is my favorite novel. Some of you are rolling your eyes right now, because it's so stereotypical -- a female English major whose favorite novel is Pride and Prejudice? Get out. Shocking. But hang out for a sec, guys. It's not for the reasons you might think.
Lots of people, both men and women, have the idea that Pride and Prejudice is a love story between two perfect characters. I've seen... oh, I reckon at least a half-dozen ranty posts and articles from men criticizing women for liking P&P, lamenting the existence of Fitzwilliam Darcy, the supposedly ideal man. I've also heard countless women talking in (understandably) swoony voices about the (rightly) famous BBC adaptation and Colin Firth's utterly delicious portrayal of one of the most well-known characters in all literature, or the newer adaptation with the equally delicious Matthew MacFadyen...
OK, sorry. I know I lost a few of you there.
The point is, the rather sexy movie/TV serial adaptations are not the book. The book is not even a romance. It's scarcely a love story -- it's really not about "love" as much as marriage, in a society where love was often considered a bonus to that institution, not a prerequisite. You want the bottom line? Pride and Prejudice is a (sometimes gentle, sometimes quite biting) satire of Regency society and relationships, with an especially sharp eye cast toward marriage and particularly men's roles in making marriage successful or otherwise. In plain English: it's about marriage and men, good and bad.
You know the old saw about Austen "writing what she knew"? I don't buy it.
More to come on the marriages and the men of P&P, what we can learn from it, and why men ought to read it.
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Lent, Day 2: In which the top of my head shoots off.
OK, I have to get this off my chest. Sorry it's such a long, rambling bit of nonsense. If it's too long and rambling and nonsensical, I won't be offended if you skip it. ;)
Fellas: you are misinterpreting data, to your own frustration and the frustration of many, many single women around you. In 2011, a woman who has a career and a college degree (maybe even an advanced degree) and a mortgage, who pays her bills on time and takes her own car to the mechanic and hasn't lived with her parents in ten years is not necessarily, by definition a raging feminist who thinks she needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Nope. She is NORMAL. Got that?
Tip: that's the summary. If you're sufficiently convinced, feel free to stop right here. Need more persuasion that you oughta change your mind? Read on, my friend.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, women in the business world were rare. The average age of a first marriage was still in the early-mid twenties for both men and women. And the message from Western culture was loud and clear: Sisters, get into work. You can still decide to have children later, after you've gone up the ranks in your job, after you've accomplished something "real."
Add to this the shame that generation of feminists heaped on men: you're irresponsible, power-hungry, insensitive; you're someone to be resented and competed with, boxed in, restricted, pushed aside, stepped on. Those power-suit-wearing, marriage-spurning, child-hating career girls -- even then, the stereotype was developing!
But, guys? That was thirty years ago. Somehow, it seems, too many Christian men are still being taught to see career, mortgage, and financial stability in a woman and interpret that as "feminist, not wife material, run far far away"!
I grew up being taught not to waste time or money sitting on my hands, and that it was ungodly to waste my gifts and opportunities. You know who taught me that? Not just my mother, though she certainly did. No, it was the women who had, thirty years ago, bought the lie that they could subjugate their God-given desires, that those desires were wrong, that "wife" and "mother" were not the most honorable titles they could seek, but that they were rather titles to be avoided. These women, who learned through bitter experience, taught me to cherish my God-given desire for marriage and motherhood, but also to seize whatever opportunities the Lord put before me. They passed on their experience and wisdom, and started to break down that paradigm.
In my bitter moments, I want to sock every Christian single guy who whines about modern women being overly independent, and tell them that, if they didn't propose to a girl in college, it's their own fault there are all these career women running around. But in my better moments, I just want to be helpful. So let me help you.
Most of us, brothers, are working, paying our bills, getting promotions, working on our degrees, and all those other things, not because we don't want to get married and have children. It's because we had the opportunity to use our gifts in a job, or use our finances more wisely by buying instead of renting, or develop our skills with an advanced degree, or whatever... and haven't had the opportunity to get married and start a family. Most of us would happily re-arrange any or all of those things for the right man, if given the chance.
If I have one word of caution, it's this: guys, you tiptoe toward slandering your sisters when you silently accuse them of selfishness, unhealthy independence, and unbiblical attitudes toward femininity just because they have careers and mortgages -- love, after all, believes the best about people. You are misinterpreting the data, and coming to wrong conclusions. Don't be put off by a woman who makes a decent living at a job she's good at, a woman with an advanced degree, a woman who owns a home. Don't assume the worst about her.
Thirty years ago, a power suit and a mortgage might reasonably have meant this was a woman who didn't want marriage and family. It doesn't have to mean that anymore. Got it?
Fellas: you are misinterpreting data, to your own frustration and the frustration of many, many single women around you. In 2011, a woman who has a career and a college degree (maybe even an advanced degree) and a mortgage, who pays her bills on time and takes her own car to the mechanic and hasn't lived with her parents in ten years is not necessarily, by definition a raging feminist who thinks she needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Nope. She is NORMAL. Got that?
Tip: that's the summary. If you're sufficiently convinced, feel free to stop right here. Need more persuasion that you oughta change your mind? Read on, my friend.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, women in the business world were rare. The average age of a first marriage was still in the early-mid twenties for both men and women. And the message from Western culture was loud and clear: Sisters, get into work. You can still decide to have children later, after you've gone up the ranks in your job, after you've accomplished something "real."
Add to this the shame that generation of feminists heaped on men: you're irresponsible, power-hungry, insensitive; you're someone to be resented and competed with, boxed in, restricted, pushed aside, stepped on. Those power-suit-wearing, marriage-spurning, child-hating career girls -- even then, the stereotype was developing!
But, guys? That was thirty years ago. Somehow, it seems, too many Christian men are still being taught to see career, mortgage, and financial stability in a woman and interpret that as "feminist, not wife material, run far far away"!
I grew up being taught not to waste time or money sitting on my hands, and that it was ungodly to waste my gifts and opportunities. You know who taught me that? Not just my mother, though she certainly did. No, it was the women who had, thirty years ago, bought the lie that they could subjugate their God-given desires, that those desires were wrong, that "wife" and "mother" were not the most honorable titles they could seek, but that they were rather titles to be avoided. These women, who learned through bitter experience, taught me to cherish my God-given desire for marriage and motherhood, but also to seize whatever opportunities the Lord put before me. They passed on their experience and wisdom, and started to break down that paradigm.
In my bitter moments, I want to sock every Christian single guy who whines about modern women being overly independent, and tell them that, if they didn't propose to a girl in college, it's their own fault there are all these career women running around. But in my better moments, I just want to be helpful. So let me help you.
Most of us, brothers, are working, paying our bills, getting promotions, working on our degrees, and all those other things, not because we don't want to get married and have children. It's because we had the opportunity to use our gifts in a job, or use our finances more wisely by buying instead of renting, or develop our skills with an advanced degree, or whatever... and haven't had the opportunity to get married and start a family. Most of us would happily re-arrange any or all of those things for the right man, if given the chance.
If I have one word of caution, it's this: guys, you tiptoe toward slandering your sisters when you silently accuse them of selfishness, unhealthy independence, and unbiblical attitudes toward femininity just because they have careers and mortgages -- love, after all, believes the best about people. You are misinterpreting the data, and coming to wrong conclusions. Don't be put off by a woman who makes a decent living at a job she's good at, a woman with an advanced degree, a woman who owns a home. Don't assume the worst about her.
Thirty years ago, a power suit and a mortgage might reasonably have meant this was a woman who didn't want marriage and family. It doesn't have to mean that anymore. Got it?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A Thought Or Two On Singleness And Sanctification, Part Three
In my last post I mentioned that we really struggle to give single people a big vision for God's work of sanctification in their lives. I was going to go on to say that it's essential that we do more to help single people really ground their identity in Christ rather than success at work, or being liked, or whatever, but then it occurred to me that that's a desperate need for everyone in the church.
I've talked to many married folks, especially women, about "the moment" when they realized that this person they were married to was never meant to give them their identity. For some people, that's the end of their marriage. For others, it's the beginning of a long and difficult journey of finding their identity in Christ and resting there.
I've also had plenty of conversations with single folks (um... including myself) about the identity crisis of not having a spouse, of feeling valueless and adrift without this supposed anchor of marriage. It's daily implied to us that marriage is not simply a good and worthy state, but one that defines us as, and makes us, mature. (Think I'm overstating my case? Name one unmarried ministry leader at your church. Or consider what percentage of your congregation is single vs. what percentage of the leadership. Now, I know... correlation and causation. But it's something to think about.)
Who am I because of my job? Who am I because of my marital status? Who am I because of who I'm attracted to? Who am I because of my income? Who am I because of where I live? Who am I because of my politics, or my eschatology, or my taste in music, or the food I eat or the education I have or the clothes I buy? All those things, to the Christian, must take second place to the question, "Who am I in Christ?"
And if we spent the rest of our lives trying to work that out... Well, that would be ok.
I've talked to many married folks, especially women, about "the moment" when they realized that this person they were married to was never meant to give them their identity. For some people, that's the end of their marriage. For others, it's the beginning of a long and difficult journey of finding their identity in Christ and resting there.
I've also had plenty of conversations with single folks (um... including myself) about the identity crisis of not having a spouse, of feeling valueless and adrift without this supposed anchor of marriage. It's daily implied to us that marriage is not simply a good and worthy state, but one that defines us as, and makes us, mature. (Think I'm overstating my case? Name one unmarried ministry leader at your church. Or consider what percentage of your congregation is single vs. what percentage of the leadership. Now, I know... correlation and causation. But it's something to think about.)
Who am I because of my job? Who am I because of my marital status? Who am I because of who I'm attracted to? Who am I because of my income? Who am I because of where I live? Who am I because of my politics, or my eschatology, or my taste in music, or the food I eat or the education I have or the clothes I buy? All those things, to the Christian, must take second place to the question, "Who am I in Christ?"
And if we spent the rest of our lives trying to work that out... Well, that would be ok.
Monday, November 22, 2010
A Thought Or Two On Singleness And Sanctification, Part 2
So, I wrote the last post to sort of point out the problem of our unbalanced understanding of singleness and sanctification. In this one, I'd like to think through what a solid, biblical view of singleness and sanctification looks like.
I think, first of all, that it's not just about "patience." We get told this a lot -- that we're so blessed to be learning patience, learning to "wait on the Lord" as we're single.
I think it IS a lot about... just life. Married folks and parents especially get all kinds of advice about how to turn everyday stuff into an opportunity for sanctification. Messy husband? It's a chance to love him sacrificially by just picking up the stupid sock and not nagging him about it. Hate folding laundry? It's a chance to pray for your family, one stained onesie at a time. Frustrated by the neverending cycle of strife between your kids? Just think of how God feels when we continually rebel against him!
Too often, we only address the external, apparent frustrations of the single person (loneliness, desire for marriage) without just dealing with their everyday circumstances, so we end up giving them the same prescription for sanctification. Be patient. Rely on God. Both great, but just not enough, and definitely not specific enough. I definitely need sanctification in those areas, but not only those areas.
In my life, for example, my biggest sources of sanctification are my students and hosting community group. I'm constantly confronted with my own pride, laziness, and selfishness at work. At home, I constantly fail to live up to my God-given task of home-keeping, making my little domain a place of peace and welcome for whoever God sends.
But not only do we fail to give specific, life-focused counsel to single people, we also fail to give them a big picture. Ultimately, God's purpose for me and God's purpose for my married friends is identical: that we would be more like Jesus. And we do married people and single people a great disservice by overemphasizing their dissimilarities and under-emphasizing their similarities. My best friend, who's married, needs to remember the Gospel just like I do. She needs to be made more like Jesus just like I do. She needs to respond to God's grace by striving to live a life of excellence, purity, generosity, wisdom, perseverance, and self-control, just like I do. She needs to joyfully submit to those whom God has made her leaders, just like I do.
The external circumstances whereby she is reminded of the Gospel might be different, or they might not. The trials that refine and strengthen her faith might be different than mine, or they might not. But the final outcome is that God, who has promised to complete the work he begins in his people, will make her, and me, and every other believer, more like Jesus.
I think, first of all, that it's not just about "patience." We get told this a lot -- that we're so blessed to be learning patience, learning to "wait on the Lord" as we're single.
I think it IS a lot about... just life. Married folks and parents especially get all kinds of advice about how to turn everyday stuff into an opportunity for sanctification. Messy husband? It's a chance to love him sacrificially by just picking up the stupid sock and not nagging him about it. Hate folding laundry? It's a chance to pray for your family, one stained onesie at a time. Frustrated by the neverending cycle of strife between your kids? Just think of how God feels when we continually rebel against him!
Too often, we only address the external, apparent frustrations of the single person (loneliness, desire for marriage) without just dealing with their everyday circumstances, so we end up giving them the same prescription for sanctification. Be patient. Rely on God. Both great, but just not enough, and definitely not specific enough. I definitely need sanctification in those areas, but not only those areas.
In my life, for example, my biggest sources of sanctification are my students and hosting community group. I'm constantly confronted with my own pride, laziness, and selfishness at work. At home, I constantly fail to live up to my God-given task of home-keeping, making my little domain a place of peace and welcome for whoever God sends.
But not only do we fail to give specific, life-focused counsel to single people, we also fail to give them a big picture. Ultimately, God's purpose for me and God's purpose for my married friends is identical: that we would be more like Jesus. And we do married people and single people a great disservice by overemphasizing their dissimilarities and under-emphasizing their similarities. My best friend, who's married, needs to remember the Gospel just like I do. She needs to be made more like Jesus just like I do. She needs to respond to God's grace by striving to live a life of excellence, purity, generosity, wisdom, perseverance, and self-control, just like I do. She needs to joyfully submit to those whom God has made her leaders, just like I do.
The external circumstances whereby she is reminded of the Gospel might be different, or they might not. The trials that refine and strengthen her faith might be different than mine, or they might not. But the final outcome is that God, who has promised to complete the work he begins in his people, will make her, and me, and every other believer, more like Jesus.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
A Thought Or Two On Singleness And Sanctification
My sweet, encouraging sister-in-law and I had a really good conversation last week, in which she said something I don't think I've ever heard a married person say, at least not quite in that way. She actually told me that singleness was sanctifying me, not just in one area, that of patience, but in my whole life as a Christian. Single folks don't really hear that a lot. Sojourn does a better job at addressing this than many churches, but I imagine it's tough to work in a lot of exhortations to singles, especially single women, when you're a married guy like all our elders are. So this isn't a post where I call people out and tell them to get on the ball or anything. It's just thoughts. Thoughts: I has them.
As is typical for me, I'm finding it helpful lately to see the whole concept of how we talk about sanctification as single people on a continuum, with error at each end, and a range of orthodoxy in the middle.
So: at one end, you've got the idea that singleness is a less-than-ideal circumstance for sanctification, and that marriage is not just normal but normative. Few people actually teach this (although... I can tell you from experience, they're out there). But a lot more people sort of accidentally teach it, or at least imply it. The error here is reading the Scriptures and seeing marriage described as sort of socially and culturally normal, as well as good, and that probably most people described in any detail in the Scriptures are married, and drawing from that something that's normative. It's a common interpretive problem, confusing descriptive and prescriptive aspects of Scripture. Plus, marriage "has a verse on it" as we say in the South, the lovely and oft-read-at-weddings passage about the mystery of marriage referring to Christ and the Church. We seem to think that means that singleness is just one tiny step down from marriage, because singleness doesn't have a verse about Christ and the Church attached to it.
Here's where you get marriage just hammered on from the pulpit, and talked up, and praised, and presented as the furnace of sanctification, without any notion that we're failing to give people a vision of what godly celibacy (which, in case we've forgotten, is our eternal future state) looks like. Instead we're telling people to direct all their energies toward something that's temporary, and discouraging single people from pursuing sanctification because we're implying that it all will just happen automatically and effortlessly once they get married and start having kids (insert collective snort of disgust from all my married readers).
(Incidentally, and just as a little side rant: why are we ok with denigrating the lives and experiences of single people by constantly saying that marriage/child-rearing is "harder" than singleness? I'm positive that it's harder in some areas, and it's definitely a different kind of hard, but, married folks, please. Stop telling us that we've got it easy. /rant.)
At the other end of the spectrum is a view that's totally foreign to us Protestants, that celibate service is spiritual and, in fact, that married folks (basically, in most cases) disqualify themselves from vocational ministry. We can't get our brains around this. So because we can't get our brains around it, we mostly don't provide a path for celibate service, and we retreat all the way to the other end of the spectrum.
As is typical for me, I'm finding it helpful lately to see the whole concept of how we talk about sanctification as single people on a continuum, with error at each end, and a range of orthodoxy in the middle.
So: at one end, you've got the idea that singleness is a less-than-ideal circumstance for sanctification, and that marriage is not just normal but normative. Few people actually teach this (although... I can tell you from experience, they're out there). But a lot more people sort of accidentally teach it, or at least imply it. The error here is reading the Scriptures and seeing marriage described as sort of socially and culturally normal, as well as good, and that probably most people described in any detail in the Scriptures are married, and drawing from that something that's normative. It's a common interpretive problem, confusing descriptive and prescriptive aspects of Scripture. Plus, marriage "has a verse on it" as we say in the South, the lovely and oft-read-at-weddings passage about the mystery of marriage referring to Christ and the Church. We seem to think that means that singleness is just one tiny step down from marriage, because singleness doesn't have a verse about Christ and the Church attached to it.
Here's where you get marriage just hammered on from the pulpit, and talked up, and praised, and presented as the furnace of sanctification, without any notion that we're failing to give people a vision of what godly celibacy (which, in case we've forgotten, is our eternal future state) looks like. Instead we're telling people to direct all their energies toward something that's temporary, and discouraging single people from pursuing sanctification because we're implying that it all will just happen automatically and effortlessly once they get married and start having kids (insert collective snort of disgust from all my married readers).
(Incidentally, and just as a little side rant: why are we ok with denigrating the lives and experiences of single people by constantly saying that marriage/child-rearing is "harder" than singleness? I'm positive that it's harder in some areas, and it's definitely a different kind of hard, but, married folks, please. Stop telling us that we've got it easy. /rant.)
At the other end of the spectrum is a view that's totally foreign to us Protestants, that celibate service is spiritual and, in fact, that married folks (basically, in most cases) disqualify themselves from vocational ministry. We can't get our brains around this. So because we can't get our brains around it, we mostly don't provide a path for celibate service, and we retreat all the way to the other end of the spectrum.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Titus 2 is for Single Girls, Part 1
In my observation, when a pastor preaches on Titus 2, this is what often happens (caution: hyperbole ahead):
At Sojourn we're blessed to have pastors who handle God's word... well, a lot better than that, and I could address the problems with each one of those paragraphs, but I'm only going to deal with the last one, because I think it's the place where even the most well-intentioned, careful, Gospel-centered teaching can kind of go off the rails.
What do we do with single women in the church? In the case of Titus 2, I think what we often imply is that her calling is on hold until she gets married, and even then that her calling hasn't reached its ultimate fulfillment until she starts having kids. Then, we seem to say, you're really living out your calling, sister.
How do we make sense of the biblical teaching that seems to speak primarily to married women with children, when all around us -- both in the Scriptures and in the Church -- are unmarried, childless women?
I think the key is to begin to see the connection between calling and identity. Calling, in the Scriptures, is a function of identity -- sometimes a current identity; more often what we might call a prophetic identity, a declaration of a new identity given by God to the person he's calling. So when we see passages that call us to a certain set of actions or attitudes, I think it's important to ask what identity is behind those actions.
For example, God calls all Christians to care for the poor and the alien. What identity is behind this? Ultimately, we are a people whom God has rescued from the ultimate poverty and alienation, and we paint a picture of the Gospel when we reach out to the poor and alien.
What about Titus 2? What is God telling all women about who we are (or are becoming by grace) through these instructions to married women with kids? I'll address that in Part 2 tomorrow.
Married guys, MAN UP and lead your families! No! Just shut up and do it!
Married ladies, you need to be mentoring younger married ladies and teaching them what you've learned. We love you, and we know it's tough to be married to us horrible, horrible men. Don't be discouraged even though we keep telling you that you have the hardest and most-critical-not-to-screw-up job in the world and that you're basically 100% responsible for your both your husband's fidelity and his self-esteem.
Single dudes, have some self control, and get married! And quit watching porn and playing video games! And get a job! And move out of your parents' basement! And you suck! And there's basically no hope for you! UGH SINGLE DUDES UGH.
Single ladies... uh... I dunno. Be patient I guess? Maybe? Yeah, I got nothin'.
At Sojourn we're blessed to have pastors who handle God's word... well, a lot better than that, and I could address the problems with each one of those paragraphs, but I'm only going to deal with the last one, because I think it's the place where even the most well-intentioned, careful, Gospel-centered teaching can kind of go off the rails.
What do we do with single women in the church? In the case of Titus 2, I think what we often imply is that her calling is on hold until she gets married, and even then that her calling hasn't reached its ultimate fulfillment until she starts having kids. Then, we seem to say, you're really living out your calling, sister.
How do we make sense of the biblical teaching that seems to speak primarily to married women with children, when all around us -- both in the Scriptures and in the Church -- are unmarried, childless women?
I think the key is to begin to see the connection between calling and identity. Calling, in the Scriptures, is a function of identity -- sometimes a current identity; more often what we might call a prophetic identity, a declaration of a new identity given by God to the person he's calling. So when we see passages that call us to a certain set of actions or attitudes, I think it's important to ask what identity is behind those actions.
For example, God calls all Christians to care for the poor and the alien. What identity is behind this? Ultimately, we are a people whom God has rescued from the ultimate poverty and alienation, and we paint a picture of the Gospel when we reach out to the poor and alien.
What about Titus 2? What is God telling all women about who we are (or are becoming by grace) through these instructions to married women with kids? I'll address that in Part 2 tomorrow.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Abstinence or Chastity?
Ever since the oh-so-wise and ultra-experienced new mom Bristol Palin expressed her opinion about "abstinence" being "unrealistic," the Christian blog world has been abuzz, with bloggers tsk-tsking, scolding, pontificating, and hand-wringing by turns.
I'll be the first to admit that the abstinence movement (the stalwart True Love Waits and various smaller efforts) has been a joke and a general failure. A Slate.com article from a while back (one of many on the subject) called such programs a success on a sociological level, in that they motivated participants to delay sexual intercourse by around eighteen months, on average. Wow! Eighteen whole months! What a triumph...
"Joke" might sound like a bit of a strong word. It is. But in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Lemme splain. No, there is too much. Lemme sum up."
Abstinence is a stupid term. Abstaining is something teetotalers do, something Sylvester Graham touted. However fancy the packaging, the word "abstinence" still feels punitive. It's the absence of something. And as any dieter will tell you, when you feel deprived, you're that much more likely to splash out by having an appetizer AND a rich dessert AND a glass of wine.
But a proper view of human sexuality is not supposed to feel like eating celery sticks at the Food and Wine Classic. Sexuality is woven into the created order. It's got a whole book of the Bible dedicated to it. It's supposed to be honored and protected. It's meant to be celebrated by the community of faith. It's part of our identity as image-bearers of God.
Do you see why it's completely insufficient to say merely that true love (whatever that means) "waits"?
Waits for what? Waits how? Waits why?
I think we need to completely remove the idea of "abstinence" from our discourse -- particularly the discourse we aim at young people -- and put in its place the idea of chastity. Chastity is both broader and narrower in its focus than "abstinence." To abstain is to do without something -- in this case, sexual intimacy. To be chaste is to view sexuality and sexual intimacy as something godly, valuable, and noble, to be experienced freely and joyfully in the right context, and to be directed toward that context. It's not a "don't." While abstinence is necessarily temporary, chastity is to be practiced throughout the Christian life.
(As a side note, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Christians say, "I was sexually pure until I got married." Hold up! If you've only ever been intimate with your spouse, you are STILL sexually pure. I believe this rather amusing and revealing malapropism stems from the idea that sexual purity is for the virgin but not the wife -- still perpetuating the old stereotype that sexual intimacy is a malum in se rather than an evil only when misused.)
I signed a True Love Waits pledge as a young teen, and I even wore a promise ring for a while until I misplaced the darn thing (sorry, Dad!). But I did so alongside dozens of friends who went on to forget those foundationless and hastily-written promises, which sounded so meaningful at age fourteen but somehow wore thin over time.
The truth is, we have failed to give young people a compelling reason to direct their sexuality toward marriage. At the same time, we've encouraged them to put off marriage, making even compelling reasons ring hollow! We've hinted that sex is dirty and sinful. We've told them No, No, No, No, and that's the end of it. We've told them they have to conquer the beast of temptation alone. We've spoken in hushed and shocked tones of fallen women and p orn addicts and all manner of other sexual sinners, driving the struggling and fainting heart into isolation.
Worst of all, we've failed to put before them the blinding glory of Christ and the plan of the Almighty God of the universe for human relationships. We've failed to tell them of the provision of Christ for our every need, and for the precious gift of the Holy Spirit who comforts us in our distress and guides us into all truth.
Given all these failures, is abstinence unrealistic for most young people? Of course.
But chastity, grace, and the glory of God? That's a message well worth our time to tell.
I'll be the first to admit that the abstinence movement (the stalwart True Love Waits and various smaller efforts) has been a joke and a general failure. A Slate.com article from a while back (one of many on the subject) called such programs a success on a sociological level, in that they motivated participants to delay sexual intercourse by around eighteen months, on average. Wow! Eighteen whole months! What a triumph...
"Joke" might sound like a bit of a strong word. It is. But in the words of Inigo Montoya, "Lemme splain. No, there is too much. Lemme sum up."
Abstinence is a stupid term. Abstaining is something teetotalers do, something Sylvester Graham touted. However fancy the packaging, the word "abstinence" still feels punitive. It's the absence of something. And as any dieter will tell you, when you feel deprived, you're that much more likely to splash out by having an appetizer AND a rich dessert AND a glass of wine.
But a proper view of human sexuality is not supposed to feel like eating celery sticks at the Food and Wine Classic. Sexuality is woven into the created order. It's got a whole book of the Bible dedicated to it. It's supposed to be honored and protected. It's meant to be celebrated by the community of faith. It's part of our identity as image-bearers of God.
Do you see why it's completely insufficient to say merely that true love (whatever that means) "waits"?
Waits for what? Waits how? Waits why?
I think we need to completely remove the idea of "abstinence" from our discourse -- particularly the discourse we aim at young people -- and put in its place the idea of chastity. Chastity is both broader and narrower in its focus than "abstinence." To abstain is to do without something -- in this case, sexual intimacy. To be chaste is to view sexuality and sexual intimacy as something godly, valuable, and noble, to be experienced freely and joyfully in the right context, and to be directed toward that context. It's not a "don't." While abstinence is necessarily temporary, chastity is to be practiced throughout the Christian life.
(As a side note, I can't tell you how many times I've heard Christians say, "I was sexually pure until I got married." Hold up! If you've only ever been intimate with your spouse, you are STILL sexually pure. I believe this rather amusing and revealing malapropism stems from the idea that sexual purity is for the virgin but not the wife -- still perpetuating the old stereotype that sexual intimacy is a malum in se rather than an evil only when misused.)
I signed a True Love Waits pledge as a young teen, and I even wore a promise ring for a while until I misplaced the darn thing (sorry, Dad!). But I did so alongside dozens of friends who went on to forget those foundationless and hastily-written promises, which sounded so meaningful at age fourteen but somehow wore thin over time.
The truth is, we have failed to give young people a compelling reason to direct their sexuality toward marriage. At the same time, we've encouraged them to put off marriage, making even compelling reasons ring hollow! We've hinted that sex is dirty and sinful. We've told them No, No, No, No, and that's the end of it. We've told them they have to conquer the beast of temptation alone. We've spoken in hushed and shocked tones of fallen women and p orn addicts and all manner of other sexual sinners, driving the struggling and fainting heart into isolation.
Worst of all, we've failed to put before them the blinding glory of Christ and the plan of the Almighty God of the universe for human relationships. We've failed to tell them of the provision of Christ for our every need, and for the precious gift of the Holy Spirit who comforts us in our distress and guides us into all truth.
Given all these failures, is abstinence unrealistic for most young people? Of course.
But chastity, grace, and the glory of God? That's a message well worth our time to tell.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Questions and Answers, Part 8
Hey Laura,
I guess the confusion for me still lies in whether those plans that “will definitely be carried out” necessarily involve details like marriage. You said, “If God's purpose is to sum up all things in Christ, like the Scriptures say, then whether or not I get married isn't all that important.” Yeah, and so it’s pretty easy to say, “Well, God doesn’t care either way, therefore whether or not I end up as a wife and mother is totally due to things like how attractive I am, how mature these boys are, the decisions I make in relationships, etc., etc.” Of course, this is a very anxiety-inducing way to think of it! It kind of makes things all my fault if they don’t go “right,” rather than being according to Gods Will. So, naturally, I don’t like that idea and it doesn’t sit right with me when I consider God’s goodness and love for us.
Your Friend,
X
Hey Girl,
It's a tough balance, for sure, because in one sense, it doesn't matter if you get married or not in the grand scheme, because God's purposes will be accomplished either way. But God is ultimately in control, not just of the overarching themes of history and your life and mine (although you're right, that is extremely helpful for perspective to keep in mind), but of the details of our lives as well. Look at Psalm 139, for example. God knit you together. He sees your going out and your coming in. He knows your thoughts. He "hems you in" from all around (a pretty amazing thought!). He wrote down all your days before you ever existed. That says to me that he is intimately involved (although mysteriously for sure) with the daily stuff of our lives.
The problem with, "God doesn't care either way. He's powerful enough to work with whichever way I go" is that it quickly becomes two things: one of which you've noted, which is Oh Crap, it's all up to me. But the other is, well, then, I can do whatever I want because God can work with whatever I give him. That's true in a way, but we're still accountable to him for our decisions. I'm not saying you're going that direction, but historically, that's where Christians have gone -- either to over-emphasizing our own responsibility in living a holy life or under-emphasizing our accountability to God to live rightly.
So... it's a tension, and something I get pulled back and forth on in a big way. Yes, God can work in spite of my deficiencies, but yes, I also have a responsibility to participate in my sanctification and move toward holiness, because God is at work within me. I think it's helpful to frame it like that. God's work is at both ends, making my work possible. Philippians 2:12-13 is basically my favorite verse because of this: "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, because it is God who works in you, to will and work according to his good pleasure." God is at work, so I can work (and live and pray and do my daily stuff) both with confidence in and awe of God, who works everything according to the pleasure of his will.
With the "marriage" issue, the balance (or tension, I guess) is in saying, OK, God cares. He is at work. I have a responsibility to grow in godliness, to strive for those qualities that make up righteous woman, and to seek him -- remembering that I can work because he is already working to sanctify me. Those godly characteristics won't make God bring me a husband (which I've actually heard -- "God won't bring you a husband until you've taken care of X issue in your life" which is incredibly lame). The truth is, if he does bring me a husband, then those qualities will help me become a wise and godly helpmate. If he doesn't right now or for a while or ever (although that's pretty statistically unlikely), those qualities will help me be content and joyful in whatever circumstance I end up in.
I don't think I've ever actually achieved that kind of balance, and I may never. But there it is...
;)
L
Friday, October 10, 2008
Questions and Answers, Part 7
Hey Laura,
Now here’s a big question: how does God’s sovereignty really play into this whole deal? The fact is, we all know it, a lot of people are increasingly immature and delaying marriage, for example, because of their fear of commitment and… I don’t know, inordinate affection for X-Box or something. But God doesn’t force them to obey him, push them into marriage, right? Now I do believe that God works all things together for good. But I see this in the way of sanctification, which of course, is our ultimate goal in life. But in the details? What’s your take?
Your Friend
X
Hey Girl,
Here's where I start with the whole "free will" thing. I said a little bit of it the other night, I think. My fundamental premise is that we are perfectly free to act as our nature allows (for instance, I can walk and run and crawl and skip and do cartwheels... but I can't fly). Which means that
1. unbelievers, who have a sinful nature unchanged by the Holy Spirit, are perfectly free to behave according to their nature, which is marred by sin. That's what depravity means -- every element of human nature is touched by sin -- NOT that humans are as sinful as they could be. I believe that God in his mercy and love for his creation and for his people restrains human sinfulness.
2. believers, whose sinful nature is being mortified and replaced with the nature of Christ as we are conformed to his image by the Holy Spirit, are free to act according to our renewing nature. This is why Paul talks about the war within himself -- on the one hand, we desire to follow Christ, but on the other hand, our sinful nature is still fighting against us.
I also think there are two ways to look at God's sovereignty that are true simultaneously. From our perspective, since we cannot know the future, and because God actually operates within time in our lives, every choice we make has true, infinite possibilities until we make it. When I choose to turn left instead of right at the stop sign, or to take Job A rather than Job B, or to marry Joe and not Fred, those are real choices that limit and change my future choices. But from God's perspective, since he exists outside of time and knows all events in the scope of time because he created them, we also say that he is sovereign over those things. They don't happen apart from his purposes being fulfilled.
I think you're right to look at things from a "sanctification" perspective -- just don't forget the universal perspective too, that God's purpose is to redeem for himself a people, i.e. the Church, not just individuals, and to redeem and transform creation -- all through Christ. So in some sense, Jesus is the goal of all creation. That helps me put the whole "marriage" thing in perspective. If God's purpose is to sum up all things in Christ, like the Scriptures say, then whether or not I get married isn't all that important (which, uh... don't see me as one of those people who pretends not to care. Cuz I do). I believe God already knows each hour of my life, but not in a weird micromanagement way that turns me into a robot. Like I said, when we're talking about human life within the constraints of time and space, God's sovereignty and our (real, meaningful) choices look very different.
I DON'T think we're meant to spend our whole lives looking for "signs" of what we're supposed to do, or that we're supposed to pray about what color to paint the bathroom or where to eat dinner or stuff like that. I believe that God uses what he gave us -- our experiences, our education, our brains, our consciences -- guided by the Holy Spirit, to put our lives in line with his plan. I think that's one reason the Scriptures talk so much about wisdom and ALSO emphasize the inevitability of God's plan.
That's why I don't like to talk about "the man God made for me" or whatever. I think that, in that time-bound human perspective of God's sovereignty, there are dozens if not hundreds of men I could marry and be happy with and have a godly marriage and raise a godly family with. I can think of several off the top of my head -- not guys I would necessarily marry right now but men I know are godly Christians with a biblical understanding of marriage, guys who love God's church, who could lead me, who'd be good dads, etc. I don't think it's some mystical thing that we have to feel all googly about or panic about or spend four hours a day praying about. God uses means to accomplish his will -- means like the preaching of the Gospel, and our brains and hearts. Means like first dates, wedding ceremonies, and uteruses. Things don't usually spring fully-formed from God's mind -- he graciously brings us into his plan for all creation by giving us responsibilities and using our choices to accomplish the summing up of all things in Christ. Which I think is pretty awesome.
L
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
