Romanticizing Jesus
by Candice Watters on 11/30/2006 at 10:02 AM
As an avid proponent of marrying well, I've always been leery of people who tell singles that "Jesus is all you need." It's not that our Lord can't meet our every need, but that He chose to provide human relationships to fulfill some of our longings. When Adam was lonely, God made Eve. And still today, He "sets the lonely in families."
I was glad to see an article in Christianity Today that exposes the folly of this line of thinking. In "Dating Jesus," columnist Agnieszka Tennant discusses this disturbing belief. She quotes one popular book for singles that reads:
"Although God certainly loves us even with unshaven legs, no makeup, and a bed-head hairdo, he also deserves to occasionally have his princess sit at his feet while she is looking and feeling her best. ... You are running away with your Lover, not confining yourself to a convent."
She laments, "I have little patience for taking biblical metaphors too far and giving one's relationship with God an air of irreverent chumminess. Somehow, the scenario in which 'his princess' shaves her legs for a date with Jesus seems to leave little room for fear of God."
She goes on to write, "And consider how unhelpful this misreading must be to single women who are hormonally awake. The cruel message they get is: If Jesus is really your husband, what's your problem? Be satisfied!"
Before reading Tennant's article, I hadn't realized just how far this metaphor had gone. Beyond Debbie Maken's book, I haven't seen much written that tackles this myth head on. (Ironically, CT's website vigorously criticized Maken's book.) Tennant's voice is a welcome addition to the conversation.
To all the single female readers, what's your take on the subject -- does a romantic Jesus sound appealing or does it make you squirm?
1. jen said the following at 10:53 AM on Nov 30:
I dont think that romanticizing Jesus is something He had in mind for us, ever. We are called to put Him first above all others, but that does not mean that we are forsaking all other desires he has given us as well! I believe that for most women, God's ideal is that we find a godly man with whom to share the rest of our lives with, and together with this man we serve God. God wants us to have a living, passionate, vibrant relationship with Him -- but this does not replace having a living, passionate, vibrant relationship with your husband. You need to be with someone whom you will serve the Lord better with than without. So, yes, I squirm at the thought -- its not biblical.
2. Susan said the following at 10:58 AM on Nov 30:
Sorta makes me squirm ... the thought of "dating" my Lord and Saviour is a little weird. Jesus is God incarnate; I am called to worship Him, not have a romantic relationship with Him. How can He be great enough to be worshipped if I bring Him down to the level of a boyfriend? We are a princess because we are part of a royal priesthood. We are daughters of the King of the Universe; we're not married to Him.
I agree with the author. Though God does meet our every need, He has also put an innate desire into most everyone to have a mate, to be one with another. He created marriage, and it is good. It's taken a long time for me to allow myself to desire it and not feel guilty that having the desire means something must be wrong with my relationship with Him! I can have an intimate and thriving relationship with my Lord and still have the desire for a husband and babies!!
Kudos to Boundless for re-instilling the vision of marriage and family back into my generation!
3. Jessica said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 30:
A romantic Jesus does indeed make me squirm. I think this is why I have always had a problem with the concept of "intimacy" in my faith. I always equated it to the "Jesus is my boyfriend" mentality. In the past few years though, I have come to realize that intimacy with Christ is something entirely different, but that's a different post for a different time. But the romantic Jesus does make me uncomfortable, but not necessarily for the reasons Candice stated in her post. I am probably one of those "Jesus is all you need" people. I know full well that our human relationships are meant to bless us and fill some of those longings, but until we realize that Jesus is all we need, I think our other relationships fail, or we think we have failed because we don't have specific relationships. Jesus deserves our utmost respect. He is not our boyfriend or buddy or chum. He is our Lord and Savior. And that is a greater relationship than anything we can find on earth, even a husband or wife.
4. Dr. Ransom said the following at 11:10 AM on Nov 30:
Well, if you don't mind a single male kicking things off here, I must say that the whole "Jesus is all you need" sentimentality seems to result from what author Randy Alcorn calls "Christoplatonism." He uses that to define a quasi-Gnostic manner of thinking, too prevalent among Christians, that somehow treats matter or "Earthly" things as less "spiritual" than commonly recognized spiritual things.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in "Mere Christianity": "God likes matter; He invented it." Similarly, God likes marriage! He invented it! He has no human-shaped heart that only we can fill, and will fail to fill sufficiently if we seek out and devote time to a marriage. God can be glorified in a marriage focused on Him just as much as He can in a single's life.
Also, does this not betray a bit of anti-family bias on the part of the "spiritual singleness!" crowd? Must we be working with all manner of church and Official functions in order to please God? Or can He not be equally pleased by the actions of a devoted couple, with children, who seek to raise a Godly offspring for His glory?
5. Ame said the following at 11:31 AM on Nov 30:
sometimes, i wonder, that we don't love the phrase, "Jesus is all you need," to excuse us from being there, from meeting another's need.
Jesus is God. God created us to have a very specific and sincere "place" for Him in our lives; He provided the Holy Spirit to live within us to enable us to create and maintain that "place."
and He also created us within families, begining life absolutely dependent upon another.
i think the intimate relationship God desires with us is so beyond our comprehension and yet He wants us to understand it in someway, so He uses the most sacrad human relationships (marriage; parent/child) to help us understand our relationship with Him ~ not for either our relationship with God or our relationship with our spouse to take the place of the other.
God wants to be God in our lives ~ so much so that He says He's jealous if we allow anything or anyone to take that special place. yet, he even gave mary an earthly husband and father for His Son ~ He did not tell mary that "God/Jesus is all she needs." He gave her joseph and elizabeth and family.
i'm reminded of God's words to Job: "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"
do we use God to justify what we want? where we are?
6. Samuel PG said the following at 11:42 AM on Nov 30:
Maybe, as a male, I should not post on this, but I will anyway. Imagery of Jesus as the husband to our souls and references to individual Christians as the brides of Christ have always been especially hard for me to relate to. I have no desire for a husband whatsoever.
Scripture refers to Christ as the bridegroom again and again, but does it refer to individual believers as brides of Christ? No! The Bible clearly refers to the Church universal as the Bride of Christ. This is an image that is much more palatable and it helps to pull us out of our Western individualism. Of course God loves each one of us deeply, intimately and individually but I am not His bride and neither are you. We Christians together, from every nation of the earth and throughout the history of time are Christ's Bride.
7. Beth said the following at 12:10 PM on Nov 30:
I agree that God designed us to function in, thrive on, and need, human relationships. I also see that all human relationships are a mirror of our spiritual relationship with God (e.g. Father/Child, Husband/Wife, Lord/Servant, Military Leader/Troop, Friend/Friend, Sibling/Sibling, etc).
All of our interaction with other people will provide “lenses” thru which we will view that aspect of God, and will to some degree provide the frame work by which we will respond to God. For example, if you have a wonderful earthly father, it is easy to accept God as Heavenly Father, and to respond to Him as such. However if you have not had a good earthly father, it is hard to understand & respond to that aspect of God’s character.
On the other side it is possible to look to God as our perfect example for all our earthly relationships. If you have never had a father, who better to go to, than God, to find out how to be a parent?
It is this same “two-way street” principle that I see at the heart of the “Dating Jesus” movement. However, it seems that some people have gone way to the extreme. In reaction to that over-extreme, let’s not go to completely opposite over-extreme. My pastor has a phrase “truths in tension”… it basically means that you need both sides of a truth, (the Sovereignty of God AND the Free will of Man) in order to stay in the middle.
With that said, a very close friend of mine, who is now married and has a really good marriage, “dated Jesus”. She came from a really screwed up family situation, and had had lots of bad dating relationships by the time she was in college. There was a season in her life when God told her to stop dating guys, and to instead date Him. And she would actually go out, get a soda for herself & one for God. I know that is sounds silly. She even laughs at it now, and talks about how silly she felt at the time. But God used that season to heal lots of wounds & and change her thought patterns about a lot of issues. Shortly after that season she met & started to date her now husband.
I am NOT saying that everyone need to spend time “dating Jesus”, or that those with screwed up pasts need to. I am saying that God using lots of different things, different times, for different people, to bring us to wholeness. God is not a “one size fits all God”. My friend never advised me to go “date Jesus” as the other way to be whole, or get married, or anything like that. Rather she has modeled seeking God, and His love, and His healing, and His light thru all situations. The day to day outworking may change, but heart attitude has always been there.
8. Mary Beth said the following at 12:49 PM on Nov 30:
I don't have a problem with the idea of an "intimate relationship" with Jesus Christ. In the sense that, we should take all our troubles and joys to Jesus Christ and ask Him to give us patience and strength in our trials and remember to thank Him for all our blessings. Maybe that wouldn't even classify as an "intimate relationship."
But the idea of, "Jesus is like your husband" is one that always freaked me out a little bit. God wants us to love Him, oh yes, but He also wants us to be in awe of Him. When we come face to face with Jesus, somehow I doubt that we're going to rush over to Him and gush about our friendship with Him. Somehow I think we're going to be totally awed and wowed by what a great and powerful God we serve. Anyone in the Bible who saw God, didn't gush. Joshua fell flat on his face when the "Angel of the Lord" came to him.
I tend to agree with the person up above that said that the *collective* church is the Bride of Christ, not individuals.
9. Erin said the following at 1:26 PM on Nov 30:
This is very interesting for me to read because several people have told me before not to worry about guys because Jesus is all I need, and my immediate reaction was guilt accompanied by a feeling of "How can any normal girl ever reach that point of acceptance?" I know Jesus is all I need and He can give me joy in spite of my unfulfilled longings, and I know I should be content with what God has chosen to give me and what He has chosen not to give me at this time... but the longings have never gone away, and their presence has always made me feel a little guilty, like I must not be relying on God enough because if I were really spiritual these desires would go away.
10. Chrysti said the following at 1:27 PM on Nov 30:
As a single woman, I think that the idea that single women should "date Jesus" is absurd, and it takes away from the biblical call that we have as men and women to have friendships and relationships with each other. To me, this idea is like trying to replace a desire that we as women have to be married that is perfectly normal and even biblical. Like others before me have said, the Bible calls men to "love their wives as Christ loves the church." Church, meaning a large group of people and not any one single person. Yes, Jesus should be all we need since we have given all of our life to Him. This means that we must glorify Him in all we do, including the relationships that He has so graciously blessed us with. God gave us the ability to have human relationships so that we can, to be cliché, BE Jesus to our friends, significant others, spouses, etc. Through these Godly relationships, we can also SEE Jesus through our relationships. As Christians, we are called to become like Christ in all we do. The relationships God has given us are meant to help us to become more like Christ. In my opinion, if single women are "dating Jesus," then how can we become like Christ?
11. Oxanna said the following at 3:40 PM on Nov 30:
I'm not keen on the whole "Jesus is your lover/date/etc." thing. Jesus is God, Friend, Saviour, and the "husband" of *the church*. Note that the new Jerusalem, not each individual Sue or Janet or James (!) is referred to as His bride. (Rev. 21:2,9)
I have always had a tough time with books and articles that basically state, "You need to be completely satisfied with Jesus as a single before marrying", or other forms of Jesus-dating. Now, spiritual maturity before marrying is a good idea. Being satisfied with God as the only thing you truly *need* in life is hugely important. BUT...just because He is our Friend, we don't shun other friendships. Just because He helps us doesn't mean we don't help others until we fully appreciate His help. Ergo, just because Jesus is in a sense the spiritual husband of the church doesn't mean that we don't marry. Or that we have to be perfect before doing so. Dr. Ransom is spot-on in recognizing this as quasi-Gnosticism.
12. Amber said the following at 6:35 PM on Nov 30:
It's funny that this topic has been posted in the blog especially around the time where I've been questioning the meaning of "intimacy" in regards to my relationship with God and people. I'm glad for the different post and responses, because before reading this, I've been wondering about the whole "Jesus is you Husband" idea. I've basically come to the conclusion that the way in which some Christains (women especially) have depicted this is not quite right and it has confused me in some ways in how I respond to God and look at him especially as a single young woman. I'm definitely going through a point where I'm praying that God will help me to understand "intimacy" better. The responses I've read really do help.
13. Jess said the following at 8:47 PM on Nov 30:
I've been thinking about this recently as well. At times i have been lured into believing that it was *gasp* wrong for me to desire marriage/relationship with a certain person. This kind of thinking you discuss has always lead to guilt, frustration and, in most cases, sinfulness as a result of trying to push away my God-given desires.
A lot of people have put it very well, but may i say this: There is a place in my heart that only God can fill, but there is a place in my body that only a man can fill. I don't mean that crudely, but just to say that God does not fulfill our romantic/sexual needs.
I think the other danger of this way of thinking is that it puts the individual at the center of the universe. It makes MY relationship with Jesus the most important thing, and ignores community as an important aspect of Christian growth.If we focus on the church as being the bride of Christ, there is no danger that one person or "body part" will feel less significant.
14. Seth said the following at 9:11 PM on Nov 30:
I do not see why you cannot have it both ways. Yes, God has given both women and men a need for companionship, but ultimately our greatest satisfaction in life is derived from our relationship with Christ. Without Him our future or present marriages mean nothing.
The passage regarding the separation of the goats and sheep where Jesus says, "depart from me you workers of iniquity for I never knew you," is an interesting point in the debate. The word "knew" is the same word used in the original text as "Adam knew Eve" in Genesis. So if Christ does not spiritually "know" the reprobate, it would seem to imply that he does have a spiritually intimate relationship with His people.
God is God. We should not limit who He is and the relationship he has with us that encompasses so many characteristics. I think it is moving that Christ had such a deep love for us that He would face death to redeem us. It is a divine romance that beckons us to dig deeper and find comfort in God's pure and complete love.
In God's providence He does choose for most people to marry in order to bring glory to Himself. He has given us the abundant life. There is no reason why God would deny us both the love of a husband or wife and His own love.
15. DanL said the following at 11:45 PM on Nov 30:
This post touches on something I’ve been looking to say for a while. I think Boundless needs to aim its message on this subject less at young people, and more at parents, elders, pastors, and other church leaders. All too often these are the people “telling singles ‘Jesus is all you need.’” I felt much the same way about Maken’s books after I read it. She does an excellent job of detailing and discrediting this and other myths about singleness and marriage (and book is very much worth reading for this alone). But then speaks of these as excuses singles use to justify their singleness (I forget the exact way she phrases it), when I my experience these are often lies fed to singles by the church. Likewise when she speaks of both men and women having the ability to frustrate marriage but men deserve the blame because they are called to be leaders, I agree that men are called to be leaders, but in this case I feel the leaders in questions are called fathers and church elders.
I my case, I can remember being told about the evils of dating growing up. Courtship/Biblical dating/etc. where never really taught, only how bad “dating” was. I turns out I never had any form of date until graduate school (although I did ask a couple of women out as an undergraduate, just unsuccessfully). I can still remember how guilty I felt just meeting her for dinner. I’m now convinced there was nothing wrong with what I did. After she decided to end things, I was hugely disappointed. Do you know what I had people from church telling me? “Maybe this is God calling you to singleness.” It really wasn’t until that last few years I’ve really heard anyone in the Christian community say that is okay, even good, to desire a wife and the take steps to pursue one. Unfortunately too many of these voices now go to the other extreme of “shame on you for not being married already.”
16. MacKenzie said the following at 11:04 AM on Dec 1:
I do not like the idea of dating Jesus. No human-human relationship should be put before God, but one shouldn't feel bad for craving relationships in addition to their relationship with Jesus. God made humans to need interactions with other people, including romantic ones. When God created Adam he was able to have a perfect relationship with him, talking with him and walking with him. But God still saw that Adam was missing something. If God was all Adam needed, why did He make Eve?
17. drliz said the following at 12:04 PM on Dec 2:
Most of what may appear to be "anti-family bias" (to quote Dr. Ransom's earlier comment) among church-going singles is, in my experience, a defensive reaction to patronizing treatment from even very well-meaning married folk.
A couple of my favorite comments, from people who love me very much and only wanted to help or comfort me:
"You know, I didn't think I would ever get married. It wasn't something I was really looking for or thought I wanted..." (This from someone who got married at 19, although we met when we were both in our mid-30's)
"I didn't find Bob (the husband) until after I had stopped trying to find someone" This from my sister, who married at 24. It's been well over 10 years since I've "tried" to find someone, so where's that husband who should appear just when I stop looking?! [Kind of reminds me of the silly expression, "My keys were in the last place I looked!", as though one would keep on looking after finding the keys.]
18. Curtis said the following at 4:25 PM on Dec 3:
Unless you interpret the Song of Songs as being merely a Hebrew version of the Kama Sutra, I would venture to say it's pretty clear that God desires an intimate union with us, that, yes, is comparable in certain ways to our earthly sexual relationships.
I think aversion to this is primarily a Protestant thing, because Catholic literature is full of marital language describing a person's feelings towards God, both by men and women. Phrases like "my Divine Spouse", "Beloved Jesus", etc... are common in the works of John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila and Therese de Lisieux and others. But against that, there is the Protestant tune, "Jesus Lover of my Soul", that seems to be in the same vein of allegory.
Mind you, all three of those people were celibates. But the point is that they did not fall into celibacy and they did not "date Jesus" until they gave up on the idea of marriage. They burned with such an intense divine love that earthly marriage was unthinkable.
And lastly, although God reveals Himself as a male and incarnated Himself as a male, He is not actually male. What a pity if men guard themselves against loving Him out of fear of sounding "gay" or "effeminate"! Even in the era of "Brokeback Mountain", men still need to love other men in a proper biblical way and above all, to love God, the highest of commands, or else we risk being told on the last day: "Depart from me - I never knew you."
19. Arsenius said the following at 11:34 PM on Dec 12:
While I understand the author's queasiness over some individuals and groups taking Biblical imagery too far (in her words), she seems astoundingly ignorant of the ancient tradition of consecrated virginity in the Church, necessarily linked to the spousal theology inherent in the Scriptures themselves. One has only to look at the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Ignatius of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen, John Chrystostom, etc. to see that this is no modern phenomenon. And yes, the Church has long understood "Bride of Christ" to refer both to the aggregate whole – the Church – and to certain individuals. Check the historical record...all the way back to the beginning.
I refer you, for example, to the website of the U.S. Association of Consecrated Virgins: http://consecratedvirgins.org
20. Madeline said the following at 4:32 PM on Feb 5:
I have yet to find the principal that "Jesus is my husband" in the Bible. Yes, He is our "All in All" and our "Comfortor" and many other things, but He gives us human relationships on earth to satisfy and fulfil our needs and desires. My main problem with it though, is it's lack of Biblical proof. Find me a verse in the Bible that actually SAYS that, and I might jump on the ban wagon.
21. Samantha said the following at 12:00 AM on Dec 24:
In my opinion, I believe that, even in heaven, there will still be men and women. When God made man he said,"It is not good for man to be alone." This is why God created women. Jesus was put on earth to allow us to go to heaven, not to replace the role that women were meant to fill. I don't know where people get the idea that there will be no gender in heaven, or marriage.