This post is a very bare skeleton of a particular idea I've been trying to flesh out. But nonetheless, I wanted to get it out. So here it is, for your consideration and deliberation.
My second semester Sophomore year, I took a class with Dr. Bauman on John Milton, the author of Paradise Lost and other (rather controversial) books. One particular night, we discussed Milton's ideas on marriage, divorce, and polygamy. And aside from the fact that I disagree with pretty much everything that he argues for, our discussion led to a very interesting topic: At what point does Adam and Eve's relationship count as "marriage"? Because in his defense of Biblical divorce, Milton says that Christ points to the Edenic paradigm as the grounds for defining what marriage is; yet through all of our discussions, we barely arrived at a "satisfactory" definition of it, paraphrasedly that it is a relationship between a man and a woman with the intention of alleviating the loneliness that Adam had in the Garden pre-Eve and providing him with a suitable help-meet. However, we didn't go much further than that. Anyway. Without recapping all of the (*ahem*heretical) ideas that Milton proposed and we argued, no one was quite able to arrive at a definite idea of when to consider Adam and Eve married and how their "marriage" (if it actually existed, according to a non-definition?) alleviated Adam's loneliness, and what was this loneliness? How do we now know what to look for in a spouse to alleviate these feelings? Is there a process to follow in order to find a good spouse or to know if she's suitable? Was there a "wedding" or "marriage" type of ceremony in Eden?
Well. All of this to say that I think God DID present us with a process by which we're able to identify not only a spouse but a marriage, particularly one in Eden. I discussed it (briefly) with Dr. Bauman during the break in class, and he said that he agrees with me and would consider it a fair interpretation of the text. It goes as follows:
• Realization
• Discovery/Joy
• Identification
• Institution
• Consummation
In Genesis 2, Adam first REALIZES his loneliness when God has him name all the animals with the intention of showing Adam that he has no mate among the beasts. A man today has to do the same thing: realize that he is incomplete without a suitable helpmeet. (Let's not forget that yes, God had to show Adam that he was alone; Adam didn't come to this conclusion by himself. See God: "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE.")
After creating Eve, Adam saw her (DISCOVERY: "This one at last!") and responds JOYFULLY--not with just any joy, but with Lewisian, godly joy, joy that reflects God's glory and praises him for his blessings, as Lewis describes proper Christian joy. Adam then proceeds to IDENTIFY her, as he named the rest of the animals ("Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man"), but not only identifying her as a woman, but as his only suitable helpmeet among a world of unsuitable creatures. But he continues to identify her as his (technical) inferior, that because he was created first, given the mandate from God, because she was created for him and not him for her, he has some sort of superiority, some kind of headship over her; all of this is contained in her being made out of his rib, implying that she was created for him (also, touching on Milton's beliefs on polygamy, I think the fact that God only took one rib and not several means that God only intended one wife, not several).
Moving on: The next verse: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, (INSTITUTION: Adam leaving his "own family's institution" and coming into his own manhood under God and over his own wife, creating another family institution), and they shall be one flesh" (CONSUMMATION: Adam and Eve become communally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically one, solidifying their covenant and completing the "marriage" process). The very next verse is God's precedent for every future pastor and priest: "And they were both naked, the MAN AND HIS WIFE, and were not ashamed. Boom. God's declaration of them as a "married" couple. It doesn't happen as soon as Adam is created; Adam had to work for Eve, realize his loneliness, and discover the joy that comes only from God, because only God can fulfill our simultaneous needs and desires, as Eve was for Adam.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
"How Do You Meet Guys?"
This particular post is exactly a transcript of a response that I wrote to a friend, who asked me to read and comment on the article in World magazine, "How Do You Meet Guys?" (For a copy of the article see http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18064.) So here is my response.
The article, "How Do You Meet Guys?" asks some very good questions. I like it addresses both the perspectives of men and women, and I particularly liked the nod to secular culture. Growing up in public school with "Christian" classmates, I understand how that works. Many many many people I talk to fail to understand exactly what marriage is. My best friend is getting married in three weeks, yet there is no religious official at her wedding. Rather, she and her fiance are combining a lot of different cultural practices (drinking sake, exchanging leis from Hawaii, the bride circling the groom 7 times) as part of a "commitment ceremony." Does that count as a wedding? Or am I simply being legalistic?
Anyway. I'll do my best to stay on topic regarding the article, though I should warn you right now that Biblical marriage is probably my favorite subject in the world, and I'm sure that when I come to Washington we'll have (at least) one or two great conversations about it.
How to meet guys: From my own Christian perspective, I meet men socially. I rarely accept advances (and if I do, I rarely pursue a serious friendship) from men that I haven't met in a social context. It hasn't been a deliberate method on my part; I've just noticed that I'm more comfortable accepting the interests of someone whose friends I know and whose history I can access. Samuel came to Hillsdale with a group of life-long friends with him. I knew them first as my friends and then as Sam's. If there were any forseeable problems in our relationship, I had the resources to be able to identify them ahead of time. Thankfully, every person affirmed our interest in each other, so that was a relief.
I find it very interesting that so many students brought up _I Kissed Dating Goodbye_. Samuel was the one to label our relationship a "courtship," not me. I don't believe you would ever call a boy/girlfriend someone that you're courting, but I could be wrong. I'm also not sure if Sam and I are courting. Let me go further: A lot of the girls on here brought up the point that their men won't pursue a lady unless they know it can potentially end in marriage. Sam and I were/are the same way. In that sense, technically we're courting: We are in a committed, supervised relationship with intent to marry. I don't have a working definition of courtship, but that's about my best understanding of it. But this is a very...well, suffocating idea. YES, the ultimate end of dating/courtship IS marriage. However--let's get real for a second. If a man spends all of his time considering a girl from a purely social perspective--never asking her on a date, never talking to her privately and deliberately, never showing her specialized attention--he'll only ever reach the surface of that girl's character and heart.
My parents were very explicit in their instructions that I was allowed to date when I turned 16. And by date, they meant that I was allowed to go on a date. Finally, they explained their real stipulation: I wasn't allowed to be in a "serious," monogamous, committed relationship with one person until (at the earliest) my second semester of Junior year in college. 0_0 That's a pretty far leap. (Can you tell how well that advice worked? In case you didn't know, I just finished my sophomore year, and look at where Samuel and I are now.) My parents requested that I "date around," "play the field," "observe my options"--essentially (or as it seems to me), date a lot of different men, establish an inevitable small sort of emotional attachment to each one, and then cruelly drag them on as I openly made them watch me string along other men. While the methods are (to be honest) impractical (at least, to me) and potentially harmful, the desired result was a reasonable one: In order to understand a man's character, heart, mind, and desires, you have to be able to ask him about them. By dating around, I would be able to better glean an understanding about what characteristics, abilities, and aspects I liked and needed in a husband based on my various experiences with different men. Inevitably, they assumed, I would find one (or two or three) who would meet those requirements, and then (and only if it was my Junior year) could I consider properly dating them.
At this point, I'm tempted to tell you that this is an extremely long conversation to be had over a Facebook message (especially since there is still SO much to say!) and it would probably be better had in person, but at the least I'll wrap up my thoughts (or who knows? Finish the entire message? We'll see what my fingers decide to do).
My parents' method works. I know it does. I don't particularly agree with it, but that's because in today's culture, a girl who dates around with a lot of different men gets called nasty words, and I didn't want to be that girl. I also didn't want to be that girl who told each of my dates, "I had a wonderful time tonight; you're a great date; I hope we can do this again, but right now I have to get going on my other date with Other Random Guy Number 4. See you around campus!"
To get to the point: courtship requires a social context in which young people can get to know each other, an environment in which they feel comfortable enough to ask the "dating" questions (even if subtly) without fear of rejection. That's how Sam and I got together. We didn't decide to date initially and then get to know each other. We spent a lot of time together in a social context, and from there we asked the "dating" questions--marriage, future, covenant, children, medical care, discipline, careers, family, etc. When we realized what a strong connection we had, then we decided to give a relationship a shot. However, it was only because we realized that we had the chance to make a marriage potentially work some day. It was easy for us to make the transition from "if we get married" to "when." That's the ultimate goal of courtship, I believe.
I disagree, however, with the pressures that these people are feeling to find their "soulmate" even before establishing a relationship. I do agree with my parents that casual dating (NOT casual relationships--there is no such thing) can be useful in that it teaches us what to look for in spouses, so that when we finally consider serious relationships, we have a goal in mind. However, that doesn't mean that every relationship must be either a "do-or-die" scenario. The last man I dated had every good quality I could identify: Reformed, hard-working, loved his family, wanted a large family, intelligent, spiritually passionate. And absolutely, after two and a half years together, I thought we would get married. But that wasn't the case. And thank God it wasn't, because only by dating him could I have discovered the faults in our relationship. If we limit ourselves to pursuing relationships that are pressured to end in marriage, then we start forcing our relationships to fit into a pre-formed mold. We start seeing the relationship we want it to be, rather than the relationship that it is. That was my old relationship, because I went into it with a "marriage-or-bust" mentality. That's not healthy. Sam and I entered a relationship knowing that we COULD one day marry, but not that we MUST. Otherwise, it cuts out the roots of a relationship before it even has a chance to see the sun.
Does this message feel long enough yet? I'll conclude with one more thought. I'm sorry this is so long so far.
The one particular thing that shouted at me from the lines of the article is a recurrent theme in modern-day Christian relationships: the struggle to find a balance between love and respect. As one of the girls says, "We want them to be initiators.... We want to be wanted. We want to know we're desirable. Christian boys are scared of girls who make advances." What could be more plain? Girls crave love. They want to be romanced, wined, dined, and swept off their feet. Men who wait and wait and wait and wait until they're absolutely sure of a girl run the risk of letting girls feel undesired. Christ _pursued_ his Church. Ephesians 5 addresses yes, the need within marriage for a husband to love his wife, but also the universal need for women to feel loved in general. This, unfortunately, gets into a whole 'nother topic on the role of fathers and brothers, so we won't sticky our fingers on this subject more than is necessary.
Yet the article continues. Evans, a male engineering student, says that "he's afraid that if he met and married a girl in the next few years, she'd expect him to work as an engineer.... He thinks a wife would make it hard to switch to a less remunerative career." He's afraid of not being respected. He's afraid that his ability to provide for his family will be jeopardized not by his abilities, but by his wife's confidence in him. And it's true--too many women, in accordance with our sin natures, will love their husbands but not respect them. And similarly, husbands will respect their wives but not love them. Brett Harris, in the article: "guys who don't initiate...'give their heart, and girls spit on it and throw it away.'" The focus on relationships today is _love_ between both parties, not a proper and healthy distribution of love and respect. Thus courtship has turned into a method of maintaining "emotional purity" (which is absolutely a good thing) but at the unfortunate cost of allowing Christian boys to become respectable Christian men.
There is so much to say regarding the topic of Christian courtship/dating and relationships. Unfortunately, none of it is easy. I'll do my best to keep mulling over the article and further develop my thoughts. And I hope this helped to answer some of your questions. I look forward to your response.
The article, "How Do You Meet Guys?" asks some very good questions. I like it addresses both the perspectives of men and women, and I particularly liked the nod to secular culture. Growing up in public school with "Christian" classmates, I understand how that works. Many many many people I talk to fail to understand exactly what marriage is. My best friend is getting married in three weeks, yet there is no religious official at her wedding. Rather, she and her fiance are combining a lot of different cultural practices (drinking sake, exchanging leis from Hawaii, the bride circling the groom 7 times) as part of a "commitment ceremony." Does that count as a wedding? Or am I simply being legalistic?
Anyway. I'll do my best to stay on topic regarding the article, though I should warn you right now that Biblical marriage is probably my favorite subject in the world, and I'm sure that when I come to Washington we'll have (at least) one or two great conversations about it.
How to meet guys: From my own Christian perspective, I meet men socially. I rarely accept advances (and if I do, I rarely pursue a serious friendship) from men that I haven't met in a social context. It hasn't been a deliberate method on my part; I've just noticed that I'm more comfortable accepting the interests of someone whose friends I know and whose history I can access. Samuel came to Hillsdale with a group of life-long friends with him. I knew them first as my friends and then as Sam's. If there were any forseeable problems in our relationship, I had the resources to be able to identify them ahead of time. Thankfully, every person affirmed our interest in each other, so that was a relief.
I find it very interesting that so many students brought up _I Kissed Dating Goodbye_. Samuel was the one to label our relationship a "courtship," not me. I don't believe you would ever call a boy/girlfriend someone that you're courting, but I could be wrong. I'm also not sure if Sam and I are courting. Let me go further: A lot of the girls on here brought up the point that their men won't pursue a lady unless they know it can potentially end in marriage. Sam and I were/are the same way. In that sense, technically we're courting: We are in a committed, supervised relationship with intent to marry. I don't have a working definition of courtship, but that's about my best understanding of it. But this is a very...well, suffocating idea. YES, the ultimate end of dating/courtship IS marriage. However--let's get real for a second. If a man spends all of his time considering a girl from a purely social perspective--never asking her on a date, never talking to her privately and deliberately, never showing her specialized attention--he'll only ever reach the surface of that girl's character and heart.
My parents were very explicit in their instructions that I was allowed to date when I turned 16. And by date, they meant that I was allowed to go on a date. Finally, they explained their real stipulation: I wasn't allowed to be in a "serious," monogamous, committed relationship with one person until (at the earliest) my second semester of Junior year in college. 0_0 That's a pretty far leap. (Can you tell how well that advice worked? In case you didn't know, I just finished my sophomore year, and look at where Samuel and I are now.) My parents requested that I "date around," "play the field," "observe my options"--essentially (or as it seems to me), date a lot of different men, establish an inevitable small sort of emotional attachment to each one, and then cruelly drag them on as I openly made them watch me string along other men. While the methods are (to be honest) impractical (at least, to me) and potentially harmful, the desired result was a reasonable one: In order to understand a man's character, heart, mind, and desires, you have to be able to ask him about them. By dating around, I would be able to better glean an understanding about what characteristics, abilities, and aspects I liked and needed in a husband based on my various experiences with different men. Inevitably, they assumed, I would find one (or two or three) who would meet those requirements, and then (and only if it was my Junior year) could I consider properly dating them.
At this point, I'm tempted to tell you that this is an extremely long conversation to be had over a Facebook message (especially since there is still SO much to say!) and it would probably be better had in person, but at the least I'll wrap up my thoughts (or who knows? Finish the entire message? We'll see what my fingers decide to do).
My parents' method works. I know it does. I don't particularly agree with it, but that's because in today's culture, a girl who dates around with a lot of different men gets called nasty words, and I didn't want to be that girl. I also didn't want to be that girl who told each of my dates, "I had a wonderful time tonight; you're a great date; I hope we can do this again, but right now I have to get going on my other date with Other Random Guy Number 4. See you around campus!"
To get to the point: courtship requires a social context in which young people can get to know each other, an environment in which they feel comfortable enough to ask the "dating" questions (even if subtly) without fear of rejection. That's how Sam and I got together. We didn't decide to date initially and then get to know each other. We spent a lot of time together in a social context, and from there we asked the "dating" questions--marriage, future, covenant, children, medical care, discipline, careers, family, etc. When we realized what a strong connection we had, then we decided to give a relationship a shot. However, it was only because we realized that we had the chance to make a marriage potentially work some day. It was easy for us to make the transition from "if we get married" to "when." That's the ultimate goal of courtship, I believe.
I disagree, however, with the pressures that these people are feeling to find their "soulmate" even before establishing a relationship. I do agree with my parents that casual dating (NOT casual relationships--there is no such thing) can be useful in that it teaches us what to look for in spouses, so that when we finally consider serious relationships, we have a goal in mind. However, that doesn't mean that every relationship must be either a "do-or-die" scenario. The last man I dated had every good quality I could identify: Reformed, hard-working, loved his family, wanted a large family, intelligent, spiritually passionate. And absolutely, after two and a half years together, I thought we would get married. But that wasn't the case. And thank God it wasn't, because only by dating him could I have discovered the faults in our relationship. If we limit ourselves to pursuing relationships that are pressured to end in marriage, then we start forcing our relationships to fit into a pre-formed mold. We start seeing the relationship we want it to be, rather than the relationship that it is. That was my old relationship, because I went into it with a "marriage-or-bust" mentality. That's not healthy. Sam and I entered a relationship knowing that we COULD one day marry, but not that we MUST. Otherwise, it cuts out the roots of a relationship before it even has a chance to see the sun.
Does this message feel long enough yet? I'll conclude with one more thought. I'm sorry this is so long so far.
The one particular thing that shouted at me from the lines of the article is a recurrent theme in modern-day Christian relationships: the struggle to find a balance between love and respect. As one of the girls says, "We want them to be initiators.... We want to be wanted. We want to know we're desirable. Christian boys are scared of girls who make advances." What could be more plain? Girls crave love. They want to be romanced, wined, dined, and swept off their feet. Men who wait and wait and wait and wait until they're absolutely sure of a girl run the risk of letting girls feel undesired. Christ _pursued_ his Church. Ephesians 5 addresses yes, the need within marriage for a husband to love his wife, but also the universal need for women to feel loved in general. This, unfortunately, gets into a whole 'nother topic on the role of fathers and brothers, so we won't sticky our fingers on this subject more than is necessary.
Yet the article continues. Evans, a male engineering student, says that "he's afraid that if he met and married a girl in the next few years, she'd expect him to work as an engineer.... He thinks a wife would make it hard to switch to a less remunerative career." He's afraid of not being respected. He's afraid that his ability to provide for his family will be jeopardized not by his abilities, but by his wife's confidence in him. And it's true--too many women, in accordance with our sin natures, will love their husbands but not respect them. And similarly, husbands will respect their wives but not love them. Brett Harris, in the article: "guys who don't initiate...'give their heart, and girls spit on it and throw it away.'" The focus on relationships today is _love_ between both parties, not a proper and healthy distribution of love and respect. Thus courtship has turned into a method of maintaining "emotional purity" (which is absolutely a good thing) but at the unfortunate cost of allowing Christian boys to become respectable Christian men.
There is so much to say regarding the topic of Christian courtship/dating and relationships. Unfortunately, none of it is easy. I'll do my best to keep mulling over the article and further develop my thoughts. And I hope this helped to answer some of your questions. I look forward to your response.
Monday, May 23, 2011
You've Got the Wrong Girl
Ok Ladies. This is addressed to you from a very personal conviction. Let me share a secret with you:
Prostitution.is.wrong.
"Abby. We know that. You don't need to tell us. We're not prostitutes."
No? I believe it. I think the majority of Christian girls stay away from this sort of situation. But nonetheless, many girls fall prey to a form of modern-day prostitution. Many girls like me, who seem to just attract the wrong sort of men. I know my words in this post are not original, and many people have probably heard this before. Let me explain.
Have you ever been asked on a date? Have you been asked on a date by a man who seems acceptable and proper? I hope you have. And I hope, for your sake, that your date wasn't cut short before it even happened.
I once had the pleasure of being "sought" by a guy--let's say Bob--I met. I honestly didn't think I'd ever hear from him after he asked for my number, but he called. I was doubly surprised when he contacted me even after I'd had a talk with his cousin. His cousin is the sort of man who wants only sex. When I told him I refused to give that, he said he realized he had me pegged as "the wrong kinda girl." I heartily agreed. I figured it was the end of our short-lived friendship and moved on. However, in our conversation later, Bob insisted he still wanted a date, something that would "mean something," adding that his cousin "is an animal." Hopefulness! Yes! Happily, we established date details. But still: "Well, what about after?" he asked me. Oh boy. Oh no. Oh man. The "after" insinuation.
Payment, ladies. He was looking for some payment. He was willing to get anything. I won't have sex, I told him. Sorry. "I respect that. What are you willing to give?" I was partly astounded. Where had I missed this part of his character before? Essentially, he was thinking, 'If I'm willing to shell out money to take you on a date and pretend to be interested in getting to know you for four hours, I better be getting something in return.'
My blood boils thinking about the fact that men like this exist! That they have the audacity to ask girls on a pseudo-date just to get into her pants! This, dear ones, is prostitution. The problem that I find is that girls will agree to a date, suspecting that a man may ask for sexual favors in return.
Our culture today has become squished in our own individual glory. We thus believe that a date--a time of humility in earnest servitude of another, with the hopes of getting to know each other respectfully--taxes us personally so much that we MUST get something in return for it. Yes, ladies, even we do this sometimes. How shameful. It's a part of our fallen nature that we relentlessly pursue our own self-gratification. Sometimes without meaning to, but usually it's intentional. And yep, I'll be biased and tell you that Christian youth usually avoid this...until we're more comfortable with each other; that's a whole different story. But to start off a date with a new person, expecting a "fun time" afterward? This is straight prostitution.
Is this sort of behavior so surprising? As Dr. R.J. Rushdoony says, in Old Testament law, out of the 17 capital crimes, six of them have to do with sex and eight with the family. In the New Testament, Paul tells us repeatedly that the works of the flesh are sexual immorality and temptation (Galatians 5, for example). In the Garden of Eden, Eve's sin was physical. As the Word says in Gen. 3:6, "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and ate...." Her sin (among other things) was to pursue to a forbidden physical fruit. And in our culture, we have become obsessed with this same fruit that Eve sought--sexual immorality. John Milton makes an incredible point in his epic poem Paradise Lost: Adam and Eve, after eating the fruit, lusted for, not loved, each other. Their actions became harsh, animalistic, and primal. There was no love--no selflessness--in their relationship anymore. Lovemaking is giving, caring, and gentle. Sex/lust is selfish, taking, and brutal. It is this same lustful, selfish spirit that powers the modern-day prostitution movement. Scripture prophesied this struggle. Is it thus so shocking that we fulfill Scripture's predictions and fall prey to the exact same temptations and sins that our first parents did? Sin does not discriminate between Christians and non-Christians.
Dear friends. I pray you have more respect for yourself than to be sold so cheaply as a dinner and a movie. You're worth far more than that. I don't care how cute or charming he is, or how well you connected. Any man who hints at physical retribution for a date is a scallion, a wretch, an absolutely detestable reprobate who deserves to be shunned. If any man tries that, your answer must must be to tell him shamelessly that he's "got the wrong girl."
Prostitution.is.wrong.
"Abby. We know that. You don't need to tell us. We're not prostitutes."
No? I believe it. I think the majority of Christian girls stay away from this sort of situation. But nonetheless, many girls fall prey to a form of modern-day prostitution. Many girls like me, who seem to just attract the wrong sort of men. I know my words in this post are not original, and many people have probably heard this before. Let me explain.
Have you ever been asked on a date? Have you been asked on a date by a man who seems acceptable and proper? I hope you have. And I hope, for your sake, that your date wasn't cut short before it even happened.
I once had the pleasure of being "sought" by a guy--let's say Bob--I met. I honestly didn't think I'd ever hear from him after he asked for my number, but he called. I was doubly surprised when he contacted me even after I'd had a talk with his cousin. His cousin is the sort of man who wants only sex. When I told him I refused to give that, he said he realized he had me pegged as "the wrong kinda girl." I heartily agreed. I figured it was the end of our short-lived friendship and moved on. However, in our conversation later, Bob insisted he still wanted a date, something that would "mean something," adding that his cousin "is an animal." Hopefulness! Yes! Happily, we established date details. But still: "Well, what about after?" he asked me. Oh boy. Oh no. Oh man. The "after" insinuation.
Payment, ladies. He was looking for some payment. He was willing to get anything. I won't have sex, I told him. Sorry. "I respect that. What are you willing to give?" I was partly astounded. Where had I missed this part of his character before? Essentially, he was thinking, 'If I'm willing to shell out money to take you on a date and pretend to be interested in getting to know you for four hours, I better be getting something in return.'
My blood boils thinking about the fact that men like this exist! That they have the audacity to ask girls on a pseudo-date just to get into her pants! This, dear ones, is prostitution. The problem that I find is that girls will agree to a date, suspecting that a man may ask for sexual favors in return.
Our culture today has become squished in our own individual glory. We thus believe that a date--a time of humility in earnest servitude of another, with the hopes of getting to know each other respectfully--taxes us personally so much that we MUST get something in return for it. Yes, ladies, even we do this sometimes. How shameful. It's a part of our fallen nature that we relentlessly pursue our own self-gratification. Sometimes without meaning to, but usually it's intentional. And yep, I'll be biased and tell you that Christian youth usually avoid this...until we're more comfortable with each other; that's a whole different story. But to start off a date with a new person, expecting a "fun time" afterward? This is straight prostitution.
Is this sort of behavior so surprising? As Dr. R.J. Rushdoony says, in Old Testament law, out of the 17 capital crimes, six of them have to do with sex and eight with the family. In the New Testament, Paul tells us repeatedly that the works of the flesh are sexual immorality and temptation (Galatians 5, for example). In the Garden of Eden, Eve's sin was physical. As the Word says in Gen. 3:6, "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and ate...." Her sin (among other things) was to pursue to a forbidden physical fruit. And in our culture, we have become obsessed with this same fruit that Eve sought--sexual immorality. John Milton makes an incredible point in his epic poem Paradise Lost: Adam and Eve, after eating the fruit, lusted for, not loved, each other. Their actions became harsh, animalistic, and primal. There was no love--no selflessness--in their relationship anymore. Lovemaking is giving, caring, and gentle. Sex/lust is selfish, taking, and brutal. It is this same lustful, selfish spirit that powers the modern-day prostitution movement. Scripture prophesied this struggle. Is it thus so shocking that we fulfill Scripture's predictions and fall prey to the exact same temptations and sins that our first parents did? Sin does not discriminate between Christians and non-Christians.
Dear friends. I pray you have more respect for yourself than to be sold so cheaply as a dinner and a movie. You're worth far more than that. I don't care how cute or charming he is, or how well you connected. Any man who hints at physical retribution for a date is a scallion, a wretch, an absolutely detestable reprobate who deserves to be shunned. If any man tries that, your answer must must be to tell him shamelessly that he's "got the wrong girl."
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Mary the Usurper.
Catholics.
For a long time, I've struggled with Catholics and their various (false) beliefs. In fact, my dad lately watched a debate about whether Catholics count as our siblings in Christ given some of the false things they believe (according to Protestants). Shall I give an example?
Mary. From where do they get the concept of Mary's power? Who gave her this power? How could we possibly deny that it is power? (And what does Mary need power for?)
You see, Catholics believe that Mary as the mother of God must have some influence over him, so Catholics pray to her to ask her prayers on their behalf. They believe, as John MacArthur lately explained at the Ligonier conference in Orlando, that God is tough, and busy, and hard to get to, and Jesus is the same, and so they go to Mary, because (according to this logic) God needs the extra encouragement to hear our prayers. As if he wasn't interested or personal enough. As if he loved Mary more than the rest of us. As if Mary could somehow do something--could somehow intervene for us in a way--that Christ couldn't do on the cross.
Eugh. So false. So false I want to gag for having said it. Christ's atonement was either whole or it was worthless, not somewhere in between.
I believe this desire for Mary's involvement also reflects a disbelief in God's nature as a Father. Why did Jesus cry "Abba" if not to show us… oh, so much.
He shows us the ability we now have to go directly to God through Christ because of the righteousness imputed on us by him.
He shows us the personal nature of God as a "daddy," "Father," a close paternal figure who loves and listens to his children.
He shows us from this that we don't need Mary to intercede for us because we can go directly to him. What could Mary say that we can't say ourselves? Jesus himself went straight so God, and so can and should we. As Romans 8: 26-28 says,
And finally and very importantly, Jesus shows us the role of father through the example of his Father. What kind of father would he be who listens to his wife or mother above his children? The important part of this term "children" goes back to the first point--that we are children because God sees Christ's righteousness imputed in us. Thus we are saved. God now sees us as righteous beings. If God saved us and God saved Mary (we assume, because she birthed and followed Jesus), we are logically equals with Mary. Why should God listen to one righteous person over another? If I am blameless and my sister is blameless, is it right or just that my father should listen to her but not me? What makes her righteousness more valuable than mine? Nothing. We are all equal in our sinful deadness, and thus we are all equal in our salvation by imputed righteousness.
So why would God prefer Mary's righteousness over mine? I don't think he would. I believe God-the-Abba loves his children equally, as a father does. And because God listens to himself first, being omniscient and omnipotent, he would not listen to a "mother." (Please note: I say this because we must understand Christ's simultaneous state of humiliation and exaltation--being both fully God and fully man at once. Mary was the birth mother of the human Jesus, but that is not the same thing as the "mother of God.") In the same way, a father does not and should not listen to a mother more than his equally righteous children. (Take humanity into account here; all of this is meant with a grain of salt; yes, grandmothers/mothers will obviously sometimes know more than a child.)
The concept of Mary's "divinity" or influence denies God's nature as a Savior--one who loves to save, who is generous, who loves us. The same is true of fathers. Father should want to love their children as God similarly wants to love his. So when we come before God and seek Mary's intervention, essentially we deny God's nature and right to be a Savior, deny him the joy that he feels in fulfilling our requests. (How many Scripture passages reference the joy we receive by worshiping God, by following his commands? Ec 2:26; John 17:13 says, "...I told them many things while I was with them in this world so they would be filled with my joy.")
He would, I believe, be injured at our lack of faith in both his atonement and love. And who am I, mere created vessel, to deny God's nature (Romans 9), especially for Mary's sake?
Finally, do these ideas not imply that fathers should take joy in both listening to and answering their children? And in order for this to happen, children must be provided an environment--a father--that nourishes such love from children, an environment in which they feel free enough to approach their fathers. I know many people feel more comfortable approaching Mom; I did for a long time. But clearly Christ our Savior has such an intimate relationship with his Father, and vice versa; why should and do we not? Are you more comfortable with your mother than father? Are you afraid to approach your father for fear of rejection? Do you thus seek Mom's intervention? I think Jesus knew what he was talking about when he said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." If that's not the point of the Gospel, then I don't know what I believe.
For a long time, I've struggled with Catholics and their various (false) beliefs. In fact, my dad lately watched a debate about whether Catholics count as our siblings in Christ given some of the false things they believe (according to Protestants). Shall I give an example?
Mary. From where do they get the concept of Mary's power? Who gave her this power? How could we possibly deny that it is power? (And what does Mary need power for?)
You see, Catholics believe that Mary as the mother of God must have some influence over him, so Catholics pray to her to ask her prayers on their behalf. They believe, as John MacArthur lately explained at the Ligonier conference in Orlando, that God is tough, and busy, and hard to get to, and Jesus is the same, and so they go to Mary, because (according to this logic) God needs the extra encouragement to hear our prayers. As if he wasn't interested or personal enough. As if he loved Mary more than the rest of us. As if Mary could somehow do something--could somehow intervene for us in a way--that Christ couldn't do on the cross.
Eugh. So false. So false I want to gag for having said it. Christ's atonement was either whole or it was worthless, not somewhere in between.
I believe this desire for Mary's involvement also reflects a disbelief in God's nature as a Father. Why did Jesus cry "Abba" if not to show us… oh, so much.
He shows us the ability we now have to go directly to God through Christ because of the righteousness imputed on us by him.
He shows us the personal nature of God as a "daddy," "Father," a close paternal figure who loves and listens to his children.
He shows us from this that we don't need Mary to intercede for us because we can go directly to him. What could Mary say that we can't say ourselves? Jesus himself went straight so God, and so can and should we. As Romans 8: 26-28 says,
And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don't know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words. 27And the Father who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit pleads for us believers in harmony in God's own will. 28And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.How can we refute this? Paul undeniably tells us that the Spirit by God's Grace works for us. Who are we to tell God that his own Spirit's aid is not enough, but rather we seek the extra help of the saints and Mary? How arrogant.
And finally and very importantly, Jesus shows us the role of father through the example of his Father. What kind of father would he be who listens to his wife or mother above his children? The important part of this term "children" goes back to the first point--that we are children because God sees Christ's righteousness imputed in us. Thus we are saved. God now sees us as righteous beings. If God saved us and God saved Mary (we assume, because she birthed and followed Jesus), we are logically equals with Mary. Why should God listen to one righteous person over another? If I am blameless and my sister is blameless, is it right or just that my father should listen to her but not me? What makes her righteousness more valuable than mine? Nothing. We are all equal in our sinful deadness, and thus we are all equal in our salvation by imputed righteousness.
So why would God prefer Mary's righteousness over mine? I don't think he would. I believe God-the-Abba loves his children equally, as a father does. And because God listens to himself first, being omniscient and omnipotent, he would not listen to a "mother." (Please note: I say this because we must understand Christ's simultaneous state of humiliation and exaltation--being both fully God and fully man at once. Mary was the birth mother of the human Jesus, but that is not the same thing as the "mother of God.") In the same way, a father does not and should not listen to a mother more than his equally righteous children. (Take humanity into account here; all of this is meant with a grain of salt; yes, grandmothers/mothers will obviously sometimes know more than a child.)
The concept of Mary's "divinity" or influence denies God's nature as a Savior--one who loves to save, who is generous, who loves us. The same is true of fathers. Father should want to love their children as God similarly wants to love his. So when we come before God and seek Mary's intervention, essentially we deny God's nature and right to be a Savior, deny him the joy that he feels in fulfilling our requests. (How many Scripture passages reference the joy we receive by worshiping God, by following his commands? Ec 2:26; John 17:13 says, "...I told them many things while I was with them in this world so they would be filled with my joy.")
He would, I believe, be injured at our lack of faith in both his atonement and love. And who am I, mere created vessel, to deny God's nature (Romans 9), especially for Mary's sake?
Finally, do these ideas not imply that fathers should take joy in both listening to and answering their children? And in order for this to happen, children must be provided an environment--a father--that nourishes such love from children, an environment in which they feel free enough to approach their fathers. I know many people feel more comfortable approaching Mom; I did for a long time. But clearly Christ our Savior has such an intimate relationship with his Father, and vice versa; why should and do we not? Are you more comfortable with your mother than father? Are you afraid to approach your father for fear of rejection? Do you thus seek Mom's intervention? I think Jesus knew what he was talking about when he said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." If that's not the point of the Gospel, then I don't know what I believe.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Love God. Make Babies.
I leave on Wednesday for a conference with Ligonier Ministries in Orlando. It will be amazing, not simply for the speakers and the vacation, but simply for the fact that it's a private trip of just my dad and me. I rarely get quality time with my dad. To be honest, when we do get it, I'm not sure what to talk about. My dad has never been one of those fathers to approach his children, seek their love or time or conversation. He seeks to be heard rather than to hear. I can't blame him for that; I rather appreciate it, because Lord knows and designed that he has much more worthwhile things to say than I do. But at the same time, I believe fathers SHOULD seek time with their children.
I see so many things being properly executed in my sister Sarah Brown's family. I could have never known that they were proper until I saw them demonstrated by and on her six daughters. Sarah and her husband Tim, a pastor, make it their utmost priority to raise their six daughters in a healthy fear and love of God, teaching them to have a relationship with our Savior. The Brownies (which is what we call my nieces) are six of the most well-behaved, respectful, smart, classy, and beautiful girls I've ever known. Please let me explain. Three of my siblings have children; my oldest brother Michael with two daughters, Sarah with six daughters, and Elizabeth (Biz) with a girl and a boy. It's with no small amount of shame that I admit the Brownies are my favorite. Yet, one day I realized an interesting connection. I love most spending time with the Brownies, followed by Michael's daughters, and lastly Biz's children. "Why is this?" I asked myself, and I analyzed each of my siblings' relationships with their children.
"No, no, Abby, that's the wrong place to start."
How is that the wrong place to start? If my nieces are raised well/poorly, does is not reflect on their parents?
"Of course, smart girl. But even before that, what does a parent's child-rearing reflect upon him or her?"
I don't get it, I told myself.
"Silly face, a parent's raising is directly related to his relationship with God. A parent in good standing with God, a parent whose walk with God is a priority understands the importance of child-rearing. When looked at in light of God's Word, child-raising becomes an issue of stewardship, ministry, obedience to God's commands, and absolute joy. Psalm 37:26 says that children are a blessing to the godly. A blessing."
When did children stop being a blessing and become another job? The same time that a relationship with our Savior become another obligation, reluctantly sought because of guilt and fear of damnation?
Sarah and Tim love their children for the gifts of God that they are. I'm not saying that Biz and Michael and their respective spouses don't. But I note a striking lack of religion in their children's up-bringings. Michael's daughters know, I believe, what the Bible is. They've gone to a Protestant church every Sunday, prayed before meals, and are familiar with (some few) Christian ideas, yet I still see no real stress on religion in their lives aside from attending Sunday school. Biz's children don't know that much. They don't understand prayer, church attendance, God, or anything of the sort. Biz does not actively attend a church with her family or instruct them; her husband, Lord knows, has even less religious involvement. Am I wrong in assuming a weak relationship with God on the parents' part in these cases? Have I incorrectly connected the parents' individual Walks with their influence in raising their children? (I realize now that I have provided no specific qualifications of some to be better than the others, other than my own "who I enjoy being with more." The individual actions and characteristics of my nieces and nephew speak for themselves.) I cannot help but be convinced that a parent's success in child-rearing mirrors his relationship with God. Can I say that enough? If you want good children, if you want children who will bless you more than curse you, love God. Love. God.
I do believe that's the answer to everything. Love God. When we love God, we see things in light of his creation and goodness and law. We see children as a sign of God's covenant, a miracle unique only to humans created in God's image, a representation of stewardship, ministry, obedience in Love to God's Law, and a blessing. When we love God, he blesses us. Love God. Make babies. The rest will follow.
Thank God I'm Not God
I know that the main point of this blog is going to be my reflections on familial affairs, but something lately has made me think. I've been lately dwelling more on the relationship-aspect of my relationship with God, the idea that swelled during the first Great Awakening that Jesus is our Friend, not just our Judge. And like a friend, we need to commit love and time and energy into this relationship, conversation and activities, getting to know one another. Now let me tell you a secret about God that makes our relationships much easier: He's omniscient. He. Knows. Everything. Especially about us. And he still loves us? He still seeks us? Considering this fact, how much more, then, does it hurt him when we neglect our relationships with him?
A friend lately told me that he's afraid a friend of his may have killed herself. I could go on about suicide; perhaps I will another time. But as I was praying for her tonight before I was going to sleep, I pictured that situation from God's perspective. God, our all-loving omniscient Protector…who merely watches as his child kills herself. Please don't misunderstand me; I don't know the current condition of this girl. I can only pray that she's alive. But can you imagine, from God's perspective, watching someone take his own life? How empty a room would suddenly feel? Can you imagine the pure sadness, being there, so close? Thank God I'm not God; I wouldn't be able to handle it. We have the light end of the stick: Seek him back. Get to know him. And Calvinistically, he is so irresistible, so incredible, that if we truly know, love, and accept him, we won't be able to reject him. We will be literally incapable of turning away from him. So how much more terrible is suicide in that light? Thank God I'm not God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)