Poem: Community

When in the beginning, all of the stuff of the cosmos had been organized
And not one creation deviated from the Creator's perfect design
All was not well, for man by himself, was lacking in something besides

He lacked not in purity, intellect, strength, creativity, life or desire
If labor was favored, Adam was capable. No goal could not be acquired
But there was a whole other realm of experience to which he could not aspire

Man by himself does poor company keep, and his actions are wholly self-serving
But give him relations, and for a plot twist, make them all, of his love, undeserving
And fix within each the capacity for selfless love and its requisite yearning

NOW! Man in community is more of a model of a relational Father above
When, denying himself, he freely surrenders -- expressing the Trinity's love --
And loves his own wife with no thought of reward: this is how marriage is done

"It is not good for man to be alone" -- and this is what that Scripture means:
That, though we are physical beings, we know, all is not what it seems:
When a man connects spiritually with his friend, his joy will surpass his best dreams.

~ Rak Chazak

A Tale of Two Pain-Killer Advertisements.

I've always found myself offended by commercials that don't actually explain why their product is better than another -- let alone prove it -- because I realize that they operate on the concept of impressions. That is, they hope that the commercial itself will be memorable, so that when you remember the commercial -- because it was amusing, exciting, original, etc -- your mind associates the memory with the product. For a simple example, someone trying to cheer up someone else by saying "put a smile on" could result in that person saying, "hmmm, you know I am actually in the mood for some McDonald's."

The business incentive is that what people remember better are images and feelings (what something on TV looked like, or how it made you feel) than they do specifics of nitty-gritty facts, like whether Flonase blocks neutrophils, leukotrienes, histamines, etc (these all show up on the screen for their commercial but the persuasion is far less heady than that. It's a simple "we have 6, the competition has 1. We're better, yay! Buy our product").

The idea that someone's trying to get around my conscious decision-making apparatus and try to get me to buy something not because it's a good choice, but because it's the only product in that category that I can remember by recalling commercials, is insulting to me, because I've always preferentially gravitated toward what I can determine to be true and right and good, rather than what merely makes me feel good or what seems popular.

Plot Twist

Similarly insulting is the "identity politics" of various political movements in vogue at the moment. This is not limited to liberal/leftist/democrat agendas, but they are by far more invested in splitting their constituent demographics into groups and targeting single-issue messages to each one of them. When a political figure says "I think you're too dumb to think about more than one issue at a time," it insults me. But it must work, because candidates for both parties generate massive applause by doing what's called "doling out red meat." The primary season for the Republican 2016 field is getting ramped up, and examples of this include people shouting "God bless America" at the end of the speech, as if that's supposed to make every Christian want to vote for them, regardless of what else they said. But democrats are even more insidious, because they don't just utilize identity politics, they are far more effective than republicans at capitalizing on resentment, envy, hatred of 'the other,' often playing their constituent groups against each other. 

One way they insult you is by pretending that seeing more people "like you" represented somewhere, be it among Olympic sports teams (how many Americans are Olympians?), on television (how many of us are TV stars?), on news broadcasts (how many of us are journalists?), etc, that this will somehow improve your life. This is the insulting lie they tell women, blacks, hispanics and homosexuals, among other groups: that without doing anything significant to improve real life for the vast majority of Americans belonging to those groups, they agitate for rich CEOs to increase the amount of women news anchors, or black film leads, or homosexual sitcom actors, and they do this by telling the constituency to be angry that there aren't "more of them" represented in those positions.

The rich people shuffle the deck, the democrats claim victory, and the constituency feels satisfied with the result of something that does diddly squat to improve their life or liberty. And one simply must ask, "do they really think people are that dumb?"

Apparently they do. Whether people are that dumb depends on how representative the many people who happily follow along with this identity politicking are of the sum of the constituent groups in question.

My Point
And that's why a marketing department can propose this advertisement for an over-the-counter painkiller.

A lot of the promotion of homosexuality in television has been seen as "brave" or "bold," ostensibly because so many people are against it that it must be difficult or risky to endeavor. I suppose that means that the makers of this advertisement likewise think that there must be wide swaths of America that are Adoption-Racists, who don't think people should adopt kids who aren't of the same "race," judging by the still shot alone. It's hard to figure out the reasoning of people who don't expect you to be intelligent. What are they really expecting the response to be?

Well, the clear intent of this Tylenol commercial is to say "gay men raising children are just as good of a family dynamic as a man and woman, therefore, buy our product."

What does a painkiller have to do with homosexual households? Shouldn't I get a painkiller based on whether it reduces my pain? But nope, not according to Tylenol. They're banking on the fact that you don't buy painkillers for any scientific reason, but because you want to support the message and corporate policy of the company that creates the painkiller. They are hoping that you will think, "this company advocates for a single issue that I happen to agree with, so I will buy their product to increase their quarterly profits, to send the message that the American people supports their political views."

In contrast, another common painkiller, Aleve, uses this argument:

Aleve works better than Tylenol or Advil. All day long, all day strong.

It might be true, it might not be, but at least they're making the case that you should buy their product because it works.

Perhaps Aleve's corporate bigwigs are just as pro-ssm as Tylenol's are. That's not the point I'm making here. The point I'm making is, the way in which large companies advertise their products is based on how they are rewarded.

If an ad spot generates more revenue by making a scientific argument: "our product works and is better than the competition's," then they will keep doing that.

If an ad spot generates more revenue by making a political statement: "gay marriage, yay!" then they will keep doing that.

Takeaway:
The increase in recent days of similar ads, which portray happy homosexual couples (together with blended families and "interracial" couples, as if those things were morally controversial) being 'just like everyone else,' bottle-feeding babies and living the American Dream, seem to demonstrate that when it comes to the Public's response to advertisements, the People are thoroughly committed to rewarding rich people who treat them according to "identity politics," rather than rewarding people who encourage them to think and make decisions based on what works.

The consequences are readily apparent to that proportion of us which prefers to think.

~ Rak Chazak

Poem: Do Us Part

This is best understood in light of the insights I shared in The Extrapolation Principle, and Intimacy in Heaven.

Do Us Part

You and me
indefinitely
not forever but together,
that's how it's meant to be.
True love will stick
but knows its place
our human bonds will yield before
eternity's embrace.
Another's love
is lovely, sure
but even though it's the best thing we know
I promise you there's more.
Keep in mind
symbols are signs
and marriage is a symbol
of a grander still design.
Ecstasy
we just can't foresee
how much better, in heaven
our love and joy will be.
Let us not
be easily caught
by believing that receiving
earthly joy is the best thing we've got.
Lift your eyes
eternity is out of sight
in more ways than one, we face a ton
of surprises when we arrive.
Our intimacy
will surpass physicality
this poem will end, but I and my friend
will love better than we ever dreamed...
indefinitely.

Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."

~ Rak Chazak

PS background: the "You and me indefinitely" was initially inspired by a rejection of the Francis Chan book "You and me forever," which is ostensibly a book about how to make the most of Christian marriage. I might suggest to Mr. Chan and wife that telling the truth about the place of marriage in the context of God's divine plan would be a good place to start.

PPS something "indefinite" is something that doesn't have a defined limit (or a known one, from human perspective), yet which nevertheless is not practically infinite in extent. Our lives in eternity will go on forever, but the amount of time we've spent there will always be a finite number, even if it's 10^100^100^100^100 years and beyond. In a similar vein, human life and marriage has a distinct beginning and therefore the time from the beginning to the present is always definite -- but the time from the present to the unknown future ending (when "death do us part") is uncertain from our point of view of not knowing the future, and so the word 'indefinite' rather than 'forever' is better to describe something that has no foreseeable ending, like a committed earthly marriage. 

Something to think about, regarding whether people are born with sexual preferences

I figured I'd tag on to my previous post and look up other candidates a little.

At this point, there's not much people are saying publicly to define their positions on issues, likely because they're not strongly motivated to do so. In that context, there was a somewhat vague response that Marco Rubio gave to a same-sex marriage question:

I also don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. In fact, the bottom line is, I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with. source

That can be taken in at least two different directions. On the one hand, it could reveal sympathy for the SSM cause, while on the other hand, it could indicate compassion and a rejection of the contemporary popular belief in the naturalist fallacy, that "what is some way by nature, is therefore morally right."

The question of what Rubio meant is answered by whether he believes in the naturalist fallacy or not.

Here is an example of someone making the same observation, but being much more explicit in their presentation:

So, was Rubio just being a politician, or was he hinting at a more nuanced understanding of the issue, where just because someone's desires are fixed, it doesn't mean that pursuing them is appropriate? Time will tell.

~ Rak Chazak

PS according to Wikipedia, there's a distinction in technical terminology between "naturalist fallacy" and "appeal to nature," the latter of which is what I was referencing here. Colloquially, I think it's nevertheless suitable and doesn't require editing the article.

AWPATT XVII: February 18-April 15 (Thoughts 263-320)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

Not vulgar, but addresses sexual subjects. Recommended
for those of 'dating age' and older.

Topical Bible Study: Manna, Bread of Life, and Communion

Mind Supernovae

Wednesday afternoon and evening into Thursday morning was a day of several "aha" moments that came in rapid succession, making connections in my mind between things I hadn't experienced contemplating together, yet.

Number One: The Justification for Divorce

1 Corinthians 7
"12 If a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with him, she must not divorce him....15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or sister is not bound in such circumstances, for God has called us to live in peace."

Matthew 19 gives the justification for divorce as being adultery, in pretty strong terms: "I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9).

I have good reason to believe, based on my understanding of the character of God, that He would not call it sin to separate from someone who was physically abusive, especially to the point of putting your life in danger. But I had not been able to find any explicit Biblical justification for it outside of Matthew 19. So I had reasoned that the desire to murder your spouse would fall under the category of infidelity, since you'd be blatantly breaking your spousal commitment to honor them and protect them and pursue their best interest. But since Matthew 19:9 didn't directly address violence, it was a bit of a stretch, even if I supposed that Jesus took it for granted that His audience would agree that violence was impermissible in marriage.

I think now that I misread the passage. Assuming for now that the English renders the grammar equivalent to the original Greek, then Jesus isn't saying that sexual immorality is the only permissible reason to divorce. It's more grammatically appropriate to understand Him as saying that sexual immorality is the only permissible reason to remarry. But once again, since His audience is all Jews, it seems to be in the context of divorcing a woman who is of the faith.

So now, the synergy:
* 1 Cor 7 says that divorcing an unbeliever is permissible (not required), on the basis of whether the unbeliever wants to divorce.
* 1 Corinthians 7:11 says that if you divorce a fellow believer, you may not remarry
* Matthew 19 gives the only condition where remarriage is permissible as being if your believing spouse committed sexual immorality against you -- infidelity.

And the application:
* If you're a believer yoked to an unbeliever, you can divorce them if they want to divorce
* If you're a believer who divorces a believer for any reason other than that they committed adultery against you, you may not marry someone else. You must either reconcile with them and remarry them, or (my interpretation) if they marry someone else, you're no longer bound to them because the consequence of remarrying them would require an additional divorce, compounding the sin.
* If your spouse commits a pattern of abuse toward you and/or threatens to murder you, that person is not a believer. I'll stand up and say that anyone who wants to harm their spouse -- let alone murder them -- does not have the Spirit of God in them. And as we saw above, you are free to divorce an unbeliever who clearly doesn't want to live with you as a husband or wife.

So we see then that the Bible justifies divorce in the case of infidelity, physical abuse and terrorization, and attempted murder. You are free to remarry in each of those cases.

What the Bible does not justify is "no-fault divorce." If you separate because you dislike each other's personality, don't enjoy sex any more, are feeling bored or tied down, don't find your spouse attractive, etc, those are not valid reasons to divorce or remarry. Considering that since your divorced spouse is still your spouse, if you marry someone else, the act of consummating that marriage constitutes sexual immorality, which then justifies your first spouse's right to marry someone else.

**   **          **   **          **   **

Number Three: Bucket Lists Are Borne of the Fear of Death

This one's shorter (gotta get to the Bible Study topic). I got the idea here: http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-bucket-lists-fear-of-death-and.html

The major premise of having a "Bucket List" is to accomplish a certain amount of things before you die, because after you die you won't have any more opportunities to check off the things you wanted to experience -- be it skydiving, surfing, riding an elephant, climbing a mountain, etc. The problem with this belief is that it's totally contrary to Biblical Christianity. For us, this life doesn't end at death. We have continuity of experience between this life and the future glorified state we'll exist in in eternity. If you don't get the chance to climb Everest or dive to the bottom of the Marianas Trench or orbit the earth or walk on the moon or ride a dolphin or glide over the Alps or any number of exciting adventures, you won't miss anything because the future holds even greater adventures. "Eye has not seen, nor ear has heard, the wonderful things that God has prepared for those who love Him." I don't have to get all the adventure in before earthly death, because I'll have an infinity of adventure to look forward to. What does it matter if I see the Andes through a PBS broadcast and never walk it myself? We can't overlook the adventure that we're a part of in Christ. Just being owned by Him is an adventure all its own, because there are new things to be discovered every day (look at what I'm writing about!). I not only look forward to flying and trekking all over His New Creation after death, but I'm not overlooking the adventure I'm in the midst of right now! I'm free from the fear of death, to pursue things other people might consider mundane, but which are important in the grand scheme of things, if only because it pleases God and is part of His master plan.

And now, for an explanation of how a David Jeremiah Turning Point broadcast led to an epiphany for me about the significance of the bread in the Lord's Supper. I've said before that I'm a lover of symbolism in God's Word. You likely already know that the bread symbolizes Christ. But we're about to go even deeper.

Number Two: What Manna and "Bread from Heaven" do to illuminate the sacrament of communion

Blog Post #300! and "The Audacity of Nope"

In just under two years, I've posted 300 individual articles on this blog. That's an average of one every two days, or 3 a week, or 10 a month. Not quite so much as to be a distraction for me from life in flesh and blood, and not quite so rare as to be defunct, a blog of little potential impact on others. I'm happy with what I've been able to accomplish with it, while because of the comparably light expenditure of effort it takes to blog, I'm driven to seek to do more.

I do have a deadline, after all. I have a list of content I want to get through within the next 2 years, particularly subjects pertaining to basic theological truths and also some contemporary treatises (addressing persecution, eschatology, and "how then shall we live?" type questions) -- because once I am married, I can't exactly write as a 'Single Christian Guy' anymore, can I? And while I'm working on "finishing/completing" the blog, I'll be undertaking academic and professional efforts to become financially self-reliant, to free me to be able to responsibly engage a young woman in courtship. Have you noticed that my biggest running goals are directly tied to two of my core identities (which are really emphases of one)? -- To glorify God as His servant, and to be a Christlike husband for a woman who I will in the course of time be introduced to.

I am ever grateful to God for having freed my mind from worldly thinking, so as to enable me to comprehend marriage as He designed it, and to be able to love a woman with the same character of sacrificial love that He exhibits for us. I yearn for the opportunity to give back what I have gained, in the most powerful way possible on this side of eternity.

*   *   *   *   *                    *   *   *   *   *

That brings me to the second part of this post. Love is a great thing to give and receive, but the thing about love is that it's volitional. That means that it's a conscious choice. And anything subject to choice is subject to the possibility of the choice being either "YES" or "NO." So the existence of love implies the existence of the right of volitional agents (human beings) to choose not to love.

A universe where the creations can love is a universe with greater displays of God's qualities (one of those being Love), and therefore is a more perfect universe than one wherein which there is complete obedience but no love because there is no free agency, no volition.

This leads to some shocking contrasts between God's nonhuman creations and rebellious humans. Here are two quotes, one by a Church father of recent history, and one from a contemporary pastor, that make use of this point to challenge those who defy God.

"I set before you an open door. I set before you Jesus the Savior who died for sinners on the cross, Jesus able to save to the uttermost, Jesus willing to receive. Go to Him first and foremost if you would know what step to take. Go to Him in prayer and cry, "Lord, save me or I perish! I am weary of sleeping—I desire to sleep no longer." Oh! "awake you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light."

Sun and moon and stars are all witnessing against you; they fill their place in creation, and you do not. Sabbaths and ordinances are witnessing against you: they are all proclaiming there is a God, there is a judgment, and you are living as if there were none. The tears and prayers of godly relations are witnessing against you: others are sorrowfully thinking you have a soul, though you seem to forget it. The very gravestones you walk past this night are witnessing against you; they are silently whispering, "Life is short and death is near," all, all are saying, "Awake! awake! awake! "Oh, brethren, the time past may surely suffice you to have slept. Awake to be wise, awake to be safe, awake to be happy. Awake, and sleep no more!" ~ J C Ryle, The Ten Virgins

“God beckons storm clouds and they come. He tells the wind to blow and the rain to fall, and they obey immediately. He speaks to the mountains, 'You go there,' and He says to the seas, 'You stop here, and they do it. Everything in all creation responds in obedience to the Creator...until we get to you and me. We have the audacity to look God in the face and say, 'No.” ~ David Platt, Radical

Do not be amazed when you see the amazing intricacy of created nature, and then look to nations and families and individuals and see chaos and disorder. Do not be amazed. If something is wrong in the world, it is because we have refused to do things God's way. Do not be amazed. We were told beforehand.

Knowing this, can there be any wonder why I'm so excited to pursue God's model of romance? How I can get such delight from contemplating it as my duty to first and foremost serve my wife, for her greatest good? It's how God wants us to live. Selflessly. There was never anyone more selfless than Jesus Christ, who gave up His right to sit comfortably in Heaven and rule, in order to die in our place for the sins we deserve Hell for, to make it possible that we could be forgiven without dispensing with God's perfect justice that required a penalty to be paid. This is love. And if the Bible teaches that I symbolically represent Christ as the husband in my marriage to my wife, then how could I possibly approach that union with the idea that my own comfort and pleasure is paramount? I derive so much more joy out of living out the expression of grace and unconditional love and inseverable commitment that I've been extended by my Savior; imitating my King in grateful submission to His will, since I know His precepts are given to me for my good.

Is there a woman out there who desires a man like that?

I'll meet her at exactly the right moment. "Many are the plans of a man, but the Lord directs His steps."

~ Rak Chazak

The Extrapolation Principle

 The Extrapolation Principle is the application of the idea that God is aware of everything, including human thoughts.

Consider: if you thought of something, then if it was the case that your idea is totally novel, such that God would not have thought of it, then your thoughts could catch God by surprise. He would be, in some sense, ignorant. We know this can't be true, because He is all-knowing.

This also means that, if you can think of a possible reason for why God might have done something, then, provided your thought process is logically sound and not in contradiction to some known Biblical truth, it is reasonable to believe that that thought would have entered into God's decision-making process, as a supporting reason for making the choices that He did.

That's basically it, for this post. I can't make it clearer with more words. But I figure I'll share an example of what I mean, that happens to be what I was thinking about when I formulated this thought.

~ ~ ~

I was contemplating marriage when I went to bed last night. I decided to explore it from a different aspect than is typical. The common ways of looking at human sexuality and relationship are from a procreative and theologically symbolic standpoint:

Procreative: God made male and female separate, as well as sexual reproduction and sexual desire, in order to establish a balance in the created order and to perpetuate humanity.

Theologically symbolic: God made male and female separate, that they may, when they come together in marriage, be a representation of the relationship that Christ has with His Church -- distinct centers of consciousness, but united in purpose (and as near to unity of essence as is possible), both serving the other.

But I figured, why not look at it from a contingency standpoint.

Premise: God is so great that when we recognize that we cannot have a perfect relationship with Him in this world, we will desire to leave it to be with Him. This means we won't care if we die. We'll be prone to recklessness or at least apathy with regard to protecting our earthly lives, since life with Him is far more to be desired than a lesser life on earth.

So God has the conundrum, of how to motivate the humans not to totally throw away their lives so they can pass through death into eternity. He's got to make some aspect of earthly living have enough of a fixation on the heart of men that they won't be tempted to give it up so easily. He needs to do something to make them individually invested in promoting His kingdom on earth, and not just focused on joining His kingdom in heaven.

What's a God to do?

The delights of heaven far surpass the delights on earth. So God might have thought, "I'll create something so delightful that men will hardly choose to die than miss the experience of it." And He created sexual pleasure.

The intimacy of the loving relationship between Father and Son, and Savior and Saint, far surpasses human relationships on earth. So God might have thought, "I'll create something so intimate, than which nothing else will come closer to resembling My relationship with those whom I love." And He made possible the marital union between man and wife.

And then, to ensure that mankind would not be so singlemindedly devoted to pursuit of this passion (recognizing, after all, that not all would be holy in their motivations) at the expense of all others, He connected human sexual intimacy to the generation of life itself, so that as long as people would desire that intimacy (which He made nearly inevitable), new people would be born and His desire that mankind would fill the earth would never be thwarted. Further, the presence of helpless children would serve as a modulating effect, on sinners and saints alike, making them more responsible and convicting them with a sense of duty, and thus providing a way that mankind would perpetuate itself even if it operated on the basest of human urges.

The fact that I thought this means that God knows that I would think it.
Since God is eternal, that means that He was aware of this thought 'before' He created mankind, before He made them male and female and created sex and sexual reproduction.
The Extrapolation Principle then means that, provided there's nothing ludicrously antiBiblical about this speculation, that it's quite possible that these notions constituted some of the multitudinous considerations that God would have processed in His divine mind when deciding how He was going to create the universe. It doesn't mean it was the primary reason (certainly not, by far), but it implies that He would have been aware of it, and the fact that He did what He did in the way that He did takes all possibilities into consideration.

So my conclusion, then, is that one of the supporting reasons for why God made marriage is so that His children would have something to root them in this world and keep them temporarily content with persisting in a shadow of eternity, until the future consummation. A sea-anchor, if you will.

It can't replace God for us. But it's the closest we have to being face-to-face with Him, our true love, between now and the day we're glorified and perfected in Him. And it's such an example of His kindness to us, that He would allow us to have this 'small slice of heaven', the better to know Him by, by intimately loving and being loved by another person.

Tell me that's not romantic.

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT XVI: February 3-17 (Thoughts 248-262)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

Point 248 begins with referencing Thoughts 243 and 247, where I had advised both that you should have a public relationship, and that you shouldn't. The difference is explained below.

248 Bring those two concepts together: you want to involve other people, but you don’t want to involve them. Each is in a different sense. You want other people to be aware of the fact that you and another person are interested, and to be involved in your relationship as it actually is. Don’t push a false view of the depth of your commitment to each other on others. You then put them in the awkward position of trying to correct you and be seen as criticizing and be faced with anger and dismissive resentment, or of playing along with your charade and having to rationalize supporting something they’re not behind 100% -- or else simply ignoring and avoiding you. Foolish decisions spurn good advice, because you show that you’re unwilling to receive it. When your breakup happens, the same people who gave you happy faces and agreed that your relationship was good when you had it will express confusion and try to empathize with your self-delusion. Others will say they saw it coming, but why didn’t they warn you when you were in the midst of the relationship? Oh, because they don’t respect you, of course. They didn’t deem you deserving of truth, and cared more for how you treated them (fearing your wrath if they challenged you) than they cared about your personal health. All of that results from foolishly pretending your relationship is more serious than it is. So don’t. Take people’s help, but don’t you dare try to make them conform to your imaginary fairy tale romance when you don’t even know how to love.

249 [Going through texts]: I’ve been told by several women that I’d be a spectacular husband/romantic for some happy woman…in fact, absent that experience, I’d be far less apt to allow myself to imagine a future scenario where a young lady ‘falls for me’ – I’d be wary of hoping for it as a realistic possibility.

250 But from several closer female acquaintances and friends, whom I’ve showed a sensitive side to, I’ve heard encouraging accolades re: my potential to be a suitable partner. The fact that this comes in the context of me, intentionally or not, having revealed negative qualities is a relieving affirmation.

251 [on the subject of complimenting someone who’s in a relationship by saying something like, ‘if you weren’t already taken, I might have to propose’] – Oh I personally couldn’t bring myself to joke like that. The last thing I would want to do is have a joke that was meant to be a compliment backfire and upset someone’s marriage by making a woman have thoughts of me. I recognize that it’s a certain form of pride to deny that anyone would be tempted by me, just as it would be to assume that everyone would. It’s an attempt to be thoughtful.

252 I could see myself joking with a 20s-30s couple if I was 80….But I happen to be variably viewed as handsome or cute or sexy, at least among a portion of women, so it would be ill advised for me to say “whoah, good thing you’re married, ‘cause I was about to propose!” (though max irony for saying that to a single woman miiiiight work out)

253 I’m pretty sure that from a theological standpoint, the purpose of my having to wait a long time to ‘find true love’ is for all of this time to be spent thinking about how best to serve her, so that by the time I meet her, I’ll have grown a lot in my character and wisdom and be a far better “package deal” then than anything I’ve been up to now. I won’t be thinking about my own satisfaction, because the desire to be together doesn’t go away from dwelling on it; it needs to be turned to a productive end. So I’m not just wasting time, I’m improving our relationship here and now :)

254 “Our love to Him should begin on earth, as it shall be in Heaven, for the bride taketh not by a thousand degrees so much delight in her wedding-garment as she doth in her bridegroom; so we, in the life to come, howbeit clothed with glory as with a robe, shall not be so much affected with the glory that goeth about us, as with the Bridegroom’s joyful face and presence.” ~ Samuel Rutherford, The Loveliness of Christ

255 When I was in mid-late High School I was invested in trying to influence middle schoolers with positive ideas, and now I’m hopeful that I can encourage or give insight to younger adults, also, especially with regard to life decisions like relationships, college, etc. When they’re women, I think (and hope that) I am able to show them, metaconversationally—that is, not in the words themselves but in my attention and behavior toward them—how an older man can speak kindly to them and show an interest, even to see them as romantically desirable, without being personally involved in romantic overtures toward her; to show her that guys can be respectful of her without being totally ignorant/unaware of her femininity. I think in the sex-charged culture we’re in, that has the potential to speak volumes in itself, and hopefully give them insulation against attention from the wrong guys.

256 So in light of this, I figured I had an opportunity to speak words of encouragement to one of the younger women on crew, because it happened that she’d specifically asked me to share my opinion of her. She’s basically granted me influence, allowing me to say something that may powerfully affect her.
                So I shared that I could see from her on-the-job behavior that she didn’t have a habit of complaining, she had a thankful spirit (I added afterward that she’s verbally appreciative of others), and that she is expressive of her feelings—with words--, which makes her easier to understand and less likely to have a misunderstanding with. All of this I could learn from observing how she does her job.

257 What work also reveals is ongoing habits, such as whether someone holds grudges, and I shared that later. After the first three compliments, she smiled and thanked me. I hope I’ve given her something to think about out of all of that, and that, if she does or doesn’t get similar compliments elsewhere, at least she now has. That’s enough motivation/encouragement for me to do what I do. If I can be an influence on her for good, that’s gratifying and makes me feel like my time in minimum wage employment hasn’t been wasted.

258 I think I’m strongly motivated to take every opportunity to influence young people, and particularly women, because I know what sorts of negative influences there are out there, but have no way of knowing what positive ones they might have encountered. There’s a possibility I’m one of the few if not the only one. I see it as my duty to provide a contrast to the usual narrative. If I withhold potentially helpful or even life-changing information, then I’m essentially guilty of negligence. Not doing the right thing is just as bad as doing the wrong thing. The fact that you know better is what makes it so severe. My knowledge is one of the only things I have that can benefit many people in short order. Keeping it to myself is a reverse arrogance.

259 [commenting on the Bachelor when there was nothing on tv] I think one of the major fatal flaws, an assumption that the contestants don’t think about challenging, is that they kiss. It seems like an expected guarantee, a way they evaluate each other. But the physical intimacy creates an emotional bond that clashes with the reality that there can’t be any real commitment, and the girls break down from mixed feelings of envy and betrayal and loss. While it’d be fascinating to be on the show, if the producers would even let you refuse to kiss, even so the context seems to lend itself to people getting hurt.

260 I remember when I learned jeans had been considered risqué in the past, I didn’t understand why. I thought that it was far easier for kids to be sexually inappropriate with dresses, which “provide easier groping access” and “could hide misbehavior from observers.” Apparently the real reason was that dresses obscure butt-curves and jeans hug them a little more. The emphasis was on being revealing, not in how tight the “goods” were wrapped. But that’s how 8^th-grader me thought, based on what he knew of how other boys in that age group behaved, and from a couple of Cosmo “sexcapade” stories I’d sneakily read in the supermarket/bookstore.

261 If jeans were risqué before, then wow, good thing Levi Strauss didn’t use spandex for his material. (Imagine if it was available, and he did; since his target consumer base was men, history could’ve taken a very different turn)

262 I can’t really sympathize with people who’ve been scorned (‘sympathize’ meant as in ‘understand the feeling,’ I’m not implying I think people are ‘getting what’s coming to them’ if they’re hurt). I’ve been spurned, rejected by peers/society, but not scorned, rejected by someone I desperately wanted. I don’t think my approach to love allows for the possibility of unrequited love. If it’s unrequited, it’s not desirable, and so the attraction doesn’t build.

~ Rak Chazak

Honey Maid "Wholesome" Commercial: One of These Is Not Like The Other

Perhaps you've seen this new commercial on tv, the one that starts with "I didn't think I'd get divorced, but the way I look at it, there's just more of us to love the kids now."

This clip of it doesn't include the longer intro with that voiceover, but it shows the other two couples:

It's about 20 seconds.

The advertisement seems to be part of a PR attempt to court people on political grounds, practically screaming "look how progressive we are with family values!"

They highlight divorce as "wholesome"
And they highlight two men, implicitly gay and raising an infant together, as "wholesome."

And then there's an "interracial" couple.

For some reason, people have trouble with a black man and white woman, or black woman and white man, being in a relationship. I don't get it. The only thing that stands out to me is that it's unusual, because you don't see it very often--but that's just statistics. There's nothing wrong with it. Now, if you're promoting it because you want to be a rebel against tradition, then perhaps you should reexamine your motives. I personally disdain the word "interracial" as this Answers in Genesis article helps explain.

But yet, a couple of mixed ethnic background is bookended between divorce and homosexuality in an ad that calls all of them "wholesome." And because I don't come from a background of disdaining relationships between "black" and "white" people, I am really left wondering whether the interracial couple in the ad is put in there to legitimize the other two couples, or if the same-sex couple is silently added at the end, feeding a baby with a bottle and walking behind a stroller, to confront pro-SSM advocates about their own personal racial biases by revealing their hypocrisy about who can love whom.

But either way, the commercial is saddening not just because it equates a commitment between one man and one woman, with broken commitment (divorce) and an imitation of the real which falls short (SSM), but because it holds up divorce as wholesome for children.

In all honesty, when it comes to the child aspect of it, divorce is WORSE. Not only are there more divorcees with children than there are same sex couples, thereby making it a bigger issue, I daresay that the harm divorce causes is at least on the same level if not more severe than having two same sex guardians, which is only one un-ideal relationship among many.

One child grows up with two dads, and never sees an intimate example of how a man should treat a woman.
One child grows up with a mom and dad, and sees betrayal of trust, abandonment, broken commitment, emotional withdrawal, selfishness and possibly abuse, adultery, deceit and finds themselves thrown under the bus, a child sacrificed for their parents' childishness.

Which is worse? One grows up having a hard time believing in a God who would say that their two fathers' affection for each other is borne of sin. One grows up having a hard time believing in a God who would say that marriage is a picture of His love for them, when the only marriage they've known has been one in which the father had nothing like a self-sacrificial loving attitude toward their mother, or his children.

Both are hurt. Both are sins. Now, divorce is a sin that has a definite boundary to it. Once you marry someone else, going back to your first spouse would require divorcing your second, which would also be sin; so there is no guaranty that tells you you have to choose one or the other, except that commitments shouldn't be broken. But with homosexuality, the desire itself is the sin, so the continued fleshly intimacy between two people is a continual rebellion against God. In terms of which is worse to do, it would seem that SSM is more dangerous for the actual sinners.

But for those who are sinned against? The children who are wounded by their parents' sins? The greater societal problem today would seem to be divorce, which by virtue of the fact that children's beliefs about God are strongly influenced by their relationships with their father, devastates a person's ability to contemplate the Heavenly Father as a compassionate, loving being.

Neither situation should be diminished; both are serious and both harm children. I find it offensive that both of these are held up next to a perfectly normal relationship between a black woman and a white man, and propounded as being "wholesome." But the thing that offended me the most was the voiceover that said "there are more of us to love the kids," and used that to rationalize backwards that the divorce was a good thing. That shows they don't even know what love is. That's tragic.

Honey Maid does a fine example of showing just how unwholesome it is, and how insulting it is to mixed-ethnicity couples by saying that relationships that deprive children of healthy relationships with both of their biological parents are "just as good as theirs."

They're not. And using children to justify the childish desire to buck the rules and do what you feel like you want to do for yourself is a poignant reminder that we live in a society where selfishness is the norm, and that whereas everyone grows up, not everyone matures.

Should your own sexual lusts take precedence over the well being of a child?

That is the flagrant challenge that the Honey Maid commercial makes. What will you decide?

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT XV: January 17-February 2 (Thoughts 231-247)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

231 It’s got to be a good sign when I can go this long without deferring to saying, “I hope she’ll be friendly.” I’ve perused enough dating profiles from time to time (mainly out of curiosity, wanting to see what’s out there) that I’ve had ample opportunity to be dismayed by the shallowness, not of desire (it’s hardly a lousy character trait to want to be around friendly people) but of the amount of thought put into what people are looking for. My anecdotal survey of sites like these turned out that the vast majority of ‘what I’m looking for’ sections, at least for women, say something like “a guy who can make me laugh,” “a guy with a beard/tattoos,” “a guy my friends will like,” “a guy who doesn’t say ‘your’ when he should say ‘you’re’,” “a guy who’s taller than me,” “a guy who can go out or stay home,” “a guy who can keep up with me.”

If you thought I was superficial when I talked about height in Thoughts #50-52, you should see some of these profiles. I was just analyzing subconscious inclinations in myself, but made no hard statement categorically excluding different heights from “wife potential.” But for many girls on dating sites, it’s serious, or at least one of the only things they put thought into. But what I notice when I see those statements is that there’s next to nothing you can learn about a person’s character based on their meeting those criteria. Some profiles will pretend that there’s more to be worked through once she’s interested already, but that just sets you up for a high rate of frustration, because your filter isn’t tuned well enough.

Yes, I want someone friendly, but in person, that’s the first thing I notice, and ultimately it’s a given, so it almost doesn’t even enter into the consideration of what sort of a woman I’m looking for. I have deeper compatibility concerns in mind than the utmost superficial things imaginable. And I’m looking for someone with a similar depth of forethought in their relationship plans. Statements like the ones I quoted show carelessness and possibly intellectual stupidity, and that’s a turnoff, so I avoid people like that, but without being disrespectful.

232 I don’t believe I mentioned being interested in a studious woman. I’ve talked about intelligence, knowledge, that she’s careful to think about things before making decisions, but not specifically about the pursuit of knowledge in itself. While someone who goes to school for the sake of schooling, and to insulate themselves from reality, is not highly appealing, someone who’s had a certain measure of achievement in terms of education will stand out. Now, pretentious Type-A’s are exhausting to be on the receiving end of, so not every personality type is made more magnetic by the increase of education. For some, it reveals abhorrent ego issues. But perhaps more important is the question of whether you can learn outside of structured academia. Someone who pursues learning on their own time is like someone who exercises regularly. They’re not content to languish with what they already have, but are honing it, to get better and better, for themselves and others. That is the root attitude that will benefit any relationship. Because someone who thinks they can improve is someone who isn’t likely to think that they’ve “already arrived,” and thus is less apt to be arrogant. It’s not a guarantee, as I mentioned, but a woman who is reading and learning on her own time is more interesting to me because of what it implies about her character.

233 Noses! Do you like ‘em big or small? It’s one of those things that I don’t typically notice, like prescription eyeglasses, but when I do, it’s temporarily amazing, as I look around and compare others’ to appreciate the variety. I don’t think I like flattened or broad noses very much, but I’ve been intrigued by noticing that a diversity in relative size can still be attractive to me. I remember reading somewhere, where Song of Solomon was being referenced, that large noses were considered appealing in Hebrew culture (Song makes a big deal out of the Shulamite woman’s nose in one section). It’s funny, considering that from ancient Egyptian images of Hebrews to modern day stereotypes, Jews are characterized as having big noses. This is in the back of my mind every time I notice an attractive woman who has a noticeably larger than average nose. I suppose I don’t mind them if they have an isosceles shape, have no bumps on the ridge, and aren’t over-bulbous or over-pointy. Longer better than shorter. Thinner rather than thicker. It’s not usually that I think about what shape of someone’s nose might be more attractive, but I suppose it’s one of the subconscious impulses in your mind, like head shape, eye spacing, etc, that work together to give you the instant reflex of “that’s good looking,” or “that’s kinda odd,” even if you can’t quite put your finger on what makes that person different from others. Maybe it’s the nose.

234 That thought came from noticing a very friendly woman’s nose in one of my prerequisite courses I’m taking. I’m diverting to talk about light subjects before beginning an excursus on “how to approach dating when dating isn’t the focus/goal/objective.” In each of my classes, there are 5 or less males, making the ratio something like 1:6 or 1:5 men to women in each respective course. This is a little odd. I realize the field might be less interesting to men, but the vast difference could have more to do with a simple, unemphasized detail that I’ve been noticing in trend reports for higher education. There’s less and less men, percentage-wise, in higher ed courses, the higher you go. Amazingly, the focus of grants and government projects is still on getting more women to go to school, but the tables have already turned. It’s something like a 40-60% split in the makeup of men and women who attain baccalaureate degrees in this country (unless perhaps it was Master’s). What are the possible consequences of this? Statistics show that more boys are born than girls, so it’s not explained by population. There is a huge chunk of males missing from classrooms. What are the possible reasons, or consequences? Who knows? No one’s funneling resources to investigate; it’s as if men don’t matter. Oh, I’m not bitter. It’s just as easy to take the alternate view, that “women need the help, men don’t.” But I refuse to take either one. It’s just a fact that no one is obligated to help me, so whether they do or don’t, the responsibility is still on the individual to pursue educational success. But I can’t help but wonder if, given the dramatically high gender disproportion in these classes, it might be within a course or within the field itself that I meet my future wife, just looking at it from a statistical possibility perspective. There’s scarcely anywhere else I could interact personally with so many women close to my age, except for bars/clubs/concerts or church-related youth events. For a middle ground in terms of the chance of meeting a wholesome virtuous lady, the classroom is not a terrible place to be.

235 Addendum to Thoughts #22 & 199. What are the chances that I’ll end up with a younger woman? As recently as a year or two ago, I would defiantly have refused the notion that I wouldn’t marry someone within a half year of my age. But that’s idealism, and the realistic outcome might be different. Should I refuse someone who’s perfect in every other way but happens to be 5 years my junior (if I’m 28 and she’s 23, for example)? The older I get, the more likely this becomes, because the margin of what’s appropriate expands with age. Up to now, if I had entered a relationship with someone 2 years younger, they’d have been 21 or less. But now, 2 years younger is 23, which is not quite so young as to have a high likelihood of being immature or naïve. Since I probably won’t seriously look for a spouse until age 27-28, anticipating a solid career by that time, the idea that I’d get to know someone now who’s 22, and maintain a friendship until then, when she’d be 25, is not very far-fetched.

I think the reason I’m resistant and cautious to contemplating a relationship with someone 5-7 years younger, other than the difference in life experience, is that for most of my life up to now, such an age difference would have been monumental and clearly inappropriate: 18 and 13 year olds? 22 and 15 year olds? Eeugh. But people who are 33 and 25 routinely marry, and the brute age difference is even wider there. But they are in the same age group. Adults. Because people mature irrespective of their biological age, it could be that a marriage to a 23 year old, at age 28, would be wiser than to a 27 year old who is far more foolish. Just letting the thought hit me as actually concerning me, and not just as a distant hypothetical, is a source of amazement to consider.

The really weird thing about it is pondering where such a person would be now. If I married a 23 year old at age 29, then by the time I met her and became engaged, we’d have been 22 and 28, meaning that there’s a possibility that a woman like that would just now be graduating high school, or a freshman or sophomore in college. In other words, I’d have no hope of meeting her now, anyway. Our life trajectories don't intersect at this time. So it may be several years before I’m engaged, not only because I’m waiting to get a career and stable income, and not only because I want to be careful to find the right person, but even because, if the ‘playing field’ is too devoid of suitable candidates my age, my future wife COULD BE, because of our age difference, not even here yet. Not arrived on scene. Somewhere else entirely.

What a mind-boggling thought.

236 Taking those last two thoughts together, there’s a real possibility that I might either meet someone in church or at university, while taking courses to get where I want to get. And they might be significantly younger. Respect for them would demand that I don’t make their life more difficult by ‘jumping the gun,’ and inadvertently pressuring them to commit long before the opportunity for engagement arises. But if they turned out to be fond of me, and for those years did not enter a relationship with another young man, then that would be gratifying. I can see myself like Boaz (paraphrasing), “you’ve shown me more kindness than before, because you could have had any younger man you wanted, but did not.” (Ruth 3:10) It’s equally likely that I can’t find anyone there, either, however, and may nevertheless resort to a dating site later on, but only God knows. I have the opportunity to wonder now, that I may marvel later.

How to Approach Dating when Dating isn’t the Focus, Goal, or Objective

AWPATT XIV: December 22-January 16 (Thoughts 205-230)

The A-Z Compilation (#1) : 7,000 word excursus on what sort of qualities I would desire for my wife to have. 

If you're young, you may read something you've never heard of before, so I encourage you to take a look.

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughs: Hub

Here is the start of the list, and the rest of the AWPATT will be found after the jump break.

205 I want a woman who is assertive. Without forcing her way, she needs to be able to express her mind and take a confident stand on everything she believes. A woman whose opinions I can never find out, or which are prone to change at any moment, is not a woman I can trust.

206 I want a woman who is bold. Who will not withdraw in fear or shame or uncertainty but will passionately hold fast to what she knows is right. She ought to be impervious to mere disagreement, however strong. This foreshadows her faithfulness as a spouse.

207 I want a woman who is compassionate. She ought to care about others – this is not only very feminine, but an important human trait, and as a Christian she should have a well-developed sense of empathy. It should be tempered with truth and not given to the wrong people, or emotionally, but decisively.

208 I want a woman who is discerning. A woman who can’t tell “right from almost right” is like a door that is always open. A woman with poor judgment or capacity to spot lies is dreadfully unreliable, and I will flee from her.

209 I want a woman who is elegant. That mystery quality that is difficult to define. Most people would probably use the term “graceful,” but I prefer to limit my use of that word to the strictly Biblical meaning. There’s a certain combination of clothing, physical beauty, confidence and character that goes into my attributing it to someone. Someone for whom it seems effortless to be convivial, restrained, cheerful, relaxed, mutually engaged, thoughtful and kind, rather than for whom it is an exhausting role-play.

210 I want a woman who is faithful. This contains the concept of loyalty in commitment, as well as the importance of believing what is true and right, and not just believing something strongly. “Can two walk together unless they are in agreement?” Amos 3:3. Believing the same will enable us to do that. And this is the second main purpose of this blog – to allow her to evaluate that.

211 I want a woman who is graceful. Grace, Biblically, is “giving something good a) that is not deserved, or b) unconditionally.” The two go hand in hand. Suppose you have trouble comprehending the first meaning, because you believe your beloved deserves good things from you. If they deserve it, consider nevertheless that you do not love them because they deserve it, but as a matter of fact unto itself. And consider further that they deserve love because God says that’s how they ought to be treated, not because they have an innate character quality or deed to their name that empowers them to require such treatment from others. For if there is good in them, where does it come from but God, after all? So you treat them well based not on them but on God, who never changes. This means that you act in love toward them whether or not you think they deserve it, because it’s not based on their performance but the character of God. This love is unconditional.

This is grace. I will treat you this way. And it’s an absolute requirement for me that my fiancée understands and lives this truth out.

Applying grace to your view of how you should be treated leads to the understanding that you have two options:

1) believe you deserve to be treated in _____ way

2) believe you don’t deserve anything in and of yourself

There are consequences based on two outcomes:

1) you “get what you deserve”

2) you don’t

In the 1^st case, if you ‘get what you deserve,’ you might be grateful, but you were expecting it anyway. If you don’t get it, on the other hand, you become bitter, and resentful at being mistreated. In the 2^nd case, you have shelved your expectations, because you don’t believe you deserve (are entitled to) anything. Then, everything good you receive makes you incredibly joyful and thankful, as if taken by pleasant surprise, because it’s a special and wonderful thing each and every time something good happens.

Which would you rather have?

Choose grace.

Teaser: Excerpts from Upcoming AWPATT, "A to Z"

From where the last AWPATT left off to January 16 will be 26 days, so expect an upload then of a themed series of thoughts that I've been working on off-line. Inspired by the acrostic portion of Proverbs 31, which my study Bible's footnotes cleverly point out could in English be entitled "The Perfect Wife from A to Z," I decided to use alphabetical organization to stimulate creativity on the subject of what sort of qualities I hope for in a future wife.

I can probably try to repeat this exercise once or twice, and even use it in different contexts: what sort of a husband I would hope to be for my wife, or what exciting things we can do together to show our love for each other. Gotta get to 1000 somehow, and there's lots of subject matter to sift through yet!

Here's a teaser, portions of what I've already written and transcribed, that may make the anticipation of the finished product pique the curious interest of the reader.

"Consider further that your beloved deserves love because God says that’s how they ought to be treated, not because they have an innate character quality or deed to their name that empowers them to require such treatment from others. For if there is good in them, where does it come from but God, after all? So you treat them well based not on them but on God, who never changes."

"Refusing to lay aside personal pursuits for marriage’s sake indicates one of two things:

1) you don’t trust your husband’s ability or willingness to provide for your family – the sin of faithlessness. And not, mind you, in your husband, but in God: can God provide for you no matter the circumstance, or can He not?

2) your career, education, and/or income is a higher priority for you than your husband and children – the sin of pride."

"Do we distrust God because He’s omniscient? Do we ignore what He says because He knows more, as if He’s being a ‘know-it-all?’ " 

"Her feelings must be influenced by her view of herself and her situation, they cannot be what controls how she perceives herself, God, her husband or the situation she’s in."

"Many people in this world see relationships as a tit-for-tat, and I’ll never marry into that willingly."

"all of my personal emphases are of crucial importance to me for the simple fact that it’s my marriage, and I need someone who’s perfect for me. Only one woman needs to pass that test,"

"her willingness to be led by me is VERY conditional, and should come at a very high cost" 

"Exercising her intelligence, discernment, and faithful knowledge of Scripture, she evaluates everything her husband asks of her with these questions: 1) is it in accordance with God’s will? 2) does it reflect the loving leadership of my husband, i.e. is it for my good? 3) will following his lead honor and do good for my husband? 4) is there a colossally compelling reason NOT to do it?"

Look for it next month! 

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT XIII: December 18-21 (Thoughts 201-204)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub

201 Based in part on past experience and in part on theology, I’m now rigidly conservative with regard to who should pursue whom at the onset of a romantic relationship (if you ask me for my number out of the blue, you’re immediately disqualified). God chose us, we did not choose Him, and based on the Ephesians 5 symbolism comparing husband and wife to Christ and the Church, it is obvious that for a woman to pursue a man, and for the man to accept it, is to demonstrate an ignorance of the mechanism of salvation (esp. as being monergistic), or rebelliousness against God’s loving direction for how to live. It won’t go well for such a couple.

202 But what does pursuit mean? It doesn’t seem to mean showing interest, as indicated in Ruth. It probably doesn’t mean a girl can’t give a guy compliments. But it means she shouldn’t attempt to initiate a relationship {note in the link above that it was Boaz who first showed inordinate kindness to her, and in his speech to her, subtly recognizes the facts that Ruth's mother later points out, that he was in a position to marry her according to the Mosaic Law's institution of Levirate marriage. In other words, you could say that he did in fact initiate this romantic engagement. She responded, and he concluded it}. Unbelievers can desire to be in heaven, and experience awe over what they see in the creation – so you have interest and praise, without the pursuit. Likewise, it is certain that the unbeliever, and unmarried woman, do not, in their attraction, have a desire for the object itself but only their perception of it. They do not have a fully comprehended idea of what they’re getting into when they say they want God, or want a man. If the pursuit is theirs, then unbelievers will try to create God in their image, and young women will try to create a husband in their image. You can’t have a relationship with someone who denies the core essence of your identity. Therefore, God must pursue. And because man is made in the image of God and given the symbolic role of Christ in his relationship with woman, therefore it must be man who pursues the woman.

203 So to the woman who wants to give guys her number, or get theirs, without waiting for them to suggest it; for the woman who tries to corral a man into proposing – if you don’t believe that man should pursue you, how can you believe that Christ pursued us? You have faithlessness to repent of.

204 A lot of the statements I’ve made with respect to veils, jewelry, dating, giving compliments etc throughout the course of this series may seem to be unduly harsh. Not so. This is deadly serious stuff. A person’s approach to relationships can tell you a great deal about their theological understanding, and often merely a cursory evaluation reveals deep and severe problems in it, which only need time to manifest, justifying the concern. Theology affects every aspect of our lives—sanctification does not fail to show evidence everywhere. Consequently, even those who don’t care one iota about Christianity can’t escape the fact that they can be identified on the basis of wrong theology, which shows itself in their life choices and what they may consider innocuous opinions. A woman who chases men is horridly immature, in a spiritual sense at the very least.

It probably would upset a worldly woman that I could spot her and reject her on the basis of how she talks, or the fact that her midriff is exposed, or that she has a tattoo, or a tongue piercing, or that she smokes, or that she drinks, or that she’s obsessed with her phone, indicating addiction or attachment issues, or that she eats far too little in front of others to explain her body weight, indicating a hidden self-control issue, or that she wears tube tops, indicating a lack of self-awareness or care about how she affects others (refer to Thought 145), or that she makes no eye contact at all, indicating lack of confidence and a sense of security in her own identity, or that she stares, indicating rank arrogance and lust, or that she’s obnoxiously loud, indicating once again a lack of self-awareness, confidence, security, or empathy for or interest in others—what’s that but pride, and where is pride in a Christian woman? Getting rejected for what seems like a small thing may be offensive and they may think Christian men shallow, but the fact is that they are the ones who are so shallow that they don’t even know themselves!—or comprehend how bad the “little things” they casually accept about themselves actually are.  They are symptoms of a reality that is bad enough that it renders the intense sort of relationship that comes from Christian commitment utterly impossible, and hence why you don’t see these sort of women sustaining lasting relationships except for emotionally manipulative ones. Should I feel bad for not wanting this? I reject the notion out of hand!

~ Rak Chazak

PS Next AWPATT: Desirable qualities in a woman, from A to Z (and no, it's not "attractive," "beautiful," "cute," "delightful," "fun," "gorgeous," "lovely," "nice," "pretty," etc)

AWPATT XII: September 17-December 17 (Thoughts 109-200)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub Page

Will mention sexual subjects in connection to marriage.

109 Okay, recap: I’ve criticized veils, expensive dresses, wedding cakes, floral arrangements and hiring a band. Now, is it fine to play music? Certainly. I like music. Note, I didn’t say I like noise. Not all sound constitutes music, and then not all music constitutes pleasant music, or music that would be fitting for a wedding celebration. I would definitely stock a playlist of songs that would preach the Gospel and talk about marriage from a Christian theological perspective. Dave Barnes’ God Gave Me You, Andrew Peterson’s Dancing in the Minefields and World Traveler, Sanctus Real’s Lead Me, and other songs like Love is Not a Fight, Children of God, You Belong to Me, Beloved, and many more, and those are just a sampling of songs remarking on marriage. The wedding is first and foremost an opportunity to preach the Gospel to people who may never willingly sit still and pay attention or visit a church of their own accord. What more powerful way to display the truth of God’s love and grace in salvation than via the single most powerful representation of His nature that there is in this world?

110 One way that the wedding will be a witness to unbelieving family members or friends is by the absence of worldly or otherwise religious traditionally included aspects of the celebration. I’ve already mentioned veils. But the music played and the ritual parts, like traditional words spoken by the officiant and spouses, when not included, will tend to jar those who expect a catholic wedding, or a jewish wedding, or a secular wedding. And that will get their attention. Then the alternative will be presented, and everyone left with a choice.

111 Secular folks (here including those who consider themselves members of churches, and who are probably nominal believers) will probably expect a dance. No dancing at a wedding would be a shock to this culture, which has come to take sensuality for granted to such an extreme that people go to weddings trying to hook up with someone of the opposite sex, or to have fun – really? The wedding of someone else is for the purpose of you having fun?? Not allowing people the chance to exercise this narcissism will be a witness enough to some.

112 Many people are so blind these days that they think priests officiate every wedding. The only major American religion that has “priests” is the Roman Catholic Church, which, since before the 1500s, has been an apostate, anti-Christ religion. The term “priest” is a term that means someone who speaks to God directly. Prior to Jesus’ incarnation, the Israelites had a high priest who would sacrifice for the sins of the people once a year, but when Jesus came, He, functioning as our High Priest, sacrificed once and for all for the sins of those who would believe. Now, the book of Hebrews says, we His followers are a royal priesthood—every one of us. There is no priestly class within Christendom, and the idea that someone else has greater access to God than my bride and I is an offensive and anti-Biblical notion!

113 I struggle with the symbolism of the ringbearer. I don’t see where it’s useful, but it also isn’t clear what it’s supposed to represent in its present use, so it’s unlikely that I’ll be in favor of utilizing such a fixture at my wedding. The rings themselves represent continuity and wholeness and union, more on that below. But if this comes from somewhere, then it is fitting that the union of marriage be symbolized as coming down as a gift from God, so it would make more sense for the pastor to give it to the spouses, or for the rings to be sitting prominently at the front of the church for the whole time until they are put on the bride and groom’s fingers.

114 What would the father giving his daughter to her husband to symbolize? If it is ownership of another person a la slavery, then that's not Biblical, and it must be dispensed with. But actually having an understanding of female submission in the Bible, it's clear as day to me: until marriage, a woman is under the spiritual authority of her father. And when she marries, she comes under the spiritual authority of her husband. She submits to the one, and at a certain point, ceases, and begins to submit to the other as her first and foremost "prophet, priest and king" in the earthly realm, with each of them submitting in turn to God, our true Prophet Priest and King. This could be included in a wedding without having anything to do with ownership, but spiritual authority, and it shows that the bride is a godly woman willing to submit to her father before marriage and her husband in marriage, out of obedience to God.

115 Did you know that wedding rings worn on the finger are a custom popularized by Rome? Rings have been used for a long time to represent engagement, and as far back as Jacob’s marriages to Leah and Rachel, you can see that he gave his wife a nose ring. So rings are Biblical symbolism, and having it on the finger isn’t likely something strange, since nothing is implied to be evil about signet rings of kings, for example. So I have no beef with a ring being the symbol to represent that I am married to my wife.

116 But need it be gold? I think that’s fine, because it represents purity, but for me, personally, I prefer Tungsten. For maximum irony, it’s named after the Swedish words for “heavy rock” by its Swedish discoverer. But it’s one of the densest and strongest non-poisonous metals in the periodic table, and any metal can be pure so long as it’s not alloyed with another element, so the purity element still stands there. But what matters more to me is the symbolism of strength. Our union won’t be tainted by adultery, so it’ll be pure in that respect, but both my wife and I are sinners coming together, and so there is an inherent impurity in our souls, one that Christ has forgiven and is continually healing us from, while promising to remove it completely in the end—it is by His strength that we, two sinners, can come together as one and not be separated. So I like the idea of Tungsten because it will represent that it is God who keeps our marriage together, that He’s at the center of it.

117 Because I really don’t care, I’m not even sure which hand the wedding ring is “supposed to” sit, but I think it’s the right. There is equally valid symbolism for the right and left hand, the right being used in the Bible (‘the wise man’sheart is at his right hand’) to represent control, because most people are right handed, although the left hand is closer to the heart, and I know from Boy Scouts that it was used by Lenape Indians in handshakes to symbolize friendship for this reason. For me, I have spontaneous, occasional, yet persistent flare-ups of skin irritation (apparently a form of Eczema), which my right ring finger tends to bear the brunt of, so I might put it on my left hand for this proximate cause, and justify it with the reasons given.

118 On the other hand (hur hur), there’s a surprise benefit to having the wedding ring on the left hand, if it’s usually on the right—people might be more likely to respect your relationship if it has the appearance to them of being “new,” so that they wouldn’t doubt your passion for each other. Discouraging home-wreckers would be a practical benefit of having the ring on the left hand, without being openly deceitful about it.

119 White wedding dresses were popularized in Victorian England, but white is not the only color that can represent purity. Blue represents water, which hearkens both to water baptism and the Noachian Deluge as further symbols of the washing clean that God accomplishes for us through salvation. More to the point would be the color red, which represents the shed blood of Christ, which itself represents His death, that satisfied the price to be paid for our sins, and made us ‘white as snow’ in the sight of God the Father. I could see my wife perhaps wearing a white dress with a red sash and blue …shawl? Whatever something just covering her shoulders would be called. Or any of the colors by itself; explaining which symbolism is intended would be part of the ceremony and I’ll be curious what her personal choice would be.

120 Of course, there wouldn’t be any alcohol served at the wedding. No open bar, nothing of that sort. That would probably be a shock to some people. Mark this, I’m not among the fundamentalist-baptist sort who make it an article of faith that alcohol is evil. Hardly so, but it’s certainly not necessary nor is it always good for everyone. Besides, I have a preexisting concern for having full control over your mental faculties. Anything that interferes with my ability to think would be bad in my view, sin or not, because nothing good can come from handicapping my ability to make the best decisions with all the information available to me. Alcohol present at my wedding would provide some with an excuse to avoid hearing the Gospel by drinking enough to make them black out or otherwise lose awareness of whatever is being told to them. In this way, the presence of alcohol certainly would be a temptation to sin for some, and that’s why I would not include it.

121 I have no intention to ‘date,’ if dating is seen as a casual relationship with someone without the intention of marriage. If you have this sort of relationship, you’ve already decided that you’re not going to be with them forever (here meaning for the duration of your earthly life), and so you’ve already decided that you’re going to break up with them when you begin dating. What would be the point of such a relationship? “Practice?” Make sure you tell that to him or her when you go out the first time, that you “just want to practice what it’s like to have a real relationship, using this one for make-pretend.” I bet they’ll be thrilled. And if they go along with it, there’re two reasons: 1) they don’t believe you. In other words, they are accusing you of lying, so you already have a lack of trust, which is going to result in disaster 2) they do believe you, but are emotionally damaged and would rather be with someone who will hurt them in the long run rather than take rejection up-front. NEITHER of these situations are positive, and so no matter how you slice it, “dating” without any plan for commitment is futile, self-destructive, insensitive, sadistic, immature, emotionally calamitous and a stupid waste of time. So don’t date.

122 A relationship can culminate in 4 basic ways: stagnation, where it neither grows nor dissolves; break-up; death; or marriage. Seeing as none of the former three are appealing, what would be the point of entering a relationship you were expecting to be doomed from the get-go? Only marriage has any sustaining value to it.

123 So my approach to women is, initially, no different from my approach to men. Talk, see if they enjoy talking back. Get to know them. If you connect well, you can become friends because you build up history and trust (one way to define friendship). This can take place long-distance

124 After that point, the question becomes: do I know enough about this person that I can see them as 1) a desirable marriage partner in general and 2) as compatible with me, in particular? If those are true, courtship can be initiated, which is simply the expressed intent to get to know a person better with the motivation of pursuing marriage. Clear goals. And so it isn't outwardly much different to the world than a friendship. But where it leads is so different from where anything the world offers leads to.