, 30, years of age, or 40s, there are no guys.
The only 30 and 40 something men who attend church are already married. You really have no choice but to look outside the church these days.
What’s really funny are the Christians who chide single Christians who feel church is an acceptable place to meet a mate – they think church is for Bible reading only, or singing a few hymns.
I’m still waiting for such uber- spiritual Christians to tell me where else a Christian gal can go to meet a Christian single man to date or marry, other than their old stand-by eHarmony (dating site), they got nothing. (And eHarmony didn’t work for me, nor has it worked for lots of other Christian single women.)
Should I try strip clubs to meet Christian guys? Is a strip club more suitable than a church to get into a relationship? 😆 I really do wonder about Christian logic at times.
linda wrote:
You misunderstand.
I as a single woman do not think that only a married man can meet my needs, but my point of contention is that if I happen to be talking to a married guy, the Christian woman (the wife) automatically assumes I am trying to steal her man away, my motives are automatically suspect.
There is a very disgusting, condescending stereotype that all single women are harlots who try to have affairs with married men. You seem to believe that stereotype.
Using the curtain rod example, if I had some rods that need to be hung, I would try to hang them myself.
But suppose I cannot, and I don’t have the money to hire someone to do so, and none of my friends know how, or don’t have the time, and some married guy is the only person I happen to know who could do it and be willing – then what is your objection?
Your husband is not just your husband but is also a “brother in Christ” to other people in the body of Christ. You don’t get to hoard him all to yourself.
Also church is not just about “serving and worshipping.” The Bible does instruct Christians to meet the needs of other Christians.
That means if I do have a need, and I’m going to a church, I am not going to be bashful about asking for a need to be met from those church members!
I had that “serve other people, and put other people’s needs first, do not consider your own needs at all” garbage rammed down my throat by my Christian mother my whole life, and it was backed up by preachers and Christian literature I read growing up.
That kind of thinking is called ‘codependency,’ and caused all sorts of problems for me in several areas of my life that I’ve only begun to recover of lately.
The thinking that it’s wrong to get your needs met, and you are only to serve or worship, is not Christian or “biblical” teaching, either.
Read books by Cloud, Townsend, and other Christian psychiatrists that explain why it is not, complete with copious Bible verse references to prove it from a Bible standpoint.
Phoenix wrote:
I think the Bible does teach that premarital sex is sinful. It’s one of the biggest reasons I remained a virgin into my forties.
To play the game of suggesting, “well, the Greek underlying can be translated this way or that in this one passage discussing the act and marriage,” to wiggle out of virginity until marriage standard, is something I think is very insulting to Christians who have held on past their late 20s, and who are still virgins.
You’re basically telling me I could have been fooling around this entire time (me never having married), no big deal, because the Bible does not prohibit it, so go out and do it.
linda wrote:
Linda, since you admit that even you know that the SBC women you remember (and how many were there?–I’m betting maybe three at most.) are not typical of single Christian women and you know that you are coming across as hostile to single Christian women, why are you continuing to harp on this? We know now that you are blessed with a husband who would rather spend his time with you and that you can fix a sink with the best of them, and that you think your current church has the answers. If you continue to belabor this I’m going to know that you are actually threatened by single Christian women and that you look down on Southern Baptists. I’m still not hearing compassion from you. By the way, I wouldn’t ask you or your husband for help if I was stranded in the desert without water and you were driving by.
I interrupt this comment thread to announce a very good article on the Out of Ur blog. They did an interview with Mary DeMuth on the topic of child sexual abuse and included a link to G.R.A.C.E.’s statement about child abuse in the church. If you haven’t signed the statement yet, please do so.
http://www.outofur.com/archives/2013/07/friday_five_int_13.html
@ Jodie B.:
I have not read the I Kissed Dating Goodbye book myself, but you can find blogs by people who read it, and it messed up their romantic life (many of them are still single in their 30s, who want marriage, but who have no idea who to get dates, because of the book).
Ideas similar to IKDG book have worked there way into other Christian material about dating and marriage.
Ron Luce teaches kids who go to his Christian Academy more nuttiness that prevents them from getting dates and marrying:
Fear and Shame in Dating
“no idea who to get dates, because of the book”
Should be,
“no idea HOW to get…”
@ Daisy:
Daisy, my intent was certainly not to insult you or impugn your choices. I was expressing my own interpretation of the whole of scripture and I don’t find a specific and blanket prohibition of premarital sex (or, for that matter, of living together or of masturbation.) And I didn’t and won’t play games with the translation of Greek terms. I also didn’t say that intimate activity isn’t a big deal — it is a very big deal.
I am not myself a virgin as I married young and had children before my divorce; but I have never been with a man other than the father of my children. Also, I have remained not only single but celibate for the last 20 years since my divorce while realizing that I never knew — and perhaps will never know — tenderness or true passion. I know loneliness. So I think I can understand a bit of your pain and your desire to have your choices affirmed by scripture.
Whatever I believe, following your convictions has meant real sacrifice and pain for you and that is precious to our God.
Daisy, I’ve been thinking more about this because it seems like part of a conversation that I’ve been having with myself, with God, and with a couple of very close (female) friends for several years. I’m going to share some parts of that conversation because I think they might be helpful in your situation; which is similar to mine in some ways. (I’m in my late 50’s by the way.) Take what helps, if anything, and leave the rest.
Why have I remained celibate for 20 years when for much of that time I have not felt that I was forbidden either to marry another Christian, to marry a “non-Christian,” or to have a relationship that included physical intimacy outside of marriage? (Here, lest I come across as a libertine, I want to say that I most emphatically DO find that the Bible prohibits adultery. Also, that I never found the idea of casual sex appealing.) Early on, the reasons were practical. My children were young and I was very, very busy. Also, for many years I was part of SGM; where only marriage within SGM would have been acceptable. (Thank God I didn’t marry within SGM, by the way.)
Is it because I didn’t have opportunities? Well, no, not really. Is it because I’m physically unattractive? Well, like any long-term single, at my low times that explanation digs at me. But I don’t think that’s it for two reasons. One is that I actually am a pretty cute gal on most days. Also, it seems apparent from looking around that being really unattractive (and I have a broad definition of attractiveness) doesn’t stop a lot of women from finding a man.
Is it because I’m a toxic person who can’t sustain any relationship? I happen to know a very large and quite pretty gal who blames her long-term singleness on her weight. But the truth is that the weight is not really the problem. The problem is that she is self-centered, manipulative, smothering, and whiney – she can’t keep a friend or roommate, either. And I am blessed to have good relationships with my grown children, with other family, and with colleagues; and to have some very good friends. Hey, honesty is essential, here. I have issues and I’m pretty quirky; but I’m a kind and interesting person with a great sense of humor. I practice respect in all my relationships.
So, why? Well, just in the past year or so I’ve realized that I actually have been and am called to singleness. It needs to be demonstrated that a single (not a serially monogamous) woman can be full of joy and life. A person who is perfectly well-suited to be wanted, loved, adored, and valued in a marriage can yet be alone and be desirable (in a broad sense,) lovable, adorable (in an other than cutesy-pie sense,) and valuable. And she can know it. BUT, even if I hadn’t discovered this call on my life; I think I know the answer to that big “Why?” It is that I didn’t want or need just to be married. That’s actually not that hard to achieve. I wanted a best friend, a match, a mate, a sweetheart. I wanted my own special love story. Actually, I suppose I still do. And I didn’t just want sex; which is actually not very hard to obtain, either. I wanted an amazing, deeply tender, passionate, and fully licit love. I’ve never been willing to settle for less.
And, Daisy, this is the part of my conversation that I think might be applicable to you. (Again, I could be wildly wrong.) I think you have remained a virgin past 40 not just because of your convictions; but because you haven’t just wanted to “get it on.” You have wanted passion, tenderness, and a man of your own. You’ve remained single because you haven’t been willing to settle. And that is an amazing testimony that should NEVER be discounted. God bless you.
Daisy wrote:
MOre like Church is Too Spiritual(TM) a place to meet a mate or have a life.
Phoenix, that is the most eloquent expression of these issues that I have read for a long time. Thank you for your post. I wish that more of those people who blah on about Christian marriage – and the big shots who write the books telling us all how it should be done – could read it.
Daisy and Headless Unicorn Guy, as always you both write very sensitively and sensibly. The subject of singleness in Christian circles frequently pops up on Christian/discernment blogs, but few speak about it in such a clear and honest manner.
To those I’ve offended, sorry.
Some folks would rather wallow in a pity party than heal, I guess.
And I have taught the books by Townsend.
Sometimes, folks, when we are unhappy and think we are unhappy with our situation, it may be that we are unhappy with ourselves OR are actually in rebellion against good health.
Something to think about.
And there are more sides to the debate on how church should be run than just the “it must make me happy” crowd wants to think.
And no, I don’t harp on this. I do reserve the right to respond to posts directed at me.
My heart says go and say no more, but before I leave TWW let me share the situation I watched play out. I’ll make it short and to the point:
Work friend of my dh suffered a couple of years with cancer and then passed away. I would expect his dear wife did most of her grieving during those two years. After he did die, she immediately went from one of the most self sufficient women I knew to one seeking “covering”, feeling she could no longer do the routine chores she had handled during his illness and now needed “help.” (To her credit, she had been TAUGHT that.)
The first man she made an overt play for was my husband, who saw through it and stopped being the good churchman and helping her. Ditto about 3 other guys.
Long story short, when she was widowed nearly 2 months a travelling evangelist, very married, came to town. She “needed” his “covering” and “understanding.” By the time she was widowed 4 months he was divorced and remarried to her, devastating his first wife and children.
During the same time frame our church, having launched an outreach to single women where the men volunteered routine home maintenance and car care was rocked by several affairs and other men refusing to volunteer because of the aggressive behavior of a few of the women they sought to help. So the whole church reframed its concept of outreach.
One of the things that came out of our time of deep soul searching as a church was this: you cannot possibly meet all of the emotional needs of all the emotionally needy people. And that our system, pretty patriarchal, had to be sick since the same sorts of ministry were being done by other area churches without encountering these problems.
What we found, take it or leave it, was this: when the system consistently treats all adults AS adults, men and women, married or single, you can get a whole heap of stuff done without encountering these problems. When you systemically teach women they cannot and should not function as self sufficient adults they don’t. And worse yet, you attract some folks that are rather unstable and looking for someone to take care of them.
When we transferred out of the area, and went looking for a new church home, several things were important to us: no patriarchy, a healthy church where all adults are treated as adults (that can happen with or without women’s ordination), and a church that isn’t into special interest groups. By that I mean that doesn’t segregate into women’s ministry, men’s ministry, singles’ ministry, mothers of tots, etc.
We didn’t think it could be done, but were pleased and surprised to find that so many churches outside the little evangelical subculture do it quite well. They seem to be focusing on proclaiming Christ rather than building positive self esteem in attendees. They seem to be more effective at meeting the needs of a hurting world because they are not focused on meeting their own needs.
We were just talking about it this week: now when we travel, we can sense pretty quickly which kind of church a church is (within the same denom)just by the music. No, not the worship wars. Just that whatever the genre that church chooses and uses, is the music all about the emotions of the worshiper or all about Jesus?
Our experience, and it is ONLY our experience and yours may vary, is that some folks seem stuck in being miserable and unhappy and seek a place to do that together.
Others are all about seeking God, rolling up their sleeves, and getting busy joyfully making the world a better place.
And the really neat thing is, each of us gets to choose.
linda wrote:
This man was not helpless, though. He made a choice to divorce and deal with his wife treacherously. Apparently your husband made a different choice.
Treating people like adults means trusting them to change curtain rods while abstaining from sex. When we start creating rules that cause single people to suffer, that isn’t right. And it might not meaning anything to the married folks, but it matters to singles. I remember taking my son to a play date with a friend whose mother is married, and I got a concerned “I wouldn’t do that” from my church friends. It’s a good thing that this woman was an unbeliever with such loose morals or my son would have missed out on a play date. And so he plays more with children outside the church than inside unless there is a function going on. That just isn’t right (and my church has been WAY more supportive than others- there is a woman at the church who does a lot for my son, but it’s always in the context where there are other adults around, or I’m not- never would she meet me and my son alone with her son).
linda wrote:
It’s only because you finally acknowledged this that I’m not going to discuss this further; except to say that you DO continue to harp on this.
And to repeat that I wouldn’t ask for help from you or your husband if I was stranded in the desert without water and you were driving by. Yes, by gosh, I’m offended.
Amarantine wrote:
Thank you — I was hoping that I had expressed it well.
Daisy wrote:
From what I’ve seen on the blogs, IKDG caused more problems than it solved.
Also, recently Josh “IKDG” Harris came out as having been sexually molested as a child. Considering how bad that experience can mess up your head, I wonder how much of IKDG (now a 67th Book of the Bible) was the result of his baggage from the molestation. Wouldn’t be the first time a preacher-man got the idea that “I have X problem, so all of you MUST have the same problem”, like recovering alcoholic Billy Sunday preaching nonstop against Demon Rum.
numo wrote:
Or previously divorced. In some churches, that’s a disqualifier as well.
Janey wrote:
And those who were abandoned by a spouse are still tarred with that “frivolous” brush in some churches. These are the collateral damage of Moore’s “divorce culture”, yet they are treated as the guilty parties.
Jeff S wrote:
JeffS — I couldn’t agree with you more. People should be treated on the basis of their character. There are Christian marrieds with bad character whom you cannot trust. There are singles with rock solid morality and self-control who don’t cross the line. To treat all marrieds as godly and all singles as opportunists is evil and smacks of spiritual pride. Anyone can get married if they lower their standards enough.
@ Phoenix: Beautiful!
@ Janey:Thanks for this.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!
@ linda: Interesting comment.
Here is my take on the traveling evangelist. He was already cruising on out of his marriage when he met “little Miss covering.” In fact, I would venture to guess that he had already crossed the line prior to meeting her. Chances are he will do the same thing in this marriage.
As a nurse, I put the blame squarely on his shoulders. That poor woman was hurting and emotionally vulnerable after her husband’s death. This is common sense. He took advantage of her by responding to her advances. Any “evangelist” worth his salt would have assisted her in getting counseling and support. Instead, he demonstrated his lack of love and compassion and sought to use her to fulfill his own needs. If it wasn’t her, it would have been the next woman.
I would have no problem with my husband going to a widow’s home and hanging curtain rods. That is what handymen do day in and out. So, I guess all handymen, painters, floorboard installers, etc should hang it up since their wives will freak out each day, knowing that women will throw themselves at their man?
Mike wrote:
Yet men like Piper will say that a woman cannot divorce and remarry if she got whacked around. Tough bananas and all that.
As for the divorce culture, the OT was an example of that. No problems with divorcing one’s wife for an number of reasons. Christ dealt with the divorce culture and said cut out divorcing for no reason. He was angry at the men who were deserting their responsibility.
I do not believe that the meant this turned on its head in order to tell women (or man) to stay with an abuser. Talk about Twisted Scripture!