What You're Saying
by
Ted Slater
on Oct 21, 2006 at 4:00 AM
This question about the purpose of dating is a timely one. I'm currently reading "How to Get a Date Worth Keeping" by Dr. Henry Cloud, and he clearly advocates the concept of dating for fun, to get to know other people, and to find out what characteristics we want in a mate. (For the sake of honesty, I've only read half of the book.) Cloud rejects the idea of "serial monogamous dating" saying that we'll only sell ourselves out to the other person too soon and won't have enough dating experiences. On several occasions he makes positive references to guys dating five women at once. This is where I start to question his methods of dating purely for fun and enjoyment. As a guy, I can barely work in enough time for myself, let alone try to schedule five women a week, month, or whatever he means by "at once." This sounds like a logistical nightmare. The financial repercussions of this type of activity could quickly spiral out of control. Additionally, I think being seen out with a bunch of different women in a small town (in my case) could harm my, or any other guy's, reputation.
I'm not trying to bash the book, especially since I haven't finished it yet. I do agree that getting out of your rut and meeting new people of the opposite sex is crucial to finding a mate; the chances of God dropping a spouse in your lap is very unlikely. The biggest problem that I have with Cloud's concept on high throughput dating is that he assumes that there are two emotionally healthy people on each date, and that they perfectly understand that each is there simply to have fun that evening and not look beyond that. In my experience, this has not been the case. Typically, on any of my dates, there have/has been zero to one healthy people/person present. The potential to do a lot of damage while dating numerous people simultaneously is immense.
There's a twinge of guilt that I feel any time I even think about starting or maintaining relationships with more than one woman for the purpose of spouse-finding. If I was dating, even "just for fun," several women at once, I'd think I'd tire of cycling them through a revolving door of sorts and having the same conversations over and over. I wonder if after awhile I'd get in such a habit of not committing and always looking for a new date that I'd eventually have a total aversion to commitment. Mass-dating seems similar to the article on Boundless several months ago about the analogy of "test-driving" your girl friend, only in a non-sexual way.
In order to date effectively, I'm finally learning that I can't sell out for a girl after the first date and that I need to maintain my boundaries. I think this is done best by interacting in groups, or even going out on a few dates with the girl. If it works out--great. I'll keep dating her. If not, I won't pursue her anymore. Ultimately, I don't like to be just another guy a girl pulls off a shelf to date, and I don't want to do that to a girl, either.
Mark
Those were some excellent points made by Phil Simpson that Ted quoted. I've felt that sometimes worship at my church was more about us and what were "doing" than God and who He is. This is not always the case, but usually one to two songs each service are of the "procrastination" genre. I tend to believe that those kinds of songs give the appearance of praise, inspiring us to praise Jesus, but then, once the song is over, we can forget to actually enter into that active, life encompassing praise. It's like, when I was a teenager, I would tell my mother that I would empty the dishwasher after the next commercial break. And then I never would — I forgot after that initial moment. I hate to compare praise of the Lord and Savior of humanity with emptying a dishwasher but worship at some churches is just that rote.
When I listen to praise and worship music outside of weekend and mid-week services, I find that I gravitate to the songs which highlight the attributes of God and what He's done in me. Plus, worship songs affect me differently at various times, depending on where I am at with the Lord. My current favorites are the old hymns and just about anything off a Third Day Offerings album.
Sincerely,
Samantha
Sometimes the old songs are the best ones. See if this chestnut from 1774 fits the criteria Ted Slater sets forth:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/n/fncgrace.htm
There's more doctrine in this hymn than in some sermons I've heard!
John
Helpful post, Ted. I think there's a general lack of a "vocabulary" with which to discuss the topic of 'sacred music' in our contemporary context. This is how I usually like to categorize the music [this is me personally; speaking merely as a layperson]: there are praise songs (directed to God), exhortation songs (to each other), story songs (about God, either directed to him or to each other), prayer songs (asking God for something). Am I missing any? Obviously, many songs are various combinations of these general types and many variations in between, with different manners of execution (style, tempo, etc.). I think it is important to incorporate a lot of categories whenever possible, but if I were a worship leader, I would probably emphasize praise and story songs.
One error I have encountered in my own church is an overemphasis on certain lyrics that sound extremely pious (a lot of self-sacrifice or "I'm not worthy"-type language), but the focus tends to be on the worshipper and not God. Usually they seem to happen in the form of a prayer song (God make me; God give me; Lord, I need to be; I really want to;). I think those songs are good and necessary, as long as they are not the only focus of the worship service. I think magnifying God's person via praise and/or story songs is going to be more edifying to a worshipper's walk than focusing on the person's needs.
That being said, the song "Above All" that you mentioned was actually part of an important moment of emotional healing for me after a brief time of deep depression last year. In spite of the use of the ending phrase "thought of me above all", the message that comes across seems to focus on God's work. In my case, the song did not lead me to focus on myself.
Again thanks for the post, and sorry for such a wordy response.
Josh
I liked Steve's question: "Are men who see they are outnumbered going to get motivated and start competing with the men around them for the pool of available women?" But I twitched a bit at it — we women don't want to be seen as a limited number of prey offered up to a few hunters. Heck, we don't want to be seen as prey at all! We want to be evaluated as individul female humans, not merely as one of numerous possible fillers for the "wife slot" in a man's life.
I want a man to want ME as his wife, not mere "make do" with me, because competition is fierce and pickin's seem slim. And I suspect the feeling is mutual!
Name withheld at author's request
I wouldn't see how it would be a problem, especially for men. People aren't a finite resource, there are always more being born, and (more importantly) moving past the census age cutoff into a marriageable age range. So, barring a population imbalance, there will always be people for each other, the odds of marrying someone the same age just goes down.
While this is potentially problematic for women since their odds of ever marrying decreases as they age, women don't seem to have any problem marrying men who are older than they are. So, I would see no reason for mass panic, and I'm personally set, so I'm not panicking either.
Robert
Suzanne Hadley's post, Weary of Being Wired, reminded me of a quote I read recently by one Dennis Fluegel: "If Bill Gates invented the telephone and Alexander Graham Bell invented e-mail, we would all be saying, 'You should get one of these telephones, you can actually talk to someone, hear what they are saying, and you don't have to use a keyboard!'" (World Magazine, October 7, 2006, accessed October 15, 2006). Though he has a valid point about the faddishness of modern technologies, I suspect he unwittingly underscored a major cause of said problem: a general lack of education about such technologies. Though Microsoft is certainly one of the several companies that have been a significant driving force behind the popularization of email and the Web for business purposes, I don't think that implying that Bill Gates invented email is any more accurate than saying that Thomas Edison invented the telephone or that Al Gore invented the Internet.
Of course, I understand that one does not need to have a full knowledge of the history of a technology in order to be able to use it properly. But since history is part of a well-rounded education, I think the fact that the general population doesn't understand where our Internet technologies came from suggests that they have not been well-educated about how such technologies function or should be used either. Perhaps if we as a people had a better handle on the origins, purposes, pros, and cons of the various Internet services we use, then we would be more readily able to make wise decisions about how to use those in a way that is moderated and beneficial, whether it be using email for business transactions or using the Web for socialization.
Joshua
I'd be interested in knowing more about Manuel Arenas who "sensed the Lord calling him to a life of celibate service, a life of ministry that was not conducive to married life." What did this sensing involve? I assume he must be an example of somebody having the gift of celibacy as Al Mohler and FOTF/Boundless promote, as opposed to somebody who chose singleness to serve God better in spite of struggles with lust and loneliness, as seems to be the case with people like John Stott, John Chapman and others. I don't believe the gift of celibacy interpretation is correct, but I would love to know about anybody who decided they had the gift of celibacy, as I know of no examples (except Paul if my interpretation is incorrect). Thanks,
Philip
It should be noted that in the same passage where God says to Samuel (regarding all of Jesse's sons) that He looks at the heart, it is also said of David that he was ruddy & handsome.
So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the LORD said, "Rise and anoint him; he is the one." So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power. Samuel then went to Ramah. (1 Samuel 16:12-13)
Also what about the story of Esther? The whole reason that she was Queen, was that she was Beautiful.
I think something that we would do well to remember is that God created beauty ... it was His idea. Our response to beauty, is in part, our natural response to God, and His nature. I understand the author's point that physical appearance should not be our only basis for decided who to vote for, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Beth
I read a lot of the comment about the NYT article about marriage. I have not read the article, though. Almost all the comments dishearten me and make me realize how much society thinks that children are a nuisance, that women are not "independent" if they don't hate men and build careers, and that men make horrible partners because they are not willing to help around the house.
Unfortunately, they are all disillusioned and wrong: 1. Every single person ever created (besides Adam and Eve) started out as a child, and with good parenting children don't have to be "annoying." 2. My grandmothers stayed at home with their kids, my mom stayed at home with her kids, and I strongly desire to stay home with my future children. Whether I get to stay home or not will unfortunately depend on our financial situation, because my husband in training to be a pastor, and they have some of the lowest salaries. 3. I feel like my husband does more around the house than I do on most days. I know that when we have kids he will be a great father and will certainly help out. Both of our fathers were very involved and did their share of housework.
One comment about the article, from a "Don F.", I can wholey agree with:
"My wife and I have a post WWII 'traditional' marriage and family, where I go to work and she manages the house and takes care of our 2 children. I find it very rewarding to be able to provide my 2 sons with a childhood where they are cared for my their own mother every day. My wife loves 'being able to stay home.' We frequently speak about how blessed we are to be able to live this way. We have known a few families where the dad is the one to stay home, and I find very little of the sexist stigma attached to this arrangement that was seen years ago. Our house is smaller and more modest than those of my professional peers, but we feel that our life is richer, and we feel richer. Our home is full of love and noise and play and snuggles. This is the life I always wanted when I was single."
It's just so sad to hear all of the excuses that people come up with. I'm already praying for the parents of my future children's future spouses. I know that this society has so many negative messages, that I can only hope they raise my future children-in-law in similar ways that my husband and I will raise our kids.
Becky
Interestingly, a few commentators are taking significant issue with the NYT's interpretation of the data at an even more fundamental level than you are. See Michael Medved's blog on Monday, for example, which has some good analysis of the way the media has misused the statistics to show something rather different than what is actually the case according to these figures. We ought to be encouraged, rather than discouraged, at how good a state marriage is actually in — it is certainly not as horrid as it has been made to sound, and as Christians trying to protect and advocate marriage in our culture, that ought to encourage us immensely! God bless, and keep up the good work!
Chris
Many of your articles have had me thinking and nodding my head in agreement.
When I look for models for how I should look for and treat a mate I think of Jesus and the Church and Hosea as models of sacrifice. But time and time again I find females looking to Jacob and Rachel as a model.
So I finally did a web search for "jacob loved rachel as a model" and found the article below. Enjoy!
http://columns.crossmap.com/article/a-tale-of-two-sisters-rachel-and-leah/301.htm
Name withheld at author's request
Hi! I appreciate your site and your advice for folks, both married and single, who are trying to stay pure before the Lord. I am a little bothered, however, by the advice in "Taking Steps" by Suzanne Hadley which talks about "preparing for a home" while you are still single. Practicing hospitality is a Scriptural mandate, and nurturing children is certainly in line with Jesus' command in Matthew 18. So the advice itself is Scripturally and logically sound.
My concern stems more from the spirit of the advice ... that working is only temporary ... so you should prepare for the future when your full-time job will be managing home and children. I found this sentence particularly troubling: "Skills you develop through education or job experience can help you in your future role as a wife and mother, so don't think of it as wasted time". Wasted time? The majority of all mothers have some type of outside employment. Some choose to take off time during their children's younger years. Others remain at home until their children are older (high school, college). But it is likely that nearly all moms will be employed at some point. Therefore, it is only prudent for women to develop the skills they will need in the workforce.
As a working mother, I have been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism and dirty looks because I choose to work outside the home. However, my husband and I believe that my work with students is a ministry that God has given me. Indeed, the woman of Proverbs 31 was a businesswoman, buying and planting vineyards, making and selling cloth. I see no Scriptural mandate for staying home. We need to be careful not to impose our "preferences" on other believers in matters of conscience.
Heather
Comments