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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)