Love and Marriage: Luther Style by Ted Slater on 03/06/2008 at 5:35 PM

Martin Luther and I have at least two things in common: We were both born in Germany and we both married later in life than the average person. Oh, and a third: We both married women more than a decade younger than us.

Today's featured article, written by blogger Justin Taylor, focuses not on Luther's involvement in the Reformation of the Church, but on his influence on reforming marriage.

Luther, apparently, initially put off marriage because he had taken the oath of a monk. Later, as he came to question Church policies, he found himself putting off marriage for the same reason William Wilberforce put off marriage -- he feared he would soon be killed for his stances, and didn't want to leave behind a widow.

Somewhere in his late 30s he changed his mind. Dramatically. Like other celibates in Scripture, he held a high view of marriage, going so far as to outright advocate it. He said, for example, "I urge matrimony on others with so many arguments that I am myself almost moved to marry."

Then it became personal, though a little ... odd. He wrote, "If I can manage it, before I die I will still marry my Katie to spite the devil." Pretty romantic motivations there, Martin.

He did marry Katherine, a nun he had freed from a nearby convent, an event that (I was surprised to hear) transformed the church and culture. On scholar wrote:

Little did the sixteenth-century world realize the tremendous significance — both religious and social — of this simple and reverent ceremony in the backwoods of rural Germany.... Luther's marriage remains to this day the central evangelical symbol of the Reformation's liberation and transformation of the Christian daily life.

The rest of the article goes on to provide four lessons we can learn from their relationship. I especially liked the one where Katie play-mocked her husband by putting on a black dress.

So how about you? If you're an older single man, how have you seen your motivations to marry change? What do you think of the 40-year-old Martin marrying the 25-year-old Katherine? What have you learned from Martin's wonderful example? Would you consider Martin Luther to be (and I hesitate to write this) mandating marriage for the vast number of men and women?

Love and Marriage: Luther Style by Ted Slater on 03/06/2008 at 5:35 PM

Martin Luther and I have at least two things in common: We were both born in Germany and we both married later in life than the average person. Oh, and a third: We both married women more than a decade younger than us.

Today's featured article, written by blogger Justin Taylor, focuses not on Luther's involvement in the Reformation of the Church, but on his influence on reforming marriage.

Luther, apparently, initially put off marriage because he had taken the oath of a monk. Later, as he came to question Church policies, he found himself putting off marriage for the same reason William Wilberforce put off marriage -- he feared he would soon be killed for his stances, and didn't want to leave behind a widow.

Somewhere in his late 30s he changed his mind. Dramatically. Like other celibates in Scripture, he held a high view of marriage, going so far as to outright advocate it. He said, for example, "I urge matrimony on others with so many arguments that I am myself almost moved to marry."

Then it became personal, though a little ... odd. He wrote, "If I can manage it, before I die I will still marry my Katie to spite the devil." Pretty romantic motivations there, Martin.

He did marry Katherine, a nun he had freed from a nearby convent, an event that (I was surprised to hear) transformed the church and culture. On scholar wrote:

Little did the sixteenth-century world realize the tremendous significance — both religious and social — of this simple and reverent ceremony in the backwoods of rural Germany.... Luther's marriage remains to this day the central evangelical symbol of the Reformation's liberation and transformation of the Christian daily life.

The rest of the article goes on to provide four lessons we can learn from their relationship. I especially liked the one where Katie play-mocked her husband by putting on a black dress.

So how about you? If you're an older single man, how have you seen your motivations to marry change? What do you think of the 40-year-old Martin marrying the 25-year-old Katherine? What have you learned from Martin's wonderful example? Would you consider Martin Luther to be (and I hesitate to write this) mandating marriage for the vast number of men and women?

Comments

[1. Carrie (the original) said the following at 5:46 PM on Mar 6:]

1

I'm glad there's a blog post about this article because I wanted a chance to differ with the author. :) (It's in a good way though, I promise)
I think the line "I'll marry my Kate to spite the devil" is one of the more romantic lines I've heard. But then, I'm one of the feistiest people I know.

[2. Rachael said the following at 6:00 PM on Mar 6:]

2

The black dress part was funny. So he felt marriage was necessary...

Are there people who marry who don't really love their intendeds but marry just to marry...? I'm curious...

It's good that Luther cherished his wife when he married her, even though he didn't feel "passionate love" for her at the time...

A one-day engagement...interesting!

The things you learn about people from centuries past...

[3. Rachael said the following at 6:03 PM on Mar 6:]

3

Oh, oops P.S. -- about age differences. While it seems quite common for older men to be significantly older than the women, the reverse situation is quite, well, the reverse...interesting.

[4. Dan said the following at 6:04 PM on Mar 6:]

4

I want to thank Ted and Boundless for writing about an issue that has been so impactful to me and other Christian singles over the age of 30!!

I am 40 and not married. When you get this "old" many people give up on you. You are thought of as being beyond some "reasonable marriable age" (which I have yet to see defined). There is very little to no direction from the Christian media (books, magazines, websites/blogs) that are of use to single Christians 40 and older who want to find a mate. I have read Boundlessline from time to time, and most of the articles seem geared towards getting the younger people towards marriage, and frankly very little to direct "older" singles towards marriage. So I have to resort to some kind of "translation" to see how it applies to me.

Worse yet, if you are 40+ and male, then there is a whole boatload of unwarranted suspicion about your single state. You are considered somewhat "creepy" for going to blogs like Boundlessline, or "creepy" if you take an interest in younger women. Funny, Martin Luther at the age of 40 married 25 year old Katherine.

There there is the whole "wife of your youth crowd," who seem to want to ridicule or call into question anyone "older" who finds a spouse. I think the Bible talks about "he who finds a wife finds a good thing." An older woman at my church recently passed on after becoming engaged for the first time in her life. I believe she was over 70yrs old. When the pastor relayed her story, there was some sadness in the crowd, but also some happiness of her finally finding a spouse, even though she passed on before marrying.

The last thing we "older" singles who hope to marry need is a bunch of negative messages from our brothers and sisters in the Lord. We want your encouragement, not your suspicious looks, condescending counsel, and unsolicited advice.

I myself have been on several dates over the last 2 months; dates with a gal that I pursued from the start - and thanks to Boundlessline for giving me the OK to pursue a wife and for lighting a fire underneath us guys to be PROACTIVE!!!

[5. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:15 PM on Mar 6:]

5

As an older single, I've never eschewed marriage. On the other hand, most of my church experiences have landed me in situations where there were very few (in many cases no) single women. Plus there were relationships that just plain did not work out. It happens...

As for proverbial cradle robbery, I'm all for it.

As long as we're talking equal yokes, and the families involved are cool with it--I think we must strive to respect our parents--then I'm also cool with it.

[6. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:27 PM on Mar 6:]

6

And to answer the last question, I don't get the impression that he was mandating marriage. Encouraging those who aspire to marriage and mandating it--browbeating singles until they get married--are two different things.

[7. Kelly said the following at 6:40 PM on Mar 6:]

7

Firstly, I found the article delightful! I was blessed to follow the 'footsteps of Luther' through Germany 2 years ago so reading names and places brings back some happy memories.

Now... onto the age difference topic. I once contemplated marriage with a man 12 years older than me. We were very well matched in a lot of ways. HOWEVER, because of the age difference, I felt that he often tried to 'father' me.

He was an older man, whom I respected, and therefore I could never see him as an equal. Is it like that for mixed-age marriages? Whenever I did something he didn't like (usually caused by my youthfulness: I didn't have the life experience he did), I felt like a silly child, constantly trying to be mature as him but never quite getting there.

Also, the difference in energy levels between us (28 and 40) was HUGE. I could race around non-stop all week and he just wanted quiet nights at his apartment.

[8. John D. said the following at 7:07 PM on Mar 6:]

8

Everything Dan said (post 4).

I, too, found this article very encouraging to a 43-year-old never-married man.

I also appreciate Mrs. Luther's illustration of clinging to Christ like a burr to a dress (or, in my case, a pants leg).

[9. Leah said the following at 7:26 PM on Mar 6:]

9

Kelly, are you saying you could not see this man as an equal because you respected him? I'd be concerned if you felt you could not respect your husband. Far from it- it is a man's innate desire to be respected (read "For Women Only" by Shaunti Feldhahn!). Much like women desire to be loved, men often desire respect more than love. It is crucial that we respect the man we marry.

However, your other anecdotes about your relationship suggest to me that you made a good move in not marrying him. If there is such a difference in maturity, I feel that it would cause more problems than good things. While I believe it is ok (even good) for a wife to feel rebuked by her husband for doing something silly, I don't think she should feel inferior or lower than him, especially if it is a recurring occurence.

[10. Ted Slater said the following at 7:51 PM on Mar 6:]

10

Kelly, you wrote: "He was an older man, whom I respected, and therefore I could never see him as an equal. Is it like that for mixed-age marriages?"

It is a tendency, to be frank. Even though I tend to be pretty youthful, I am 12 years old than my wife and have experienced 12 years of life that she hasn't. Twelve more years of mistakes to learn from.

I have trained myself, though, to respect Ashleigh, to value her opinions and experiences, to "wonder" at the things she "wonders" about, and so on. I'm still working on it. We also try to make the most of things that neither of us have experienced -- vacationing to new places, eating new foods, and so on.

The burden to make such a relationship flourish is on the older party, in my opinion.

[11. Sandrine said the following at 7:52 PM on Mar 6:]

11

This is a bit off subject, but about comment #3: it is indeed less common for men to marry older women, but it does happen. My mother is 4 years older than my father, and I am engaged to a man 5 year younger than me (I'm 34, he's 29). I don't think it was ever an issue for my parents; they married when my father was barely 21 and just holding his first real job, and my mother was still studying, so none of them had had time to save much or get used to a lot of money before starting a family (somehow they managed to have 6 children on one no-so big-income). However, it was a bit different for my future husband and myself. When he found out my age, it was a problem for him, because he always thought that more than 2-3 years difference between husband and wife was too much. Also, the fact that I had been working for a few years already, had been able to buy a house and was earning much more than him was something he had trouble with at first. On my side, I had no issue with the age difference, but I had to decide if I would be willing to quit my job (that I really enjoy) in order to raise a family on his income only, as we both knew that the family model we wanted was a stay-at-home mom. However, it did not stop him from proposing, and me from accepting his proposals, and now we don't even think of the age difference anymore. It was never an issue for our families either (in fact, his mother even encouraged him not to be stopped by that).

[12. Melody said the following at 8:48 PM on Mar 6:]

12

My only reservation is when older men ONLY look at much younger women. It can get rather creepy, and can devalue the worth of the older eligible women. What is wrong with a wife around your own age, guys? I'm not saying it's wrong to love and marry a younger woman, I just don't think that should be the goal from the start.

[13. Kelly said the following at 8:57 PM on Mar 6:]

13

Leah said: "Kelly, are you saying you could not see this man as an equal because you respected him?"

I didn't phrase it very well. What I meant was that if someone is older, I equate that with 'more experience' and therefore they have my inherent respect, rather than earned respect. (The whole 'respect your elders' thing!)

Of course I would respect my husband but I would also hope that he could respect me in an equal way.

Also, thank you to Ted for commenting on this. Given my past experience I would find it extremely hard to be married to someone who had 'been there, done that' for so many life experiences (as my ex-boyfriend had!) that I had no knowledge about. I admire you for being able to be gracious about it and recognise it as having potential to create imbalance in a relationship.

[14. Rachael said the following at 10:26 PM on Mar 6:]

14

Comments 7,9, re: silliness...

In my case (I'm 27), I've definitely lost a lot of the 'air-headed goofiness' I once had in my 'youth'. But sometimes random humor (well, I consider it to be humor though it's possible some might not see or understand it) spills out when I'm comfortable and with people who I know would understand it or smile. I often don't leak it out, especially in uncomfortable settings. My hope is that my husband would understand or put up with/appreciate it and not roll his eyes at it. Although I (alarmingly yet honestly) think I would have the ability to 'take' being put down in a relationship, I'd much prefer not to be, and certainly hope that won't happen.

I don't think silliness or ungraceful flubs should necessarily be equated with one's maturity level. To some extent I think it is. And people's sense of humor can/will likely change over time. But I think I've heard of the issue of silliness being, well, an issue in a relationship (the girl is now happily married to someone else, though)....anyway if the couple is not married and if the guy is constantly putting the girl down for silliness or seeming 'immaturity', I wonder if that might be a red flag...however, I'm absolutely no expert on this, as I'm sure is quite clear...it just would scare me if that was happening to me...and it kind-of scares me to think it might not scare me (on the surface, though deep down I'd be disappointed) if it actually happened...

[15. J. said the following at 10:54 PM on Mar 6:]

15

Melody (#12), I completely agree with you.

I'll say right now that the examples I'm about to mention certainly do not apply to all older man - younger woman marriages -- I'm not out to judge -- but we can't get around the fact that they are very common. Some older men pursue younger women because doing so makes them feel more virile and youthful. Others realize upon pushing 40 that marrying a woman their own age or older may very well result in a childless marriage (biologically, anyway). And sometimes there are subconscious psychological issues: e.g., the younger woman is looking for a father figure and/or the older man is controlling and figures that a younger woman can more easily be manipulated.

On the scientific front, some studies are pointing to increased parental age as a cause for concern: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070830-000004.html. Perhaps we really should be marrying and having children younger after all (yes, I realize this is easier said than done in some cases).

[16. Louise said the following at 6:48 AM on Mar 7:]

16

I enjoyed the article on Luther.

As I mentioned on last Oct.'s Reformation Day thread, when I was in high school I won a small college scholarship writing an essay on Luther, and have always felt that Luther was one of the more interesting, if somewhat strange, German historical figures (I am of fairly recent German ancestry, but I consider myself to be wholly American.)

Re the age difference of 15/16 years between the Luthers, I was married at 24 and divorced at 38, so I can definitely attest to the fact that the older you get the less difference there is in age discrepancies.

I am now in my early 40s and my current boyfriend is in his mid 50s. I do not even think of him as "older", but then I have so many friends in their 50s and 60s whom I view as peers.

I have a secular worldview, so I do not date in order to find a marriage partner. Since I have been divorced I have dated men over twenty years older than me, and have considered all of them to be "peers".

Re the nuns in the stories leaving the convent in order to find husbands...during this time in history there would have been no other options other than marriage for these women if their families refused to accept them.

But...that is something the women would have had to consider before making the decision to flee the convent.

And I would express caution about the sentiment that the Luthers "learned to love each other."

If this occured in their case, that is good, but what would one in today's day and age if the love didn't grow after marriage?

[17. obewan said the following at 6:58 AM on Mar 7:]

17

Gee, if he married a 25 year old at 40, that gives me new hope! (Assuming I would want to "rob the cradle.")

Actually, I heard that in some of his writings he referred to his wife as "his ball and chain". That does not sound encouraging, but I suppose he might have been joking.

[18. John D. said the following at 7:17 AM on Mar 7:]

18

Melody (post 12) asks:

"What is wrong with a wife around your own age, guys?"

Abslutely nothing. There's nothing in the world wrong with older women, either, although marrying someone the same age or older (in my case, anyway), would mean forgetting about having children one day.

[19. AEB said the following at 7:24 AM on Mar 7:]

19

For you older singles, there is hope! My dad married for the first time at 38 and I was born when he was 40. Now granted, it was the second marriage for my mother, but the circumstances of her divorce were entirely not her fault (beyond the mistake of marrying the guy in the first place), and she had been living celibate for 12 years since her divorce. They just celebrated their 25th anniversary last summer.

[20. obewan said the following at 7:30 AM on Mar 7:]

20

Melody at #12 asks:

“What is wrong with a wife around your own age, guys?”

I don’t see anything wrong with a wife around my own age except for the fact that LITERALLY 97% of the women in my church singles group over age 35 are divorced.

If I want to marry a never married woman, I am limited to someone who is age 30-35, or at least 10 years younger than me.

I suppose divorce and remarriage might be Biblical in the case of adultery, but it seems more and more Christians these days are divorcing for reasons unrelated to unfaithfulness. I can name several women in our group who divorced simply because they “fell out of love” or had “irreconcilable differences”. Granted, some of them became Christians AFTER their divorce (which may change the Biblical remarriage thing); it still causes me to see a red flag. I prefer to avoid the controversy associated with trying to sort out all the excess “baggage”.

I will admit that when I meet a beautiful divorced woman my own age that I am tempted to compromise my standards and throw in the towel. In fact, I just got a call from a very beautiful woman (twice divorced) who is 10 years younger than me. I had not heard from her for 12 years. It is both encouraging and frustrating since she is still single and said she could not believe some woman has not “snagged” me yet. I suppose if a never married beauty 10 years younger threw herself at me like that, I would jump at the chance to marry her!

[21. Elizabeth R. said the following at 7:46 AM on Mar 7:]

21

@ #2
Yes, my husband and I married because we felt strongly that the Lord was leading us to. We were best friends and were very attracted to each other, our life circumstances lined up, so we got married. I was in love with him, but he was not in love with me and I knew that at the time. I'm not going to romanticize our decision. It shocks many people that our marriage started out based on cold practicality. Our first year of marriage was very hard for both of us. He had to learn to shoulder his responsibilities and learn to love me; I had to constantly take my disappointment to the Lord because I wasn't being treated the way I'd hoped.
But God is good and he graciously brought our hearts together. We really could not be happier or more in love now that we're several years into our adventure. I have no doubt that He meant my husband and me to be married. But I do suspect that we bungled the timing ourselves by getting married too quickly. Perhaps a little more time and thought could have averted some of the problems of our first year.

[22. Jeni said the following at 9:11 AM on Mar 7:]

22

It's exciting to me that Luther changed his mind about being a monk and being celibate.

As for the age difference thing - I have friends who have great marriages and she is 8-9 years older than he. I've also got friends where he is signifacantly older than she. Maybe it's not so much about the age difference as it is about the personalities, interests, visions, and life dreams that each person has for their life.

On a more personal note, as a single woman over 35 and creeping toward 40, I think frequetnly about the fact that the child-bearing years are slipping away from me. Which then in turn can limit the men who could be interested in me. I have been known wonder if men who want to get married and have children consider my age and immediately "write me off" because it may be that I'm getting too old to have kids.

Just some of my thoughts.

[23. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:31 AM on Mar 7:]

23

I have never considered marrying a man more than 10 years older than me.

Reason being, I would find it incredibly creepy to have my husband physically attracted to me when I look nearly exactly like my mother and she would be closer in age to him than I would be...

My mother and I are so much alike in so many ways, that I'm not sure I'd be ok dating and marrying a man that is closer to my mother's age than mine...

Any thoughts on this? Is it something that has been dealt with before and overcome?

[24. Elisabeth said the following at 9:39 AM on Mar 7:]

24

I found it extremely interesting that Luther married someone that much younger then himself! Ever since I started dating my current husband (25 years older) I've found that guys marrying younger gals is more common then I had ever thought!

My husband is in extremely good shape and amazingly we both have the same energy level and like staying at home more then going out. He has a child like spirit so in that respect there is no problem with differences in life experience. Now there were some concerns at the beginning about the age difference, but once my parents got to know him and everyone realized that we were both being totally upfront with each other all the obstacles disappeared and the Lord has really blessed our marriage.

I've always admired Luther since my mom read a book to me about him entitled "Kitty My Rib." The more I learn about Luther the more I realize that he led a fascinating life!

[25. Chris Krycho said the following at 10:01 AM on Mar 7:]

25

Rachael, just some encouragement for you. Though our circumstances are far different (agewise, etc.) I feel compelled to comment on your "silliness," etc. The woman I'm dating right now and I are both incredibly "crazy" people according to most of our friends. We do silly things - usually unintentionally - all too often, have clumsy moments, make jokes that no one thinks are funny, etc., and we're both hopeless nerds. The cool bit is, though pretty much no one else I know consistently laughs at my jokes - she does. The reverse is true as well. I delight in her silliness: I love it, find it attractive. The guy for you will be one who doesn't tolerate those things about you but rather appreciates them as a God-given part of who you are! And it will be good for both of you.

Louise, in response to your last question, I think it misses the whole point. One can choose to learn to love each other, or not. It's not whether emotions grow after the fact, but whether one sacrificially loves the other. (Emotions of some sort do follow that - maybe not "passionate romance," but certainly deep affection. We naturally respond thus [except in the case of sin interrupting] to love being lavished on us.)

[26. Dan (post #4 - not hiding behind numerous aliases) said the following at 10:42 AM on Mar 7:]

26

Re: Melody and others about older men/younger women couples.

I do agree with you that some men should be open to seeking spouses closer to their age.

In my case, it just so happened that my past GF's have been 7-10 years younger than me, and there was nothing "creepy" about any of it. I did not intentionally set out to date these women because they were younger than me or for some less than honorable reasons, it just happened that way. Regarding the one gal who was 10 years younger than me, I was encouraged by a friend who said specifically that she was good for me because she was yonger and had more potential to bear children. That was NOT the impetus for deciding to date her. It was because we had FUN together and got along great - Yes, you can still have fun past the age of 30!!!

I also believe that men should be more open to women closer to their age, and that they should also be open to adoption.

Also a few years ago I was set up with a gal who was 1-2 years older than me, and I perceive that SHE was the one who was at issue with the age difference, not me.

I also have some friends who have children who do have some medical conditions that MAY or may NOT be related to the parents marrying "older." Despite the hardships, I know that they love their children so much that they wouldn't have it any other way.

[27. Susie said the following at 11:03 AM on Mar 7:]

27

The original Luther article was so encouraging, it brightened the day of this 34-year-old single gal. Now I've read the blog and discovered there are never-married Christian men in the world. Things are looking up!

[28. Adam said the following at 11:08 AM on Mar 7:]

28

Ted,

No, Luther didn't mandate marriage for anyone. What Luther is reacting against is the priesthood, and forced celebacy because of a vow. The article says:

In the 1520s, Luther was about 40 years old and still single himself. For an unmarried man, he sure wrote a lot about marriage, arguing that it was not only helpful and honorable, but necessary (except for the very small minority of people gifted and called to singleness). He wrote, "As it is not within my power not to be a man, so it is not my prerogative to be without a woman. Again, as it is not in your power not to be a woman, so it is not your prerogative to be without a man."

Here is what Luther said with regards to the exemption. Notice, he says nothing about people who are "called" to singleness:

In the third place, from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19 [:12], "There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end.

Luther is therefore willing to say that there are, indeed, three people who are exempted from this commandment. Now, how does Luther understand this third category? Luther goes on later to say:

The third category consists of those spiritually rich and exalted persons, bridled by the grace of God, who are equipped for marriage by nature and physical capacity and nevertheless voluntarily remain celibate. These put it this way, "I could marry if I wish, I am capable of it But it does not attract me. I would rather work on the kingdom of heaven, i.e., the gospel, and beget spiritual children." Such persons are rare, not one in a thousand, for they are a special miracle of God. No one should venture on such a life unless he be especially called by God, like Jeremiah [16:2], or unless he finds God's grace to be so powerful within him that the divine injunction, "Be fruitful and multiply," has no place in him.

Luther clearly states that people in the third category voluntarily remain celebate. It is not something where they have no control over whether they remain celebate or not. Luther clearly states that a person who wishes to only begat spiritual children is not sinning. Yet, the "Marriage Mandate" position is that a person cannot do that. They say that, if he has a sex drive at all, it is to drive him towards marriage. Now, why does Luther use such strong language of commanding and necessity in the quotation given by the article? After the quotation of the article, and his explaination of the exemptions given above, Luther then says:

Don't let yourself be fooled on this score, even if you should make ten oaths, vows, covenants, and adamantine or ironclad pledges. For as you cannot solemnly promise that you will not be a man or a woman (and if you should make such a promise it would be foolishness and of no avail since you cannot make yourself something other than what you are), so you cannot promise that you will not produce seed or multiply, unless you belong to one of the three categories mentioned above. And should you make such a promise, it too would be foolishness and of no avail, for to produce seed and to multiply is a matter of God's ordinance [geschöpffe], not your power.

From this you can now see the extent of the validity of all cloister vows. No vow of any youth or maiden is valid before God, except that of a person in one of the three categories which God alone has himself excepted. Therefore, priests, monks, and nuns are duty-bound to forsake their vows whenever they find that God's ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is powerful and strong within them. They have no power by any authority, law, command, or vow to hinder this which God has created within them. If they do hinder it, however, you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication. For they are simply incapable of resisting the word and ordinance of God within them. Matters will take their course as God has ordained.

Notice, that Luther is objecting to the use of vows to remain single. The reason why he uses such strong language is because the Bible never gives "because a I made a vow" as a proper reason for refraining from marriage. He does allow a voluntary refraining from marriage as an acceptable reason for remaining single [however, I would say he would probably want to agree with Calvin about "the gift of continence]. Luther is allowing people to willfully refrain from marriage if they so desire, but is arguing that they cannot make any determination for tomorrow by a rash vow of celebacy. The moment that a person desires to get married, then he is obligated to pursue it.

Also, this one quotation from Martin Luther should remove all doubt as to whether or not Luther was "mandating marriage:"

Here I will let the matter rest and leave to others the task of searching out further benefits and advantages of the estate of marriage. My purpose was only to enumerate those which a Christian can have for conducting his married life in a Christian way, so that, as Solomon says, he may find his wife in the sight of God and obtain favour from the Lord [Prov. 18:22]. In saying this I do not wish to disparage virginity, or entice anyone away from virginity into marriage. Let each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God. I simply wanted to check those scandalmongers who place marriage so far beneath virginity that they dare to say: Even if the children should become holy (I Cor. 7:14], celibacy would still be better. One should not regard any estate as better in the sight of God than the estate of marriage. In a worldly sense celibacy is probably better, since it has fewer cares and anxieties. This is true, however, not for its own sake but in order that the celibate may better be able to preach and care for God's word, as St Paul says in I Corinthians 7 [:32-34]. It is God's word and the preaching which make celibacy, such as that of Christ and of Paul, better than the estate of marriage. In itself, however, the celibate life is far inferior.

Luther, in this very same sermon, says specifically that he does not want to "entice anyone away from virginity into marriage." Yet, that is exactly what mandating marriage does.

In fact, what I find interesting is that, when Luther preached this sermon, he was not married. Hence, if he was mandating marriage, he was accusing himself of sin. I think the author tries to get around this by saying that Luther feared for his life. However, notice in that same sermon, he does not allow that as a reason for someone to remain celebate.

The author of the article tries to get around this by saying that he was being just like the "bachelor to the rapture" men. However, the reality is that Luther was fighting the Catholic priesthood, and thus, the reason why Luther's marriage was so significant, and quite a shock is because Luther not only taught that priests and nuns could get married, he also went out and did it. Apparently, there were some people who discredited him because he believed that preists and nuns could get married, but he himself wasn't doing it. In other words, the reason it satisfied his opponents had nothing to do with a "bachelor to the rapture" mentality, but rather, with the idea that Luther was afraid to do something that he said was right, but which Rome said was taboo. Therefore, they reasoned, did he really consider this to be right? However, when he actually did it, it caused quite a stir.

What I find interesting is that Luther is a forerunner to my own view, the Presbyterian and Reformed view, the "gift of continence." Here is what he wrote in an earlier sermon [1519] with regards to this topic:

If Adam had not fallen, the love of bride and groom would been the loveliest thing. Now this love is not pure either, for admittedly a married partner desires to have the other, yet each seeks to satisfy his desire with the other, and it is this desire which corrupts this kind of love. Therefore, the married state is now no longer pure and free from sin. The temptation of the flesh has become so strong and consuming that marriage may be likened to a hospital for incurables which prevents inmat from falling into graver sin. Before Adam fell it was a simple matter to remain virgin and chaste, but now it is hardly possible, and without special grace from God, quite impossible. For this very reason neither Christ nor the apostles sought to make chastity a matter of obligation. It is true that Christ counseled chastity, and he left it up to each one to test himself, so that if he could not be continent he was free to marry, but if by the grace of God he could be continent, then chastity is better [Lul, 414].

In other words, Luther agrees with Calvin at this point about the basic fact that Christ has told us to be pure. It is the job of each individual to test themselves to see if they need the help of marriage to remain pure. If they do not need that help, then they are free to do either [although celebacy is better]. However, if you need the help of marriage, it is there for you, and you should take it.

Now, of course, this does not mean that a person who is struggling with sexual temptation should just run out and get married. He must test himself to see whether he does not have self control, or has self control, and is just refusing to exercise it.

Hence, I think we should view marriage like we view cold medicine. Cold medicine is there to help us. It takes away the symptoms of our cold, so that we are able to bear it while our body fights the actual cold virus which is the root of the problem. However, it is unable to actually take away the sin. Likewise, marriage takes away the symptoms of sin so that we can easier fight the true disease which is sin. We fight against that with the word of God, and ultimately, the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, while marriage takes away the symptoms of sin, it cannot sanctify. For that, we need to rely upon the finished work of Christ upon the cross.

Now, as far as women and men marrying people who are younger than them, I don't think the Bible forbids it. However, we also must remember that there were things that were acceptable in Luther's culture that were not acceptable today. For instance, a well known Lutheran who lived only about a century later by the name of Johann Sebastian Bach married his cousin. Of course, people shreek in horror when they hear that, but, indeed, that was something that was acceptable at that time. So, I think the discussion should be about whether or not most people should follow cultural norms if they are not found in the Bible.

God Bless,
Adam

[29. Carrie (the original) said the following at 12:33 PM on Mar 7:]

29

Marriage as cold medicine??? Are you joking???
Adam, you seriously believe that marriage cannot sanctify you?? You think, that living the with same woman day in and day out and both of you seeking to obey God, would have no part in the process of sanctification??
I'm sorry, but last time I checked relationships meant sacrifice and dying to self. If you think don't think that is sanctification, then I think you need to look the word up again.

[30. Adam said the following at 1:22 PM on Mar 7:]

30

Carrie,

Let me ask you, if that is the case, then why is it that there are so many unbelieving spouses? Why is it that there are spouses that become apostate, and go off committing adultery with other women? If marriage is something that gives us sanctifying grace, then every married person should be sanctified. However, there are many married people who apostasize, and never come back to the faith. How can that happen if marriage sanctifies?

Remember what I am saying. I am not saying that marriage does not help in the process of sanctification. However, it is not the cure for sin, and it only takes away the symptoms. Yes, being with the same woman every day is something that will, indeed, help in the process of your sanctification. However, it, in and of itself, has no power to sanctify. Only Christ and his shed blood can do that.

The problem is, Carrie, that just because people are in relationships does not mean that they actually *do* have sacrifice and dying to self. There are plenty of selfish married women and men out there. There are plenty of selfish people in relationships who cause a lot of hurt. However, according to your view, that should never happen.

God Bless,
Adam

[31. Eliza said the following at 2:17 PM on Mar 7:]

31

Adam,

I don't think that's what Carrie meant. Obviously just being married doesn't do anything for your holiness if you don't let it. In fact, a person is probably a lot more likely to sin than before! So many more opportunities :).

I think what Carrie meant is that there are indeed so many opportunities where you could sin against another person, and choose not to. This is the process of sanctification.

And I disagree with the analogy about cold medicine. In no way does marriage "take away" the "symptoms" of sin. It more likely exacerbates them. People see so many selfish married people because all of your selfish tendencies are a lot more obvious when you are sharing everything with someone else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only thing that I do get nervous about with large age differences is the whole authoritarian thing. It is more culturally acceptable for a man to be older and treat his wife as a lesser being than it is for a woman to be older and have a younger spouse. In the latter situation there is usually an assumption that there is some kind of manipulation or weirdness going on. And yet, even if you are a "complementarian" rather than an "egalitarian", there is no doubt that a younger wife should be treated with the utmost respect. It is never appropriate to "chastise" or rebuke a wife if the husband is not humble enough to accept equal chastisement...in the same tone of voice. From what I understand about Martin Luther's wife, she was quite able to hold her own in that family!

[32. Dan (my original moniker post#4) said the following at 2:42 PM on Mar 7:]

32

Re Susie (#27) and AEB (#19) and hopefully others:

It is nice to read your encouraging testimonies and to see how it brings you hope. So often on this blog it seems any article encouraging singles to pursue marriage eventually gets bogged down into an argument or debate. Good debates are not always bad, but its the same stuff over and over and over and over...

I say lets hear from others how this Luther/Katherine article gives hope to you.

[33. J. said the following at 2:50 PM on Mar 7:]

33

"On the scientific front, some studies are pointing to increased parental age as a cause for concern: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070830-000004.html. Perhaps we really should be marrying and having children younger after all (yes, I realize this is easier said than done in some cases)."

I meant to use the word paternal in the paragraph above, not parental.

[34. Adam said the following at 3:34 PM on Mar 7:]

34

Eliza,

I think what Carrie meant is that there are indeed so many opportunities where you could sin against another person, and choose not to.

In no way does marriage "take away" the "symptoms" of sin. It more likely exacerbates them.

Ok, I have absolutely no idea how you are going to bring these two together. If marriage exascerbates the symptoms of sin, how can there be more oppertunities to sin, and yet not? It sounds to me that, if it exascerbates the symptoms of sin, then there would not be more opportunities to sin against the other person, and choose not to.

Obviously just being married doesn't do anything for your holiness if you don't let it.

If God gives us sanctifying grace in marriage, and it does not sanctify us, then God has failed. So, then, we have a foundational disagreement. I believe man contributes nothing to his salvation. He does not "let" it. Left to himself, he would never "let" it. Grace is irresistible. Otherwise, man must contribute to his salvation.

In other words, to believe that marriage sanctifies is inherently synergistic. That is the point to which I was driving. That needs to be pointed out to those who are reformed, and yet believe that marriage sanctifies you.

God Bless,
Adam

[35. BDB said the following at 5:56 PM on Mar 7:]

35

Let's see...my boss' daughter married a guy 10 years older. At first, my boss was really unhappy about this - he came into my office wanting to know where young people meet so he could distract his daughter. But in the end, the reality was that his daughter had some health problems and wanted to have kids immediately after college; a guy 10 years older could afford that immediately because he had been putting his financial house in order the whole time.

I really think that many people have unrealistic expectations about how financial things work in this economy. There's so much conflicting advice: if you want to support a family the way many people "expect," with an SUV, house, etc, you need to make $100,000/year and live like you make $50,000/year so that you can save, tithe, etc. appropriately. They way I see it, if you make enough money to support a family, you don't have time to see them. A lot of marriages founder when people finally start to face operational reality and start to realize that they need to adjust their expectations. Sometimes people renew their commitment. Sometimes they decide that they "deserve" something better than reality. I'm certain that the high divorce rate within the church causes people to want to slow down and resist pressure to get married. If there is any pressure.

When you add $120,000 in student loans, then do the math - it's pretty much impossible to support a family for about 10 years, even with modest expectations. When you encounter a woman upset about being single, ask if she'd be willing to marry someone with a $1200/month student loan payment who works 12 hours a day. Their reaction is usually about as positve as asking if they'd marry someone with a chronic but manageable disease.

(Incidentally, I used this argument once with someone. He had two law school offers, one with free tuition. He wanted to get student loans and go to the more prestigious school. His parents asked me to talk to him. What I told him was that if he had $60,000 in student loans it would significantly reduce his flexibility in getting married, and probably force him to take an unpleasant job working 60-70 hours/week. He kind of choked on that, but went to the law school with free tuition. I haven't told his parents what I said to convince him.)

Aside from financial expectations, I really feel for Motte losing his parents at such a young age. I'm sure that people's experience within their own family is what creates (or doesn't create) a sense of urgency.

Not only are all four of my parents (two by acquisition) quite healthy, but my grandparents are 92 and still driving and arguing politics. Perhaps this is why I have three older cousins who are unmarried (and own their own homes). It creates a much different expectation about life.

[36. Lora said the following at 7:29 PM on Mar 7:]

36

My gramma was 3 years older than my grampa, but she didn't tell him how old she was until after they were engaged, lol.

[37. Amanda L said the following at 10:27 PM on Mar 7:]

37

My dad is eight years older than my mom, but as far as I have seen, they have always been on a level playing field.
They both have different areas of maturity that level eachother out.
My dad doesnt patronize my mom because she's younger, and she doesnt treat him like her dad because he's older.
Oh, and my mom's father was 12 years older than her mom.
They had some issues, but more related to some bad habits than their difference in ages.

[38. BDB said the following at 12:39 AM on Mar 8:]

38

Thinking about Kelly (#7)'s comments, there are something that help bridge the experience difference.

In the example gave, my boss' wife is a cancer survivor. When his daughter met her future husband, he was working through his mom's battle with terminal cancer. So, they both had their expectations shaped by that. It tends to put a lot of other things into perspective.

In contrast, I know another couple that had a pretty fast courtship - they got married within about one year of meeting, not unlike Ted's article about how that's possible.

Unfortunately, it's not working. She's already pregnant; he can't handle it and started drinking a lot more, so they're separated and talking divorce.

Ironically, this girl's dad is one of those "Wild at Heart" guys who is really big on men being Men and taking initiative. Well, his daughter married someone like that, then hit a wall...

[39. Rachael said the following at 12:46 AM on Mar 8:]

39

Chris,

Thanks for your kind encouragement! It's really neat that you and your special person are enjoying each others' 'silliness'... :)

Thanks again!

[40. Childless single woman said the following at 8:17 AM on Mar 8:]

40

Luther is certainly mandating marriage, except for those that either are eunuchs or have renounced marriage and made themselves eunuchs in order to serve God in a manner which would not accommodate a wife and family.
This is entirely consistent with what we know of as the "marriage mandate" position. As Luther points out, the voluntary exemptions affect "not one in a thousand", and as I doubt very much that the "not one in a thousand" would be bothering much with the Boundless blog anyway, for our purposes here, I would say it was actually quite irrelevant.
Marriage is mandated in the Bible, as Luther clearly points out.
Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so.
I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.

[41. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:00 AM on Mar 8:]

41

Eliza got my drift: marriage is a means of sanctification.

Since I'm reformed, Adam, I'll point out the flaw in your logic: we have nothing to do with sanctification/salvation.
One of the touchstones of the reformed faith is "We were saved, are being saved, and will continue to be saved". So, Adam, you never asked Jesus into your heart? If you never asked Jesus into your heart, how can you be saved?
If you did, then you were not a passive agent in salvation.
Yes, God's grace is irresistible, to those who are willed to see such a thing.
What about worship? Are you a passive agent in worship? The hymns . . . who is singing them? Are you? If you sing hymns, again, you are not a passive agent in salvation or sanctification. You get to choose.
So it is with marriage. Marriage can be good. God says marriage is good. If the Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth and Giver of Life who can "snuff you out before lunch"(to quote my landlord) says something is good, by golly, I'm going to believe Him.
So, marriage is good. Therefore it is a means ordained by God to sanctify His people. People can choose to destroy marriage as our current society has demonstrated. However, if people choose to do good by an institution that is held together by God, then they are participating in the means of sanctification that God has willed for them.

[42. Becky said the following at 4:36 PM on Mar 8:]

42

I have a hard time with the "marriage as cold medicine" analogy. Cold medicine is something unpleasant,something *I* tend to avoid until so utterly miserable I can't function. I down it quickly, immediately rinsing my mouth, trying to forget the experience and move on as quickly as possible.

I would think (being single, I have *NO* room to talk) that marriage would be a partnership- two individuals with shared hopes and dreams uniting to make them come true. If I marry, I hope that my marriage and home will be a place of refreshment and rest. That my husband and I will care for each other when we are weak, and remind each other of God's sovereignty and beauty, that we will be more effective at expanding God's kingdom together than we would be separately. Will there be more opportunities to sin? Yes. But there will also be more accountability, a person with skin on to whom we are responsible. There is more potential to sin, but also the strength of two individuals united to resist.

[43. Eliza said the following at 9:04 PM on Mar 8:]

43

Adam,

"Exacerbate" means "to intensify, inflame, or worsen". So, I was just saying that marriage intensifies the opportunities for sin. It does this because the "iron sharpening iron" effect, which is common among Christian community, is accentuated.

I probably shouldn't have responded to your original comment because I don't really want to argue with you anymore. We obviously have fundamentally different ideas of how the world works and continuing to verbally disagree is not going to be helpful.

[44. Ame said the following at 1:30 AM on Mar 9:]

44

Christina #23 ... my mother is exactly 20 years older than I, my father three years older than she ... for that reason I have found it "creepy" to think about being married to a man whose age would be closer to my parents' than mine.

[45. kaj said the following at 12:40 PM on Mar 9:]

45

I personally agree with Christina (in green) {Comment #23} and Ame (Comment #44) in regards to age preferences.

I am 31.05833 years old at the time of this post, and I would prefer a man who is slightly older, but not old enough to be my father!

As the female who is supposed to let the man "take the lead" and do her share of "submission," I would feel awkward having someone younger than me tell me what to do!

I am looking for someone who can be a true partner and to whom we can together combine our experiences and God-given talents in marriage.

I have not deliberately "put off" marriage. I hoped someone would find me at the Christian college I attended, where there were a fairly high concentration of Christians, let alone those in my denomination of choice.

That did not happen. I was interested in all kinds of guys who I felt had good character, common interests, etc., but it seems I was more interested in them than they were in me. I was involved in many campus activities and minstries, so I wasn't just hiding in a hole studying somewhere. In fact, I think I may have even sacrificed my academic performance for some social opportunities.

When I left college and moved back to my hometown, there were even fewer guys that could be considered. Most of them had married and/or left the hometown, or even left the church altogether.

(I did, on two separate occasions serve in international volunteer missions, and one of the rules of the organization I went with discouraged dating colleagues or the people I served, as it could be distracting and/or detracting from my missionary service).

Through pressure of some well-meaning friends, I even tried online dating. I was discouraged to be "hit on" by many men considerably older than me, practically turned down by guys my age, and one my age turned out to be emotionally needy (on top of that, he was still living with his parents!).

To further frustrate me, I kept getting "hit on" by divorced men, especially considerably older men (like 40-50).

(to the divorced people out there, this is not aimed at you. I hope God continues to heal and bless you).

While there are some who were truly abandoned by unfaithful wives, the online sites I tried did not disclose their reasons why they are divorced. I believe Scripture backs me up on wanting someone who has not been through divorce.

On top of that, my parents are divorced, and my experience of being a pre-stepchild (my mom and stepfather dated for four years before getting married) has considerably biased me against marrying someone who is divorced and/or already has children. I don't want to put any kids through that.

So, I feel a discouraged in that I feel like I have "saved myself" for marriage, and all I get to do is pick through the "leftovers." I see some dear friends of mine have happy marriages to people their own age, and I say to myself, "why can't I have that, too." I feel pressured to just "settle" and be "open-minded." I have tried to make wise choices in relationships, and this is the thanks I get?

[46. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:00 PM on Mar 9:]

46

Ame,

Now to find out if it would be worth it to overcome that inhibition towards guys 10+ years older than ourselves :)

[47. Adam said the following at 3:18 PM on Mar 9:]

47

Carrie,

Since I'm reformed, Adam, I'll point out the flaw in your logic: we have nothing to do with sanctification/salvation.
One of the touchstones of the reformed faith is "We were saved, are being saved, and will continue to be saved". So, Adam, you never asked Jesus into your heart? If you never asked Jesus into your heart, how can you be saved?
If you did, then you were not a passive agent in salvation.
Yes, God's grace is irresistible, to those who are willed to see such a thing.

Then, no, you are not reformed. That reminds me of Norman Geisler saying that God's grace is irresistable on the willing. That is not what irresistable grace means. It means that, when God chooses to save us, including the events that happen in our sanctification, that grace cannot be resisted by those to whom grace has been given.

What about worship? Are you a passive agent in worship? The hymns . . . who is singing them? Are you? If you sing hymns, again, you are not a passive agent in salvation or sanctification. You get to choose.

The only reason I worship God is because he has given me grace, and changed my heart so that I love him, and thus, desire to worship him. Otherwise, I would never worship him, because of the fact that I am totally unable to do so. It is only God's grace that frees me from this inability, and effectually enables me to worship God.

So, marriage is good. Therefore it is a means ordained by God to sanctify His people. People can choose to destroy marriage as our current society has demonstrated. However, if people choose to do good by an institution that is held together by God, then they are participating in the means of sanctification that God has willed for them.

Well, then, you have just left the reformed communion all together, because now you are saying that marriage is a means of grace, and the only group that says that are the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

As I said, this is not reformed at all. This is not irresistable grace, and it is not how it has been defined historically. Irresistable grace means that, to whoever God freely decides to give his grace, that grace cannot be resisted by the sinner. In fact, R.C. Sproul one time said that it is much better termed "effectual grace," that is, grace always produces its desired effect.

Not only that, but now, how do you avoid the charge of synergism? If you believe that grace is only irresistable on people who are willing, then does that not mean that our salvation is partially dependent upon God's will, and partially dependent upon your will?

God Bless,
Adam

[48. Adam said the following at 3:50 PM on Mar 9:]

48

CSW,

Luther is certainly mandating marriage, except for those that either are eunuchs or have renounced marriage and made themselves eunuchs in order to serve God in a manner which would not accommodate a wife and family.

Where does Luther say, "accomidate a wife and family?" In fact, Luther specifically uses the phrase "willfully refrain" when he is talking about those who have made themselves unichs for the kingdom of God.

This is entirely consistent with what we know of as the "marriage mandate" position. As Luther points out, the voluntary exemptions affect "not one in a thousand", and as I doubt very much that the "not one in a thousand" would be bothering much with the Boundless blog anyway, for our purposes here, I would say it was actually quite irrelevant.

Actually, Luther never said that they would always be "not one in a thousand," but that they *are* "not one in a thousand." He is talking about his time, at the time of the reformation, when he was dealing with the issue of the priesthood. Nowhere does Luther even attempt to bring that out of this text.

Marriage is mandated in the Bible, as Luther clearly points out.
Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so.
I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.

As far as Luther "mandating marriage" he was only mandating it for those who currently desire it. That was the point of my original post. That has nothing to do with a person who wants to wait until his late thirties to marry, and can do so in a God honoring fashion. Again, it is amazing to see the anachronism being read into Luther in order to service a particular solution to a social problem.

No one needs to have a "good reason" for delaying marriage, because the Bible doesn't teach that it is a sin. There is not a single text in the entire Bible that says in vocabulary or concept that delay of marriage is a sin. That is a modern invention from people who are looking at the Bible through the lens of the culture, rather than looking at the culture through the lens of the Bible. We need to be careful that we look at sociological problems from a Biblical perspective, and not read our bitterness and proposed solutions back into the text of the Bible.

Finally, CSW, you never addressed the fact that Luther later on in the exact same sermon says that he does not wish to entice anyone away from virginity into marriage. How can you say that if you believe that this is what this sermon is about?

God Bless,
Adam

[49. Adam said the following at 3:56 PM on Mar 9:]

49

I have a hard time with the "marriage as cold medicine" analogy. Cold medicine is something unpleasant,something *I* tend to avoid until so utterly miserable I can't function. I down it quickly, immediately rinsing my mouth, trying to forget the experience and move on as quickly as possible.

Lol

To clarify, I think that what I was trying to point out is the idea of marriage in relationship to sanctification. Marriage can remove the external sins, but it cannot remove the inner evil desires of the heart. That is the point. For that, you need the grace of God through the shed blood of Christ on the cross. That bonding that Becky is talking about can remove the external manifestations of that sin because there is more accountability, but it cannot remove the internal evil within the heart. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can do that.

God Bless,
Adam

[50. Paul H said the following at 4:12 PM on Mar 9:]

50

Adam said:

Luther is allowing people to willfully refrain from marriage if they so desire, but is arguing that they cannot make any determination for tomorrow by a rash vow of celebacy. The moment that a person desires to get married, then he is obligated to pursue it.

...

It is the job of each individual to test themselves to see if they need the help of marriage to remain pure. If they do not need that help, then they are free to do either [although celebacy is better]. However, if you need the help of marriage, it is there for you, and you should take it.

Adam, in stating that a man is free to "pursue" and "take" a wife, you should have included the proviso, "if God lets him get married." Because, of course, God has ordained for some men to desire, pursue, and even need marriage, but then He withholds it from them, according to His sovereign will. Right?

;)

[51. Kelly said the following at 6:51 PM on Mar 9:]

51

kaj - I have such a similar story! I feel like I'm being presented with the 'leftovers' when I've tried to make Biblical choices the whole way through.

Perhaps God wants us to learn humility and sacrifice by marrying a divorced man. Perhaps we are prideful and arrogant for hoping for someone without baggage, after all, we are also sinners (just in different ways).

Of course this makes me think, "It's just not fair!" but that's the reality of a fallen world.

---

I was a little horrified to read in some of the above comments that older men will deliberately exclude women in their age group because they want children. Women don't have that CHOICE, the choice was biologically taken from them. And it seems like they're being penalized for something they had no control over.

Imagine a law that enforced people marrying someone within 3 years age of themselves. If men had that same biological-clock-desperation that women do when they approach 40, I wonder if we'd see a lot more marriages?

[52. obewan said the following at 7:38 AM on Mar 10:]

52

CSW at #40 Writes:
“Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so. I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.”

Not a Godly lifestyle? Isn’t that a bit harsh? What about Boaz in the Bible? To be fair, you would need to apply the same logic to women who have gone several decades without marrying, which I would refuse to do.

In many of your posts, you SAY there is a shortage of MEN. Fine. My experience has shown me there is a shortage of NON-DIVORCED single women.

As I said in other posts, in my past I was involved in support of the military. The church (near a large base) that I attended, had a ratio (at the worst times) of 12:1 men to women in the under age 30 singles group. Beyond, age 30 the ratio flipped in favor of the men, but virtually all of the women were divorced.

I was stuck in that situation until age 35, and had only one real “girlfriend” (that was very contentious). I can count the number of “dates” over a 12-year span on one hand. True, there was MAYBE one unattractive spinster that I MIGHT have hooked up with, but at the time what was I supposed to do? Fake my feelings and lead her on because she was the only option?

Now, if I “choose to delay” marriage it is because 97% of the single women in our church group are divorced. Would you say that marriage to a divorced woman is a Godlier lifestyle than life as a celibate single? If you can not accept the fact that I face a real shortage of options, then that forces me to feel the same way about women who claim there is a shortage of men in the church.

[53. John D. said the following at 8:51 AM on Mar 10:]

53

Childless single woman (post 40) wrote:

" ... Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife."

Frankly, that's not very helpful for those of us who find ourselves in that situation. Suppose that in my forties I really am making an effort to find a wife. Now you're telling women to avoid me like the plague because, for one reason or another, I have not yet married.

Do you want me to continue to be single?

[54. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:52 AM on Mar 10:]

54

Obewan:

I hear ya, and my experiences are very similar to yours. Personally, I think it's a larger demographic issue than anything else, and I try to avoid assigning blame to one sex over the other.

After all, both sexes have their issues.

I have a few single women from other locales who chime in on my blog space from time to time. One says there are plenty of single men in her church, but she's not interested in any of them, yet complains that she is 28 and not married. Go figure!

Another is in another metro area, far to the north of me, in her late 20s, and says she wants a full-time career even when she has kids. She took exception with a Heather Koerner post on these pages, and--yes, Ted, you read this correctly--I actually stuck up for Boundless on that one.

In my church experiences, most of the unmarried women in my age bracket are either (a) old enough to be my mom, (b) divorced, or (c) both (a) and (b).

I don't want to say that my particular experience is reflective of the general any more than Debbie Maken's experiences are reflective of the general, but I do suggest that the 60%/40% mantra--often touted by the mandaters--falls short of any reasonable standard of intellectual honesty.

When you break them down by age group--in terms of never marrieds--you get a different picture. Even then, it may vary from congregation to congregation. (This would account for Maken's experiences and yours and mine.)

I've heard women who complain that the single men aren't going to church. While I don't doubt their stories for a second, I've also seen my fair share of women in the Church spurn single Christian men for non-believers.

Both sexes have their issues. Ergo, I avoid the blame game. And I am always ready to provide an earful when people wish to get prejudicial with me.

[55. Paul H said the following at 9:05 AM on Mar 10:]

55

Adam said: The only reason I worship God is because he has given me grace, and changed my heart so that I love him, and thus, desire to worship him. Otherwise, I would never worship him, because of the fact that I am totally unable to do so. It is only God's grace that frees me from this inability, and effectually enables me to worship God.

That must be terribly gratifying and enriching to God: to receive your love and worship only because he makes you love and worship Him. Oh, I forgot, He cannot be enriched... because He cannot feel passion... because he cannot change in any way.

Thank you Calvin, Augustine and Aristotle!

[56. Ro said the following at 9:46 AM on Mar 10:]

56

The post and article remind me of a debate that’s been raging in my head for a while:)
I’m not sure if desiring marriage is actually a good thing. Or at least, so we are often told, particularly by the married women in the church.

For one, I know I wish I could go back to my college days when I didn’t really have a strong desire to want marriage. Mainly, because in the past two years that I have been desiring marriage, I wish that I didn’t desire marriage. Mainly because sometimes, well, it just gets painful wanting it. I’d far rather I didn’t want it..

If you’re doing all you can to make marriage happen, and you’ve praying about it for years – surely you can conclude that at that time – God just doesn’t want you married? For whatever reason? That seeking marriage (which is a Godly thing to do), and being denied it, you have to realize that God just wants you single. For the next year or two, or however many he may choose. The evidence strongly seems to suggest that God does want people single sometimes, often (as is my case) for large parts of your twenties. It is with sadness that I realized that the blessings of rejoicing in the wife/bridegroom of your youth are clearly not meant for all of us.

So, to me, there seem to be more categories:
1. Those who choose to be single because they are gifted with celibacy, and can work better for the kingdom as singles
2. Those who marry, as they are not gifted for celibacy
3. Those who do not have a choice. They simply don’t have the choice. They may seek marriage, but find themselves single for years/decades. But clearly, because God is sovereign – he wants them single – and not to be married in those years, despite their lack of gifting towards celibacy. (And as pointed out by Luther, being tripped up by sexual sin, even though they don’t want to be…)

For me personally, I wish that I didn’t value marriage highly, because then it wouldn’t matter to me that I was still single. I just prefer (and was much happier) in those days before I started seeking the Godly goal of marriage. I was happier not knowing that it was something I should be seeking, rather than being aware that its something I should be seeking and being continually frustrated in my efforts at pursuing it. I long with nostalgia for my pre-wanting/seeking marriage days.

On another note, I’m not sure that wanting marriage is a good thing, because I am often told that those who want marriage appear needy, and those who are most likely to get married are the girls who are completely content in their singleness. So if I could only keep trying hard enough to want marriage less – it seems I might have a better chance of marriage. Which leads me to believe, that wanting marriage, if only to avoid the pain caused by unfulfilled deeply held desires, is something I would rather not want…

[57. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:46 AM on Mar 10:]

57

CSW says:

Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so.
I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.

Well, CSW...

(1) Do you extend the same sentiments toward those Christian women in the Church who spurn single Christians for nonbelievers? I can point to no small number of those cases, and it is overwhelmingly the women at fault on that one.

(2) Do you honestly think it is just a matter of a man "deciding" to find a wife? Our society isn't nearly as Patriarchal as Luther's was. While I wish it were, you probably don't.

(3) Do you extend the same judgments against women who spurn marriage in favor of career and decide--only when they are in their 30s--that they want to make room for a husband? I know no small number of them.

(4) Do you extend the same judgments against women who--in spite of having no small number of single men in their churches--refuse to date any of them, complaining that they are not interested?

(5) Do you extend the same judgments against women who wait late in life to marry, then when they find a Christian man, decide they are not "romantically attracted."

I say none of this to pick on the women, but I would suggest that anyone who aims solely at one gender is ranting one-sidedly.

Recently, I had someone ask me why I'm not married yet. I was in a congregation of about 200 people. I kindly asked her if she knew any single women in the church.

She said didn't know of any.

I then told her that this is the story of my church experience, and that even the new methods--such as eHarmony and Match.com and others--are not all they're cracked up to be.

I once said--half-jokingly--that what we need to do is get all the women with no men in their church into the same church where we have a bunch of men with no women. Ultimately, I'd suggest that the problem is more regional.

In some areas, it's the men spurning the women; in others, it's the women spurning the men. That dynamic is an economic reality that prevails when one group outnumbers the other.

Churches ought to be on the lookout for that, as such abuses are real and they do promote cynicism among the Body.

[58. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:35 AM on Mar 10:]

58

Adam, being "willed" and being "willing" are two different things.
When I said "willed", I meant that to imply that the Lord willed you into submission to His grace. Once the Lord willed it, you became willing.
I think, Adam, you are falling into the pitfalls of Reformed thinking. You are looking this as an either/or issue. "Either God has everything to do with it or Man has everything to do with it". I'm saying it's a both/and.
Since you are reformed, then I'm sure you familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Let me point WCF IX. 4.
"4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil."
We can't not respond and be participating in our salvation and sanctification. The great reformers (Martin Luther, Calvin, etc.) would agree.
And, I'll still stick by my "marriage is a means of grace". Just because the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people say it, doesn't make it wrong. They believe Christ was crucified too, should we not believe them on that issue??

[59. Jennifer said the following at 2:11 PM on Mar 10:]

59

About age differences in marriage, here are the facts, from the 1999 U.S. Census figures:

Slightly over 60% of all couples marry within 3 years of each other. About 13.8% of men marry women 4-5 years younger than themselves, and 12.3% are 6-9 years older than their wives. Only 7.2% of men marry someone younger by 10 years or more (Like Motte and Ted). Only 6.4% of women are 4 or more years older than their husbands.

What does this mean? Expecting to marry someone significantly younger is not a realistic ambition for either sex.

Stories about 70 year old first time brides are NOT inspiring-- they merely highlight the fact that more and more Christian women are living most of their lives without marriage, mostly due to the shortage of single men in the church. A shortage that exists regardless of the protestations of those guys who claim that their churchis the exception.

Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives, as these census figures reveal that these situations are exceptions to the rule. What's more, men who think that waiting years to marry will improve their chances of scoring a "better" (younger, more attractive) wife are oblivious to the fact that a lot of those older guys have made significant compromises for their younger brides (ie. younger but not necessarily attractive, previously married with children, a different culture or socio-economic group).

The biblical example of marrying "the wife of your youth" exists for a reason.

[60. BDB said the following at 2:26 PM on Mar 10:]

60

CSW (#40) wrote:

>>and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife.<<

Ok, so what would you say are acceptable reasons for men to delay marraige? Graduate school? Military deployment overseas?

Sin can certainly impact marriage - but you don't really think that women are sinless, do you?

Men who take initiative aggressively are more likely to get married earlier; and advance in their career, and get divorced as the put their career first. But they're good at taking initiative, so they don't hesitate to hit on women 20 years younger.

Women make different choices that reduce their marriage prospects. In a 1981 book, "Mark of a Man," Elisabeth Elliot warns men to not marry any woman who considers her career to be more important to, or as important as, marriage and family. She acknowledges that this a dogmatic position to take, and spends a chapter explaining what steps a husband must take to support an intelligent woman who takes this route.

At first I was shocked to read that. But upon discussion with several women I know with graduate degrees, I learned that they had deliberately chosen fields that were compatible with motherhood: education, nursing, allied health, even accounting/bookkeeping. My sister works part time - as an audiologist - it requires a doctorate (Au.D.) but has the same flexible hours as a part time job in an office or retail. Pays quite a bit better, too. But she deliberately chose something compatible with motherhood. I didn't find this out until 10 years later.

In contrast, some women deliberately choose careers that are too demanding to be compatible with marriage/motherhood. A lot of MBA students are in this category. They follow the work hard/play hard mantra; and by play hard I mean lots of alcohol on cruises, ski vacations, etc. My pastor would say, "Attempting to fill the void." This is probably why so few women seek MBA programs; the jobs that MBA are hired for typically require 50-80 hours/week. I had a few frank discussions with my MBA professors about this, and they were saddened by how many of their former students were divorced because they put their career first.

Yes, the reasons why people are single are important. But from what I've seen, both men and women can choose to serve money instead of serving God. Everyone must choose.

[61. Ted Slater said the following at 4:12 PM on Mar 10:]

61

Jennifer wrote, "Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives."

I don't think Motte's wife is significantly younger than he is.

I don't think I've ever "boasted" that my wife is 12 years younger than I am. She just is. And I didn't "acquire" her; we married each other.

I'm fine with my having married Ashleigh. And I think I provide encouragement for men who've found themselves a bit older and still want to marry. And perhaps my story may serve as a warning to some women who are *intentionally* putting off marriage for some particular reason; they may be passed by by a man her age, who may be looking for someone with more vigor and youthfulness.

But I don't think I've ever "boasted," and I'm not "boasting" now. It is what it is, as they say....

[62. Jennifer said the following at 4:14 PM on Mar 10:]

62

Adam quotes Luther:

"If Adam had not fallen, the love of bride and groom would been the loveliest thing. Now this love is not pure either, for admittedly a married partner desires to have the other, yet each seeks to satisfy his desire with the other, and it is this desire which corrupts this kind of love. Therefore, the married state is now no longer pure and free from sin. The temptation of the flesh has become so strong and consuming that marriage may be likened to a hospital for incurables which prevents inmat from falling into graver sin. Before Adam fell it was a simple matter to remain virgin and chaste, but now it is hardly possible, and without special grace from God, quite impossible. For this very reason neither Christ nor the apostles sought to make chastity a matter of obligation. It is true that Christ counseled chastity, and he left it up to each one to test himself, so that if he could not be continent he was free to marry, but if by the grace of God he could be continent, then chastity is better [Lul, 414]."

And then says:

"In other words, Luther agrees with Calvin at this point about the basic fact that Christ has told us to be pure. It is the job of each individual to test themselves to see if they need the help of marriage to remain pure. If they do not need that help, then they are free to do either [although celebacy is better]. However, if you need the help of marriage, it is there for you, and you should take it."

First of all, as far as Luther agreeing with Calvin, I think that Luther predates Calvin, does he not?

Secondly, we must be reminded that although these are our venerable reformers, their writings are not infallible and beyond reproach. I doubt that many contemporary theologians would regard ordinary fleshly desire in marriage to be "impure". Again, we must look to scripture, which says in 1 Cor 7:36 that if a virgin marries "he sinneth not".

And nowhere does Christ or anyone else in scripture suggest that we "test ourselves" to see if we need "the help of marriage to remain pure". That sounds downright DANGEROUS, and a bit "fleecy", imho.

Christ offers the option of for an individual to choose to remain single for the sake of kingdom work, but He does not suggest that celibacy is better than marriage. As Luther did correctly say, "One should not regard any estate as better in the sight of God than the estate of marriage. In a worldly sense celibacy is probably better, since it has fewer cares and anxieties. This is true, however, not for its own sake but in order that the celibate may better be able to preach and care for God's word, as St Paul says in I Corinthians 7 [:32-34]. It is God's word and the preaching which make celibacy, such as that of Christ and of Paul, better than the estate of marriage. In itself, however, the celibate life is far inferior." And in Paul's case, he is discussing its advantages "for the sake of the present distress (v. 26, 28).

Whether or not marriage is a means to sanctifying the individual isn't really relevant. The Bible is as concerned with moral state of its early communities as we are today. And so it's messages about marriage are directed to the masses, and for good reason. It's common sense that societies that see a drop in marriage rates among their youth (ie. during wartime, eg. WWII), see increases in premarital sex and its related social and spiritual ills (Romans 1:26).

So although the scriptures do not say specifically to the individual that you need a good reason to delay marriage, it raises larger questions about whether we are being good stewards of our bodies to delay marriage, without much "begatting" of "spiritual children". Fair questions, I would think. So Adam, I don't know where you get the idea that Boundless or anyone else you call "marriage mandate" is opposed to those (with sex drives or not) being single for the sake of doing kingdom work.

And if challenging individuals to ask themselves about their reasons for delaying marriage (and the consequences for doing so) makes one "marriage mandate", then sign me up. Despite some differences in views, I'll gladly join the good company of Luther, who said: "Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end."

He couldn't have made it any clearer than that.

[63. Jennifer said the following at 4:53 PM on Mar 10:]

63

Paul H said:

"Adam, in stating that a man is free to "pursue" and "take" a wife, you should have included the proviso, "if God lets him get married." Because, of course, God has ordained for some men to desire, pursue, and even need marriage, but then He withholds it from them, according to His sovereign will. Right?"

It is true that despite someone's best efforts, they might not get married. But the Bible does not includes these kinds of provisos, particularly when it talks about marriage, which is almost always discussed in terms of human effort and volition (ie. Proverbs 18:22, 1 Cor 7:9, 36, 39, 1 Cor 9:5). Why? Perhaps because the Lord could forsee the immobilization and fatalism created by late 20th century "let-God-write-your-love-story" kinds of teachings.

[64. BDB said the following at 5:24 PM on Mar 10:]

64

Incidentally, this is not a new phenomenon. Elisabeth Elliot wrote a newsletter article about men delaying marriage and women frustrated when they were passed over for younger women. She wrote the article in 1990.

http://www.elisabethelliot.org/newsletters2/jan.feb.1990.pdf

At first I thought this was before Nintendo was invented, so EE couldn't blame video games. But it turns out that Nintendo was founded in 1889. Before men played video games, they were out playing cards I guess...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo

[65. Rachael said the following at 5:28 PM on Mar 10:]

65

Re: "leftovers"

For people who feel they are a "leftover" or only have to choose from "leftovers":

Remember that God works in amazing ways and that His power doesn't rest upon human power.

Moses didn't feel confident about his speech. Midwives saved infants. Matthew was a tax collector. Rahab was a prostitute. Peter denied Christ. Paul persecuted Christians. David committed adultery and had Bathsheba's husband put in a situation where he'd die. The Levites didn't have land. Here are some smatterings from last year's Sunday School notes: "God's pattern of salvation always involves suffering. Joseph was in the pit. Christ was in the dark because [He was] removed from the Father", "God chooses the weak", "God chose the lesser, the weak, the 2nd born. The Abel. The Isaac. Jacob chooses Rachel's son as [the] 1st born."

...As the Lord said to Paul in 2 Cor. 12:9: "But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'"

Is there suffering in the waiting process? Remind yourself of the numerous passages in scripture on trial, on suffering, on endurance, on the precious faith that can be beautified through trial, on the hope up ahead, on Christ's sufferings, on the power of the Holy Spirit...

What a precious, precious faith we have! I'd take that over marriage anyday. Would I take my faith over marriage every moment? In theory, yes, but perhaps more often than not my concerns get the better of me so that I lose focus on what truly matters. May we be reminded of our faith moment by moment. As the song goes: "I need Thee every hour." Not just, "I need Thee in theory of knowing You are better than marriage," but, "I need Thee every hour."

And on another note. What types of people do you care about? Are you sensitive to the underdog, to the weak, to the mariginalized, to the oppressed? Do those types of people grab your heart...maybe my thought is too abstract, but, if we feel somehow 'marginalized' (we don't need to, but our heart may tell us otherwise) by being older unmarried singles...in a way...how cool is that?! (I know, a 'band-aid solution' that only scratches the surface.) It might help fuel our passion for the marginalized by BEING one of "them"...in a way...isn't that kind-of cool? In a way, being one of "them" means that "they" are one of "us"....bridging the gap....

Maybe my thought is too abstract...

But for what it's worth....

[66. BDB said the following at 5:40 PM on Mar 10:]

66

You know, there is another economic cause of delayed marriage. There was a time before student loans.

My grandfather and siblings, including the girls, went to college in the depression. They took turns, the others working to put one through school. It worked.

I know of other people of previous generations who did the same thing: their wives worked to put the husband through school, then his salary was enough to support he family on one income.

I never met any women my age in college - or since - who would consider part of their life's plan being putting their husband through school to avoid student loans. If I had, it would have definitely gotten my attention...

[67. Jennifer said the following at 6:03 PM on Mar 10:]

67

Amir,

Both sexes may have their issues, but not every issue is a 50/50 thing.

Acknowledging that there's a shortage of men in our churches is not a "blame game", it's a statistically demonstrable fact. Check out the enrollment breakdown for Christian colleges on ChristianCollegeGuide.net:

San Diego Christian College: m-40%, f-60%
Bethel College: m-36.14%, f-63.86%
Baylor University: m-43.57%, f-56.43%
Trinity Christian College: m-36.48%, f-63.52%
Trinity International University: m-41.67%, f- 58.33%

(you'll find higher number of males for those listed that are seminaries and graduate schools).

So as far as breaking things down by age group, college rolls give you a pretty similar picture to what's going on in most churches, on the young adult front. Churchformen.com identifies young unmarried men as being the most unchurched of all demongraphic groups.

You seem to want people to understand how difficult it has been for you as a single man, but when you deny and minimize something that's as obvious as the shortage of single men in our churches, well, it doesn't bring much credibility to your cause. Nor does complaining about the exceptionally picky (men can be picky too, and most Christian women have lowered standards when it comes to looks and charm because of the man shortage, which works in the favor of the guys) and overambitious career women, who are few and far in Christian circles. Some rogue blogs have even suggested that the shortage of men in our churches is the fault of the women!

For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them. I believe that this is the main reason why we have a man shortage in the church.

Of the "good guys" who remain in church, we really do need to avoid the "blame game" because it is harder for some than others to find wives, and we just don't know every individual's personal situation. But that doesn't mean that the "man shortage" must be something that we never speak about.

Indeed, single Christian women are in a unique situation, than when it's not acknowledged, can result in women unduly blaming themselves for their lack of romantic success and, like Ro, mistakenly believing that God does want them to desire marriage, which is absolutely heartbreaking.

[68. Paul H said the following at 6:30 PM on Mar 10:]

68

Jennifer #63 -- In case you weren't sure, my comment to Adam was pure sarcasm. :)

You said: "It is true that despite someone's best efforts, they might not get married."

True; but it wouldn't be because God didn't "let" him get married.

"...the Bible does not includes these kinds of provisos, particularly when it talks about marriage, which is almost always discussed in terms of human effort and volition (ie. Proverbs 18:22, 1 Cor 7:9, 36, 39, 1 Cor 9:5)."

Indeed.

"Why? Perhaps because the Lord could forsee the immobilization and fatalism created by late 20th century "let-God-write-your-love-story" kinds of teachings."

That, and because He's not in the business of writing our love stories. He's created us in His likeness, possessing a will -- which we are free to exercise in marrying, not marrying, or deciding whom to marry.

And He also isn't in the business of sabotaging our efforts to get married in order to teach us a lesson (like that we shouldn't want to get married too much), as Adam believes.

[69. J. said the following at 6:32 PM on Mar 10:]

69

Ted wrote:

"And perhaps my story may serve as a warning to some women who are *intentionally* putting off marriage for some particular reason; they may be passed by by a man her age, who may be looking for someone with more vigor and youthfulness."

Ted, I hope you realize how angry the sentence above will make many of your female readers and that you're prepared for the fallout.

How many single, never-married Christian women do you TRULY know who are intentionally delaying marriage? During my 10+ years of post-college singleness, in all my dealings with numerous single, never-married women of various denominational backgrounds, I have never met ONE.

I'm going to stop typing before I write something that would be deemed unfit for posting.

[70. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:33 PM on Mar 10:]

70

Jennifer says:

Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives, as these census figures reveal that these situations are exceptions to the rule. What's more, men who think that waiting years to marry will improve their chances of scoring a "better" (younger, more attractive) wife are oblivious to the fact that a lot of those older guys have made significant compromises for their younger brides (ie. younger but not necessarily attractive, previously married with children, a different culture or socio-economic group).

As someone who has kicked Ted around as much as anyone over the past month or so, I'd say you're not being fair to Ted (Or Motte for that matter).

Quite frankly, there is plenty of Biblical precedence for a man marrying younger. Is it the ideal? I dunno. Would I recommend it in every case? Probably not.

On the other hand, I will say this much. If I come across a marriageable Christian gal, whose age is much lower than mine, the age difference will not stop me.

If you object, then you'd better be ready to provide a more equitable answer.

[71. Jennifer said the following at 6:54 PM on Mar 10:]

71

Ted says:

"And perhaps my story may serve as a warning to some women who are *intentionally* putting off marriage for some particular reason; they may be passed by by a man her age, who may be looking for someone with more vigor and youthfulness."

Nice. At least we know what was truly in your heart and mind when you wrote it.

Comments like this one do nothing to convince anyone that you're not boastful, Ted. Petty and spiteful might also be added to the list. Not very becoming for someone aspiring to a role of Godly leadership.

[72. dana111 said the following at 7:42 PM on Mar 10:]

72

I agree with Amir. As a 25 year old woman, I am completely okay with marrying someone 35 or older. So, I am not offended by Ted's or Motte's opinion about marrying younger wives. I know that I haven't met a 25 year old male yet that I would consider marriage material.

[73. Adam said the following at 7:47 PM on Mar 10:]

73

Carrie,

Since you are reformed, then I'm sure you familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Let me point WCF IX. 4.
"4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil."

Carrie, that is talking about conversion, not salvation. What grace does in conversion, in the words of the confession, is to free us from the bonds of sin, and enable us to do good. Regeneration and Sanctification are parts of the entirety of salvation. All the confession is saying here is that the grace that is given to us in salvation is still effectual to accomplish its purpose, namely, the freeing from the bondage of sin, and enabling him to do good. It is the remaining corruption in him that causes him to still do evil. However, that is distinct from sanctifying grace, which gradually sanctifies us, until we finally reach heaven. However, in both instances, the grace is irresistible, because it always accomplishes its goal. If sanctifying grace does not sanctify, then it is not irresistible. That was the point.

Jennifer #59,

The biblical example of marrying "the wife of your youth" exists for a reason.

So, does the biblical example of committing "iniquity of youth," [Job 13:26], "sins of youth," [Psalm 25:7], and "reproach of youth," [Jeremiah 31:19] likewise exist for a reason.

Jennifer #62

First of all, as far as Luther agreeing with Calvin, I think that Luther predates Calvin, does he not?

He was born before Calvin, but there was quite a bit of overlap in years.

And nowhere does Christ or anyone else in scripture suggest that we "test ourselves" to see if we need "the help of marriage to remain pure". That sounds downright DANGEROUS, and a bit "fleecy", imho.

Actually, I would say that it flows from the Bible's command to do whatever is necessary to live a holy life.

So although the scriptures do not say specifically to the individual that you need a good reason to delay marriage, it raises larger questions about whether we are being good stewards of our bodies to delay marriage, without much "begatting" of "spiritual children". Fair questions, I would think.

Well, then I would simply ask where it is that the Bible does this.

So although the scriptures do not say specifically to the individual that you need a good reason to delay marriage, it raises larger questions about whether we are being good stewards of our bodies to delay marriage, without much "begatting" of "spiritual children". Fair questions, I would think. So Adam, I don't know where you get the idea that Boundless or anyone else you call "marriage mandate" is opposed to those (with sex drives or not) being single for the sake of doing kingdom work.

Ok, but I would say that *everyone* is supposed to be doing kingdom work. That is the whole point of being a Christian.

And if challenging individuals to ask themselves about their reasons for delaying marriage (and the consequences for doing so) makes one "marriage mandate", then sign me up. Despite some differences in views, I'll gladly join the good company of Luther, who said: "Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end."

He couldn't have made it any clearer than that.

Well, and as I pointed out, Luther is willing to make an exemption for those who willfully refrain from marriage. Hence, he is not saying that people who willfully put of marriage are sinning. Again, that is a modern invention.

Also, you can stand with Boundless on this issue. This is an in house debate. While there are forms of this "delay of marriage as a sin" idea that is, indeed, cultic, Boundless is is not one of the proponents of the cultic version of these ideas.

Paul H.,

That must be terribly gratifying and enriching to God: to receive your love and worship only because he makes you love and worship Him. Oh, I forgot, He cannot be enriched... because He cannot feel passion... because he cannot change in any way.

Thank you Calvin, Augustine and Aristotle!

What reformer ever said he cannot change in any way? He cannot change with regards to his *nature,* but when it comes to his emotions, he certainly can. Again, as I pointed out to you before, you should actually read reformed writings on the doctrine of immutability. Open Theists misrepresent the reformed doctrine of God time and time again.

God Bless,
Adam

[74. Ashleigh Slater said the following at 8:45 PM on Mar 10:]

74

Jennifer, as the younger woman who married Ted, I thought I'd weigh in. I have to say that I laughed at being described as being acquired. Makes me sound like a sofa or perhaps a lamp that a grandparent willed to him. :-)

From your response, it seems that perhaps you're reading things into our relationship that simply aren't true. For example, neither Ted nor I set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves. But in our particular case, it happened because that's what God had for us. During our courtship the Lord made it very clear to me that Ted was the man I was supposed to marry.

The truth of the matter is, Ted wasn't seeking out a younger woman. Before we met, while he was praying about marriage, for example, he did seek the Lord regarding a couple of different women at church much closer to his age.

So we aren't some sort of poster couple endorsing the older man marrying the younger woman. Nor am I some young woman that he "boasts" about marrying because of my being 12 years younger than he. What we are is an example that if God is leading in that direction, there is freedom.

[75. Sara said the following at 8:47 PM on Mar 10:]

75

Amir, I think people protest a bit because you'd be less likely to say,

"If I come across a marriageable Christian gal, whose age is much *higher* than mine, the age difference will not stop me."

Not that it doesn't make biological sense and all, but in this age of concern for equality, many women would like men to be more proactive about marrying women closer to their own age--if not older in order, to offset the habit of marrying young. A couple years is nothing, but simplistically speaking, for every 20-year-old woman a 35-year-old marries, that makes it that much harder for another 35-year-old women to 'get' a husband. (No special interests here; I'm young and have sometimes dated guys at least a few years older than me, but I sort of feel guilty doing it.) So often, men's reasons for not dating older women (not necessarily older than them) have to do with tired old innocence and ease-of-domination reasons, not the childbearing-capability reasons they claim.

[76. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:30 AM on Mar 11:]

76

Jennifer says:

Both sexes may have their issues, but not every issue is a 50/50 thing.

Acknowledging that there's a shortage of men in our churches is not a "blame game", it's a statistically demonstrable fact. Check out the enrollment breakdown for Christian colleges on ChristianCollegeGuide.net:

San Diego Christian College: m-40%, f-60%
Bethel College: m-36.14%, f-63.86%
Baylor University: m-43.57%, f-56.43%
Trinity Christian College: m-36.48%, f-63.52%
Trinity International University: m-41.67%, f- 58.33%

(you'll find higher number of males for those listed that are seminaries and graduate schools).
So as far as breaking things down by age group, college rolls give you a pretty similar picture to what's going on in most churches, on the young adult front. Churchformen.com identifies young unmarried men as being the most unchurched of all demongraphic groups.

That is not necessarily true, and in fact on the pages of Boundless, the Barna numbers for never-marrieds--when broken down by age group--have the men outnumbering the women in almost every age bracket.

You seem to want people to understand how difficult it has been for you as a single man, but when you deny and minimize something that's as obvious as the shortage of single men in our churches, well, it doesn't bring much credibility to your cause. Nor does complaining about the exceptionally picky (men can be picky too, and most Christian women have lowered standards when it comes to looks and charm because of the man shortage, which works in the favor of the guys) and overambitious career women, who are few and far in Christian circles. Some rogue blogs have even suggested that the shortage of men in our churches is the fault of the women!

I never minimized any of your struggles, and in fact I have emphasized on these very pages that I tend to avoid the blame game. This is because there are pockets where women are experiencing the same dynamic that the men are.

In fact, it was you who tossed the bomb here, assuming that it is the men who are generally responsible for the predicament of women. I was responding to that.

For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them. I believe that this is the main reason why we have a man shortage in the church.

Sounds to me like you are the one playing the blame game now.

Of the "good guys" who remain in church, we really do need to avoid the "blame game" because it is harder for some than others to find wives, and we just don't know every individual's personal situation. But that doesn't mean that the "man shortage" must be something that we never speak about.

You were the one who attacked men who put off marriage, and you made some very unfair, gratuitous assertions about men.

Indeed, single Christian women are in a unique situation, than when it's not acknowledged, can result in women unduly blaming themselves for their lack of romantic success and, like Ro, mistakenly believing that God does want them to desire marriage, which is absolutely heartbreaking.

You have no problem sticking it to the guys, and yet you aren't willing to accept that there's a mother lode of us guys who are in the same boat.

As for every issue not being a 50/50 thing, here's what I'm seeing:

(1) A Church culture that discourages those who aspire to marriage. (A problem that Debbie Maken rightly attacks.)

(2) A Church culture that does not prepare young people for the Biblical responsibilities of marriage. Youth ministry is largely more fun and games than real, no-nonsense discipleship.

(3) A demographic dynamic that is largely unprecedented in American history. Children will not grow up in the same area (and even when they do, they will switch churches often, assuming they grow up in the church), will go to college and pursue careers far from their hometowns, and will move often throughout their careers.

(4) More women are spending their childbearing years pursuing full-time careers than ever before.

(5) Both sexes have fallen upon some dangerous vices. For men, it is porn and metrosexuality; for women, it is bulimia and a predisposition to dating nonbelievers. (And no...men aren't the cause of women going bulimic or dating nonbelievers any more than women are the cause of men getting into porn or metrosexuality. We're talking gender-specific vices here.)

I could walk into a shopping mall and start throwing darts. Half the men I hit will be current or former porn users whereas half the women will be current or former bulimics.

It's almost funny when I'm at the gym. The gals seem to be obsessed with showing off their bodies. Skin-tight outfits, halter tops (or whatever the heck they call those things today). So do the guys: they'll wear tank tops to show off their arms.

As for what I wear at the gym? I wear baggy shorts and long-sleeve running shirts. Besides, at 5-foot-3, I am not all that visible anyway. ;)

[77. obewan said the following at 6:36 AM on Mar 11:]

77

Jennifer at #59 Wrote:

“7.2% of men marry someone younger by 10 years or more (Like Motte and Ted).

Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives, as these census figures reveal that these situations are exceptions to the rule.”

I don’t think it is a disservice at all, and I do not agree. The reason the census figure is so low is probably due to the fact that most people marry younger. It says nothing about the CHANCES of an older person FINDING a spouse. The probability may still be quite favorable; it is just that fewer people exercise that option. If I wanted to consider getting married to a divorced person, my chances might actually be quite good of me finding a spouse 10 years younger and me getting married in my 40’s.

[78. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:13 AM on Mar 11:]

78

Sara says:

Amir, I think people protest a bit because you'd be less likely to say,

"If I come across a marriageable Christian gal, whose age is much *higher* than mine, the age difference will not stop me."

And why would I be less likely to go that route? Here are the reasons:

(1) If she's ten years my senior, she is overwhelmingly more likely to be divorced and therefore Biblically ineligible for marriage, as that would make me an adulterer.

(2) If she's ten years my senior, she is almost certainly incapable of bearing children.

I can't speak for other guys, but those are MY reasons.

Not that it doesn't make biological sense and all, but in this age of concern for equality, many women would like men to be more proactive about marrying women closer to their own age--if not older in order, to offset the habit of marrying young. A couple years is nothing, but simplistically speaking, for every 20-year-old woman a 35-year-old marries, that makes it that much harder for another 35-year-old women to 'get' a husband.

I'm more than happy to marry a 35-year-old woman. The issue, however, is whether I would marry a 51-year-old woman. The answer to that--apart from a specific Divine Directive--is no.

The scenario I proposed was with respect to my experiences: I have not found ANYONE marriageable in my church experiences. Ergo, if the only marriageable person happened to be in her 20s, that would not be a hindrance.

(No special interests here; I'm young and have sometimes dated guys at least a few years older than me, but I sort of feel guilty doing it.) So often, men's reasons for not dating older women (not necessarily older than them) have to do with tired old innocence and ease-of-domination reasons, not the childbearing-capability reasons they claim.

Depends on what you mean by "ease of domination". If by that you mean a Christian guy like me won't date a feminist, you would be absolutely correct. On the other hand, if you mean some sort of sick power trip, then you would be mistaken about me.

On the other hand, like I said, I cannot speak for the other guys...

[79. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:16 AM on Mar 11:]

79

Dana says:

I agree with Amir. As a 25 year old woman, I am completely okay with marrying someone 35 or older. So, I am not offended by Ted's or Motte's opinion about marrying younger wives. I know that I haven't met a 25 year old male yet that I would consider marriage material.

Way to go, Dana...now you have me putting on my ninja outfit so I can hijack your cradle...

JUST KIDDING! ::well...by half anyhow::

[80. Ted Slater said the following at 8:46 AM on Mar 11:]

80

Adam, post #28: Well-said.

[81. Paul H said the following at 11:19 AM on Mar 11:]

81

Adam said (#73): "What reformer ever said he cannot change in any way? He cannot change with regards to his *nature,* but when it comes to his emotions, he certainly can."

First, God's nature includes His ability to feel emotions. And secondly, Calvin didn't agree with you:

“[God] is incapable of every feeling... when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode [figure] of speech...”
-Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1, XVII, xiii

Both Luther and Calvin wrote of God forever remaining "unmoved" and being "immovable," totally unaffected by anything man does, because if He was affected by us in any way, He would experience a change in His state of being (his nature). And they were right.

While he was obviously not one of the Reformers, Augustine had a huge influence on both Luther and Calvin, and on the classical formulation of God's attributes. He wrote in The City of God:

"Indeed, to say that He is affected at all, is an abuse of language, since it implies that there comes to be something in His nature which was not there before. For he who is affected is acted upon, and whatever is acted upon is changeable. ... But in God the former purpose is not altered and obliterated by the subsequent and different purpose, but by one and the same eternal and unchangeable will He effected regarding the things He created..."
- Augustine, The City of God, pp. 399-400

"The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain."
- Augustine, The City of God, p. 515

And, also not a Reformer, but certainly a strong reformed believer, C.S. Lewis wrote:
“We correctly deny that God has passions... He cannot be affected by love...” (Miracles, pp. 92-93)

And, Calvinist Bruce Ware of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary published a Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God in 1986. His “reformulation” states that:
“Scripture does not lead us to think of God as unchangeable in every respect (absolute immutability)... [but] God is changeable in relationship with his creation, particularly with human and angelic moral creatures...” (God’s Lesser Glory, p. 73)

Why would this strong reformed (and anti-open theism) author feel the need to "reformulate" the doctrine of immutability to allow for the possibility that God experiences true relationships (i.e. feels passion) if it was not to correct a byproduct of the classical formulation of immutability, which is that God is impassible?

Here are a couple articles on the subject for anyone who's interested:

"Our Passionate God"

"The Bible, Immutability and Impassibility"

[82. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:36 AM on Mar 11:]

82

Jennifer says:

Comments like this one do nothing to convince anyone that you're not boastful, Ted. Petty and spiteful might also be added to the list. Not very becoming for someone aspiring to a role of Godly leadership.

Perhaps Ted can clarify. But, having been a professional for 18 years, I think I know what he is getting at.

I don't think any Christian gal consciously says, "I'm going to spend my entire 20s and early 30s pursuing a career, then get married once I get established." On the other hand, that is what logically happens.

Part of it might be an attempt to justify the 4+ years of college and investment in that education. Part of it might be a lack of trust in men. Part of it might be a quest for self-satisfaction based on some expectations she and/or others have placed on her. Still, there could be other reasons and I cannot speculate on particulars.

I've seen that dynamic my entire professional life. In addition to being very career-oriented, they are often quite perfectionist.

In fact, I recently had an eHarmony match with whom I was conversing. I was really hopeful to get to meet her, as she seemed like an excellent conversationalist and had many similar views with mine. Trouble is, she was an attorney who traveled internationally, spending most of her time in Europe.

She broke that relationship off, deciding she did not have the time for it. Given that she is 36, I asked her when she thought she would have time. No answer.

Having said all that, there is a biological reality that women face: the reproduction clock is finite. Ergo, putting off marriage--consciously or unconsciously--carries consequences.

I say that with the caveat: I realize there are many women who are single for the same reasons I am: they had no control over certain life circumstances.

I doubt that Ted is focusing on them. Nor am I for that matter.

On the other hand, when a woman goes into her late 20s, has Christian men in her church from whom to choose and ignores them, or insists that she must have her full-time career, she is doing herself--and the men--a disservice just as the man who eschews Christian women does to himself and the women.

Did I get it right, Ted?

[83. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:44 AM on Mar 11:]

83

Adam,

I get the feeling you are pursuing Celibacy.

Is that a true statement?

If it isn't, when, in your view of scripture and/or opinion, would you consider beginning to pursue a wife?

Do you think the call for marriage applies to you (assuming not celibate) in today's society?

Do you take issue with others desiring marriage as a God-given gift and taking seriously what they perceive as the command to pursue it?

Or is your primary problem the inclination that we would encompass everyone (regardless of calling) in that command?

I'm just curious. You seem to take the opposing view in nearly every thread...either you really don't think the same as everyone else or you just really enjoy playing devil's advocate.

Though I agree with Carrie that marriage is a means whereby sanctification can be worked out, I don't believe it is the only one.

Waiting is just as much a means of sanctification >.<

As much as I dislike this waiting and waiting and constant waiting for a husband, I've come to realize and working on accepting that the waiting isn't going to matter when I discover whether it will happen or not. You see, if it does happen, I'll be standing at an altar in white looking at my bridegroom as he says "I do". If not, I'll be standing in white as my bridegroom's arms open wide to embrace me (my view of heaven =p).

No amount of waiting is going to matter at that moment. Years of waiting will feel as if they had paid off to be standing here in this moment with the one God worked for me to spend the rest of my life with.

[84. Jennifer said the following at 1:16 PM on Mar 11:]

84

Ashleigh said:

"Jennifer, as the younger woman who married Ted, I thought I'd weigh in. I have to say that I laughed at being described as being acquired. Makes me sound like a sofa or perhaps a lamp that a grandparent willed to him. :-)".

From your response, it seems that perhaps you're reading things into our relationship that simply aren't true. For example, neither Ted nor I set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves. But in our particular case, it happened because that's what God had for us. During our courtship the Lord made it very clear to me that Ted was the man I was supposed to marry."

First of all, about "acquired", Proverbs 18:22 (ESV) reads "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD." So I don't know what the problem is with the use of the word "acquired", which means pretty much the same as "find".

And I honestly don't know how you got the idea that I think that you and Ted "set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves". I'm not reading anything into your relationship (as if I care!). If anything, it sounds like you're reading too much into my post.

My objection, and I repeat, is not with age differences (even of more than 10 years), but with setting them up as examples in a way that gives the impression that they are more common (and thus attainable) than they really are. To do so enables unrealistic expectations.

btw- a little tip in communicating with fellow believers who are single...statements like "the Lord made it clear that this is the man I'm supposed to marry" are not helpful. Very few believers can expect to have this kind of divine guidance in mate finding, and certainly the scriptures do not speak of it. But when married people like yourself claim to have been "singled out" to receive this kind of word from the Lord, it leads others to think that this is what they're supposed to wait for. See other articles on Boundless about "the bondage of guidance" and how it immobilizes believers in their decision making.

[85. Jennifer said the following at 3:36 PM on Mar 11:]

85

Amir,

I really hope the Boundless folks don't censor this out, because I really want to clear up a whole bunch of misinterpretations that have not only me boggled, but everyone else as well, I'm sure...

About Barna's numbers for never-marrieds ("when broken down by age group--have the men outnumbering the women in almost every age bracket"). You missed the fine print. It's referring to Christians at large (loosely extrapolated from census data), NOT THOSE ATTENDING CHURCH.

I repeat: there are shortages of young marriageable Christian men ATTENDING CHURCH. This matters because the surplus single Christian women who do attend are taught from day one that you must be EQUALLY YOKED, making unchurched guys pretty much off limits.

"I never minimized any of your struggles, and in fact I have emphasized on these very pages that I tend to avoid the blame game. This is because there are pockets where women are experiencing the same dynamic that the men are." Sorry, but it's minimizing to say that "there are pockets where women are experiencing the same dynamic (assuming you mean opposite sex shortages), when it's the other way around: most regions find a shortage of young men in their churches, with some pockets where the situation is reversed (ie. Alaska).

"In fact, it was you who tossed the bomb here, assuming that it is the men who are generally responsible for the predicament of women. I was responding to that:'For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them.'"

Amir, I am at a loss as to what the problem is here...I go on in my next paragraph to say "Of the "good guys" who remain in church, we really do need to avoid the "blame game" because it is harder for some than others to find wives, and we just don't know every individual's personal situation." So I'm NOT attacking all men, but rather defending those remaining church going men, and taking non-church goers to task. Being a church going guy, one would expect that you'd be pleased with my support! Or better yet, that you'd take the lead and address those non-church going guys, rather than rushing to their defense.

"You were the one who attacked men who put off marriage, and you made some very unfair, gratuitous assertions about men" Excuse me? Where do I do THAT?

As for what you see, it's pretty much what I see too: a Church culture that discourages those who aspire to marriage and does not prepare young people for the Biblical responsibilities of marriage. Unprecedented demographic dynamics. And yes, more women are spending their childbearing years pursuing full-time careers than ever before, but still the majority of women are not aggressive career pursuers, they want children and want them soon (80% want to be stay-at-home moms).

As for gender specific vices, eating disorders in women aren't as common as earlier feminist writings declared to be, but pre-marital sex among secular women certainly is, which creates a "why-buy-the-cow-when-you-can-get-the-milk-for-free" dynamic, which undermines the timely marital aspirations of all women, but especially those churchgoing women who play by the rules. As I said before, men avoid church when they are getting sex in the secular world from secular women, and this has a lot to do with why there's a shortage of young marriageable men in the church (lest you think that Christian women are more likely to date non-Christian men than the other way around). Again, this is not to attack "all men", but to show how the secular world (that includes secular women) lures non-churchgoing Christian men away from the church, creating a surplus of single women there-- a disadvantage for mate finding (giving a bit of an edge to the "good guys" that remain behind).

As for marrying older, go ahead! I never expressed any issues with men pursuing their highest aspirations -- only misinforming them about their odds for success when pursuing much younger women.

PS, typo: I meant to say "like Ro, mistakenly believing that God doesN'T want them to desire marriage..."

[86. Athena said the following at 5:26 PM on Mar 11:]

86

In reflection to Ro's post: (#56)

I think if left to myself, there will always be mixed feelings concerning marriage. It sounds wonderful but on other days, it just seems a lot of work. It is nice to have a lifelong companion but I have no idea what'll happen 10, 20 years from now. On some days it will seem very attractive, and on other days I'd just wish for contentment in singleness.

However, when I return to God's word, the issue won't be just marriage or no marriage. It will be striving to delight in God alone, and letting Him give me what I need and not what I want. Usually this translates to His peace and satisfaction in Him, as opposed to some guy or some idol I've been harboring at the moment.

As for the older men marrying younger women issue: I have not found any problem connecting with brothers and sisters 10 years older than me in conversations. I often find them to be more enriching than talking with my peers. However, I am not sure whether I can contribute equally to a marriage partnership on a practical level if I were to marry someone 10 years older. I think it just boils down to whether the guy in question likes you enough. If a mutual commitment is made, you'll both make the effort to make things work while handing the relationship to God.

[87. Jessica said the following at 5:45 PM on Mar 11:]

87

I absolutely LOVED the article about Luther and Katherine. I thought it was so HEROIC of Luther to free those nuns from the convent. This article brought hope to my soul, because it inspired me, to read about a single man who was focused on GOD'S interests first. I liked his feisty line: "I'll marry my Katie to spite the devil." I thought it was very romantic as well. I'm a very feisty woman myself. I'm a personal believer that certain individuals whom people think they rub them the wrong way, because they're always questioning, always challenging, never content with the status quo-these are the kind of people that God uses. Being feisty is not a bad thing if you use it to God's glory. Being strongwilled for the cause of Christ-standing up for what you believe, and what you disagree with, is not a bad thing. My name means "God's grace," but I cannot stand injustice. I believe that even if you have a strongwilled child- if you teach that child to use that strong will for God, then you will have raised a mighty warrior/warrior princess for the Lord. I thought it was also refreshing in the article to read that Luther saw the practicality of marriage, and he was an advocate for it-I appreciate godly men who stand for something. I seek to find that kind of man someday, God willing.

[88. Jessica said the following at 5:51 PM on Mar 11:]

88

I would rather be "cherished" by my husband than him feel "mad passionate love" for me right off the bat. A dear friend of mine has a beautiful story. Before they were married, she was in the Philippines, and they wrote letters back and forth. He was in the Navy. She had a heart problem.She told me she married her husband because she wanted him to pay for her heart surgery. She didn't love him at first. He loved her, before they married. She GREW to love him after they were married. She essentially told me, "Marry someone who loves YOU more than YOU love HIM." I think that's wise advice for all of us. (Isn't that a beautiful story? They are happily married, and have two adopted children from Japan.)

[89. BDB said the following at 7:47 PM on Mar 11:]

89

Ashleigh (#74) wrote:

>>For example, neither Ted nor I set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves. <<

You know, this brings up an interesting point. I'd probably discourage a 29-year-old guy from pursuing a 19-year-old college girl.

However, what happens if the woman is 28? If a 38-year old man discovers that a 28-year-old is interested in him, should he send her away? If she's already through high school, and college, and still unattached...well, would you say that the guys her age had had their chance by then?

Jennifer (#84) wrote:

>>and certainly the scriptures do not speak of it. <<

Actually, they do. See Genesis 24.

Granted, most of us don't have camels to use to ask God for a "sign."

A modern equivalent might be at a potluck. Say a man starts cleaning up plates, folding chairs, etc. Then he notices that an eligible woman, without being asked, starts doing the same thing. That would be an example of generous character equivalent to Genesis 24. No burning bush needed. But if the guy had prayed before hand asking God to call an eligible woman to do precisely that - and someone does - he should pay attention. But the "test" used in that case was something the woman could observe needed doing, and she did it without being asked.

I was cleaning up after a funeral reception once. Suddenly a 7-year-old girl handed me a folding chair. I thanked her, stacked it...and then her 5-year-old sister handed me a chair. And then someone stood up and the 7-year-old took their chair and brought it over to me (which could have been a safety problem.) Clearly, someone had taught these children to help out, and as soon as they observed someone doing work, they started helping without being asked. If they continue to grow up that way the next 15 years, it will be quite an example of servant-heartedness.

[90. Adam said the following at 8:37 PM on Mar 11:]

90

Paul H.,

“[God] is incapable of every feeling... when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode [figure] of speech...”
-Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1, XVII, xiii

You have taken this quote, as well as the others, grossly out of context. Here is what Calvin actually said:

13. What then is meant by the term repentance? The very same that is meant by the other forms of expression, by which God is described to us humanly. Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him. Though he is incapable of every feeling of perturbation, he declares that he is angry with the wicked. Wherefore, as when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode of speech accommodated to our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated whenever he exercises Judgment, so we ought not to imagine any thing more under the term repentance than a change of action, men being wont to testify their dissatisfaction by such a change. Hence, because every change whatever among men is intended as a correction of what displeases, and the correction proceeds from repentance, the same term applied to God simply means that his procedure is changed. In the meantime, there is no inversion of his counsel or will, no change of his affection. What from eternity he had foreseen, approved, decreed, he prosecutes with unvarying uniformity, how sudden soever to the eye of man the variation may seem to be.

He was talking about the fact that God cannot have unrighteous rage. Calvin believed that such would be sinful for God to have perturbation. Apparently, there were people that were arguing that God was repenting because he sinned in the accounts[such as the case of Moses pleading for the lives of the Israelites], because it said that he was angry, and then it said that he repented. He then goes on to discuss the analgious usage of language as a solution to the problem, and how he believes that the Bible is just describing God in this way so that we can understand in order to avoid having to charge God with rage. However, why is it that you left out, by elipses, that Calvin was talking about all of a specific feeling, not any feeling at all?

Both Luther and Calvin wrote of God forever remaining "unmoved" and being "immovable," totally unaffected by anything man does, because if He was affected by us in any way, He would experience a change in His state of being (his nature). And they were right.

Well, it is very easy to say that, it is much harder to provide the quotation. When the reformers talked about God not being effected by us, what they were referring to is the fact that God is not contingent upon man. God does not become less just or righteous because of something man does. Thus, God's nature is not based at all on the actions of man. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not God can have feelings such as anger, sadness, etc. Again, I am still waiting for a quotation.

This should also explain the quotations from Augustine. He was talking about the same thing Calvin was. Augustine is addressing the issue of what appears to be God's rage of which he repents. Did God sin in that instance? Obviously not. That is what Calvin and Augustine are arguing against.

The both the title and the quotation by Bruce Ware is likewise is ripped from its context. In his introduction, Ware claims that he is using the term "reformulation" in the sense of *clarification.* He speaks of how process theologians were attacking Thomas Aquinas' [not Augustine's] teaching on this topic, and he wants to give a more firm, Biblical presentation of the teaching. Here is what he said:

The past twenty-five years have witnessed a number of significant restate-ments of the doctrine of divine immutability in light of an increasing appreciation for God's real relatedness to the world.1 In particular, many Roman Catholic theologians have devoted much thought to this doctrine in an attempt to answer the harsh attacks of process theology against Thomas' development of the doctrine.2 But only recently have evangelicals entered this contemporary discussion,3 and here their contributions, though very helpful and insightful, have only suggested general lines of the doctrine's reconstruction. The purpose of this article, then, is to offer a more thorough reformulation of the doctrine of divine immutablility in a manner that holds firmly to the evangelical commitment to Scripture as the authoritative source of the self-revelation of God.

So, the point is to reformulation Thomas' teaching in the light of scripture. Not to change classic reformed teaching.

In fact, he mentions that Anselm points out that the emotional aspect of God's mutability is the very foundation of the immutability of his nature. Because his nature is holy, he will always look upon sin with anger. Hence, it is because of his unchanging nature that he has changing emotions. Far from your argument that the two of them cannot coexist, the one actually establishes the other.

Again, Paul, if you want to keep erecting strawmen, keep at it. Comparing the reformed teaching on the immutability of God to the demiurge is a horrible misrepresentation. Then again, I shouldn't be suprised, given that you are an admirer of Bob Enyart, who said that it was possible that, from all of eternity, the father could have hated the son.

In actuality, the type of self-determinism of open theism is very popular in pagan religions such as Hinduism, neo-Paganism, Buddhism, and other religions. In fact, all three of these religions deny that their is a God who knows the future exhaustively. I can draw far more parallels from open theism to these religions than you ever could from Calvinism to the demiurge.

Adam

[91. Rachael said the following at 8:59 PM on Mar 11:]

91

Hi Jennifer,

I'd prefer to be found than acquired :), but it doesn't really matter. I have to admit, I'm not sure all of what you've been writing, but you mentioned 70 year old brides... Do you remember if you saw a story about that on this blog or somewhere else? I thought I recently read something about there being an older (maybe 70 something?) engaged woman that died before she married...if you saw this story do you remember where you saw it? I'd be curious to look at it again...

Thanks!

[92. Christina said the following at 9:11 PM on Mar 11:]

92

Here's a thought (beware some bitterness coming up)

I know its not the norm, but I've known many single christian men. Some of them in hot pursuit of wives. They sat in the same living room as me during bible studies and lamented over the lack of godly christian women.

I sit there wondering why it is that only the non-christians seem to think I'm a great catch. Its not like I live a life that's blatantly secular...I am a very solid and un-silent believer.

So I wonder, you think maybe the girls dating the secular guys are really dating them because there's a lack of guys in the church? Or because the guys claiming to want the godly christian woman are letting those women be pursued by non-christian guys with no competition?

When 2 guys sit in a room knowing of the need in the room and state outright that they want a godly christian wife, turn around, and leave, without even starting a conversation with the godly christian woman sitting in the same room as them (who isn't unattractive), makes ya wonder what she'll do when one non-christian guy spends 3 months talking to her trying to work up the guts to just ask her to a movie.

To me, the un-churched guy who asks the girl out shows a lot more qualities worthy of a 'yes' then the 2 churched guys that walked out the door without a word.

[93. a sassy sister said the following at 10:02 PM on Mar 11:]

93

Wow....
once again this posting has gotten pretty interesting, but to respond to the only question I can answer(since I am not an older man) is this: I don't believe Luther was mandating marriage. Please inform me if I'm wrong, but when you say that marriage is mandatory, it would seem to put marriage on a equal par with the exlicit Biblical commands given in the The Ten commandments(even though Scripture does not EXPLICITLY SAY for ALL CHRISTIAN SINGLES TO GET MARRIED AND HAVE CHILDREN).

It is one thing to encourage single men and women to get married FOR THE RIGHT REASONS(a longing for being able to pour out love on another person and help them intimately walk out God's plan for their lives). It is another thing to imply that all single men and women MUST get married in an extreme attempt to react to the cultural attack on marriage and the family.

What about mandating striving for maturity in all aspects of our life(spiritually, emotionally, physically,socially)? What about encouraging adulthood with the understanding that marriage and family IS NOT ALWAYS the necessary factor for a person to really be an adult that loves and obeys God?

[94. Carrie (the original) said the following at 7:06 AM on Mar 12:]

94

Jennifer #84
Statements like "The Lord made it clear" are hopefully true of every married couple.
Would you really want to get to the altar and be doubting?? Would you really not to know that this is the person that the Lord has for you??
I'm sorry, but I can't imagine getting to the altar and one or both of us thinking "Well . . .I'm still not sure. I'll say these vows and hopefully I'll keep them."
There is a certain amount of fear and trepidation we should experience in dating/courting (where would "faith" be if there wasn't?), but at some point during the dating/courting process we should be asking God "is this what You want?". If through prayer and counseling one or both realizes that the relationship isn't a good thing, then a break-up is needed. However, if you are dating/courting and you realize the relationship is a good thing then you have realized that "the Lord has made it clear".
That phrase isn't some mysterious message in the clouds that people should seek before going on a first date. It is a conclusion they should arrive at after already taking intiative in a relationship.

[95. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:16 AM on Mar 12:]

95

Here's how it works, Jennifer.

I'm generally a contrarian. Had you made a flagrant attack on the gals, I would have emphasized that the guys have their issues too. An example of this: on my blog, I once put out a post on the latest obesity statistics, and one of the respondents started talking about the women who are obese. My response: in all fairness to the gals, the guys are in no position to talk (as they are only slightly better on that front, and even then it's not significant enough to write home about).

It's called intellectual honesty. While we all get frustrated from time to time, we don't do either camp any good service by browbeating them. Fact is, you attacked men in general, not in particular.

In contrast, Obewan did not seem to attack the gals; he merely relayed his experience, which was not far removed from mine. Had he said, "Men are single because the women are out there playing the harlot", I would have ripped him a new one.

On the other hand, you and CSW were attacking the men in one-sided fashion. Look at your following quote:

For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them. I believe that this is the main reason why we have a man shortage in the church.

You have no statistics to show that the Christian men are fornicating around with secular women any more than the Christian women are fornicating around with non-believers--and yet you proclaim it as if it were Gospel. On the other hand, talk to almost any singles minister and he will tell you about the divorced women who end up in their classes, who were "unequally yoked", whose husbands left them. If anything, that's a prima facie case that the fornication dilemma exists at least as much among the women as the men. Of course, that ought to make sense, as it always takes two to tango...

When pressed, you brought out stats for CHRISTIAN colleges to make your case for the shortage of men in the Church.

Is that was passes for critical analysis? Did it occur to you that (a) all Christians do not attend Christian colleges and (b) when we are in college, the focus is typically on getting the good grades so we can have a good chance of getting a nice job and/or get into a reputable graduate program? It's not like the Christian men--or women for that matter--are the party animals running around in togas and getting drunk while at college. In fact, if you major in engineering or the hard sciences, such partying is the exception and not the rule.

And I will stick to my guns regarding gender-specific vices. Having talked to enough college administrators--Christian and secular alike--almost any of them will tell you about the prevalence of bulimia among the college gals, and the porn usage among the guys. Almost every women I have dated has had prior issues--in one case current issues--with bulimia (I nearly went broke trying to help her). Moreover, almost every Christian gal I know who is married--even the happily-married ones--has had (and in some cases still has) such issues. I also have a very good friend in the medical world who encounters such disorders quite frequently. That doesn't include the pastors I know who deal with it whose experiences are also reflective of what I am talking about.

With bulimia, it's almost never the men but almost always the women whereas with porn it's almost never the women but almost always the men.

[96. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:26 AM on Mar 12:]

96

Jennifer says:

As for marrying older, go ahead! I never expressed any issues with men pursuing their highest aspirations -- only misinforming them about their odds for success when pursuing much younger women.

If they are older--and have otherwise been seeking a mate--then the odds of finding a much younger mate can't be any worse than their realized odds have been so far.

Ted is making no statements with respect to odds, only granting legitimacy--a legitimacy that has both Biblical and historical precedence--to those who would otherwise feel pressured against expanding their horizons.

If anything, that is necessary to challenge a Church culture that often discourages singles from seeking mates. (That's another dynamic that you have all but completely ignored in this.)

[97. Rachael said the following at 9:23 AM on Mar 12:]

97

BDB (89),

Encouraging to know other people notice helping out w/out being asked. I notice that even at service things...who is in the kitchen helping a bit longer than the others? I notice those same things. Neat that the young kids helped you. They're being trained right :)

[98. Elizabeth R. said the following at 12:07 PM on Mar 12:]

98

I know of a soon-to-be married couple that have a significant age gap. The bride is barely 20, the groom in his mid thirties. My personal opinion is that a match like this is inappropriate, but none of their family, friends, or church seem to have a problem with it. Am I out of line for feeling like this?

[99. AEB said the following at 12:09 PM on Mar 12:]

99

Can we start a thread about whether or not it's appropriate for divorced people to remarry? This is a very personal issue to me since I am the child of such a remarriage.

[100. BDB said the following at 2:30 PM on Mar 12:]

100

Rachael (#97) wrote:

>>Encouraging to know other people notice helping out w/out being asked.<<

It kind of applies to how my grandparents met. My grandfather noticed this "new girl" in church who could sing all the songs without looking at the hymnal...he was in the choir...

Ironically, my grandmother was church-shopping because she was tired of her church being too focused on dating and not focused enough on spiritual things...she literally walked 2 miles into town and watched for people carrying Bibles; presuming that they were probably going to a good church. She then followed them...

Of course, at the time she didn't realize that my grandfather was in the habit of walking the pastor's daughter home...

[1. Carrie (the original) said the following at 5:46 PM on Mar 6:]

1

I'm glad there's a blog post about this article because I wanted a chance to differ with the author. :) (It's in a good way though, I promise)
I think the line "I'll marry my Kate to spite the devil" is one of the more romantic lines I've heard. But then, I'm one of the feistiest people I know.

[2. Rachael said the following at 6:00 PM on Mar 6:]

2

The black dress part was funny. So he felt marriage was necessary...

Are there people who marry who don't really love their intendeds but marry just to marry...? I'm curious...

It's good that Luther cherished his wife when he married her, even though he didn't feel "passionate love" for her at the time...

A one-day engagement...interesting!

The things you learn about people from centuries past...

[3. Rachael said the following at 6:03 PM on Mar 6:]

3

Oh, oops P.S. -- about age differences. While it seems quite common for older men to be significantly older than the women, the reverse situation is quite, well, the reverse...interesting.

[4. Dan said the following at 6:04 PM on Mar 6:]

4

I want to thank Ted and Boundless for writing about an issue that has been so impactful to me and other Christian singles over the age of 30!!

I am 40 and not married. When you get this "old" many people give up on you. You are thought of as being beyond some "reasonable marriable age" (which I have yet to see defined). There is very little to no direction from the Christian media (books, magazines, websites/blogs) that are of use to single Christians 40 and older who want to find a mate. I have read Boundlessline from time to time, and most of the articles seem geared towards getting the younger people towards marriage, and frankly very little to direct "older" singles towards marriage. So I have to resort to some kind of "translation" to see how it applies to me.

Worse yet, if you are 40+ and male, then there is a whole boatload of unwarranted suspicion about your single state. You are considered somewhat "creepy" for going to blogs like Boundlessline, or "creepy" if you take an interest in younger women. Funny, Martin Luther at the age of 40 married 25 year old Katherine.

There there is the whole "wife of your youth crowd," who seem to want to ridicule or call into question anyone "older" who finds a spouse. I think the Bible talks about "he who finds a wife finds a good thing." An older woman at my church recently passed on after becoming engaged for the first time in her life. I believe she was over 70yrs old. When the pastor relayed her story, there was some sadness in the crowd, but also some happiness of her finally finding a spouse, even though she passed on before marrying.

The last thing we "older" singles who hope to marry need is a bunch of negative messages from our brothers and sisters in the Lord. We want your encouragement, not your suspicious looks, condescending counsel, and unsolicited advice.

I myself have been on several dates over the last 2 months; dates with a gal that I pursued from the start - and thanks to Boundlessline for giving me the OK to pursue a wife and for lighting a fire underneath us guys to be PROACTIVE!!!

[5. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:15 PM on Mar 6:]

5

As an older single, I've never eschewed marriage. On the other hand, most of my church experiences have landed me in situations where there were very few (in many cases no) single women. Plus there were relationships that just plain did not work out. It happens...

As for proverbial cradle robbery, I'm all for it.

As long as we're talking equal yokes, and the families involved are cool with it--I think we must strive to respect our parents--then I'm also cool with it.

[6. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:27 PM on Mar 6:]

6

And to answer the last question, I don't get the impression that he was mandating marriage. Encouraging those who aspire to marriage and mandating it--browbeating singles until they get married--are two different things.

[7. Kelly said the following at 6:40 PM on Mar 6:]

7

Firstly, I found the article delightful! I was blessed to follow the 'footsteps of Luther' through Germany 2 years ago so reading names and places brings back some happy memories.

Now... onto the age difference topic. I once contemplated marriage with a man 12 years older than me. We were very well matched in a lot of ways. HOWEVER, because of the age difference, I felt that he often tried to 'father' me.

He was an older man, whom I respected, and therefore I could never see him as an equal. Is it like that for mixed-age marriages? Whenever I did something he didn't like (usually caused by my youthfulness: I didn't have the life experience he did), I felt like a silly child, constantly trying to be mature as him but never quite getting there.

Also, the difference in energy levels between us (28 and 40) was HUGE. I could race around non-stop all week and he just wanted quiet nights at his apartment.

[8. John D. said the following at 7:07 PM on Mar 6:]

8

Everything Dan said (post 4).

I, too, found this article very encouraging to a 43-year-old never-married man.

I also appreciate Mrs. Luther's illustration of clinging to Christ like a burr to a dress (or, in my case, a pants leg).

[9. Leah said the following at 7:26 PM on Mar 6:]

9

Kelly, are you saying you could not see this man as an equal because you respected him? I'd be concerned if you felt you could not respect your husband. Far from it- it is a man's innate desire to be respected (read "For Women Only" by Shaunti Feldhahn!). Much like women desire to be loved, men often desire respect more than love. It is crucial that we respect the man we marry.

However, your other anecdotes about your relationship suggest to me that you made a good move in not marrying him. If there is such a difference in maturity, I feel that it would cause more problems than good things. While I believe it is ok (even good) for a wife to feel rebuked by her husband for doing something silly, I don't think she should feel inferior or lower than him, especially if it is a recurring occurence.

[10. Ted Slater said the following at 7:51 PM on Mar 6:]

10

Kelly, you wrote: "He was an older man, whom I respected, and therefore I could never see him as an equal. Is it like that for mixed-age marriages?"

It is a tendency, to be frank. Even though I tend to be pretty youthful, I am 12 years old than my wife and have experienced 12 years of life that she hasn't. Twelve more years of mistakes to learn from.

I have trained myself, though, to respect Ashleigh, to value her opinions and experiences, to "wonder" at the things she "wonders" about, and so on. I'm still working on it. We also try to make the most of things that neither of us have experienced -- vacationing to new places, eating new foods, and so on.

The burden to make such a relationship flourish is on the older party, in my opinion.

[11. Sandrine said the following at 7:52 PM on Mar 6:]

11

This is a bit off subject, but about comment #3: it is indeed less common for men to marry older women, but it does happen. My mother is 4 years older than my father, and I am engaged to a man 5 year younger than me (I'm 34, he's 29). I don't think it was ever an issue for my parents; they married when my father was barely 21 and just holding his first real job, and my mother was still studying, so none of them had had time to save much or get used to a lot of money before starting a family (somehow they managed to have 6 children on one no-so big-income). However, it was a bit different for my future husband and myself. When he found out my age, it was a problem for him, because he always thought that more than 2-3 years difference between husband and wife was too much. Also, the fact that I had been working for a few years already, had been able to buy a house and was earning much more than him was something he had trouble with at first. On my side, I had no issue with the age difference, but I had to decide if I would be willing to quit my job (that I really enjoy) in order to raise a family on his income only, as we both knew that the family model we wanted was a stay-at-home mom. However, it did not stop him from proposing, and me from accepting his proposals, and now we don't even think of the age difference anymore. It was never an issue for our families either (in fact, his mother even encouraged him not to be stopped by that).

[12. Melody said the following at 8:48 PM on Mar 6:]

12

My only reservation is when older men ONLY look at much younger women. It can get rather creepy, and can devalue the worth of the older eligible women. What is wrong with a wife around your own age, guys? I'm not saying it's wrong to love and marry a younger woman, I just don't think that should be the goal from the start.

[13. Kelly said the following at 8:57 PM on Mar 6:]

13

Leah said: "Kelly, are you saying you could not see this man as an equal because you respected him?"

I didn't phrase it very well. What I meant was that if someone is older, I equate that with 'more experience' and therefore they have my inherent respect, rather than earned respect. (The whole 'respect your elders' thing!)

Of course I would respect my husband but I would also hope that he could respect me in an equal way.

Also, thank you to Ted for commenting on this. Given my past experience I would find it extremely hard to be married to someone who had 'been there, done that' for so many life experiences (as my ex-boyfriend had!) that I had no knowledge about. I admire you for being able to be gracious about it and recognise it as having potential to create imbalance in a relationship.

[14. Rachael said the following at 10:26 PM on Mar 6:]

14

Comments 7,9, re: silliness...

In my case (I'm 27), I've definitely lost a lot of the 'air-headed goofiness' I once had in my 'youth'. But sometimes random humor (well, I consider it to be humor though it's possible some might not see or understand it) spills out when I'm comfortable and with people who I know would understand it or smile. I often don't leak it out, especially in uncomfortable settings. My hope is that my husband would understand or put up with/appreciate it and not roll his eyes at it. Although I (alarmingly yet honestly) think I would have the ability to 'take' being put down in a relationship, I'd much prefer not to be, and certainly hope that won't happen.

I don't think silliness or ungraceful flubs should necessarily be equated with one's maturity level. To some extent I think it is. And people's sense of humor can/will likely change over time. But I think I've heard of the issue of silliness being, well, an issue in a relationship (the girl is now happily married to someone else, though)....anyway if the couple is not married and if the guy is constantly putting the girl down for silliness or seeming 'immaturity', I wonder if that might be a red flag...however, I'm absolutely no expert on this, as I'm sure is quite clear...it just would scare me if that was happening to me...and it kind-of scares me to think it might not scare me (on the surface, though deep down I'd be disappointed) if it actually happened...

[15. J. said the following at 10:54 PM on Mar 6:]

15

Melody (#12), I completely agree with you.

I'll say right now that the examples I'm about to mention certainly do not apply to all older man - younger woman marriages -- I'm not out to judge -- but we can't get around the fact that they are very common. Some older men pursue younger women because doing so makes them feel more virile and youthful. Others realize upon pushing 40 that marrying a woman their own age or older may very well result in a childless marriage (biologically, anyway). And sometimes there are subconscious psychological issues: e.g., the younger woman is looking for a father figure and/or the older man is controlling and figures that a younger woman can more easily be manipulated.

On the scientific front, some studies are pointing to increased parental age as a cause for concern: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070830-000004.html. Perhaps we really should be marrying and having children younger after all (yes, I realize this is easier said than done in some cases).

[16. Louise said the following at 6:48 AM on Mar 7:]

16

I enjoyed the article on Luther.

As I mentioned on last Oct.'s Reformation Day thread, when I was in high school I won a small college scholarship writing an essay on Luther, and have always felt that Luther was one of the more interesting, if somewhat strange, German historical figures (I am of fairly recent German ancestry, but I consider myself to be wholly American.)

Re the age difference of 15/16 years between the Luthers, I was married at 24 and divorced at 38, so I can definitely attest to the fact that the older you get the less difference there is in age discrepancies.

I am now in my early 40s and my current boyfriend is in his mid 50s. I do not even think of him as "older", but then I have so many friends in their 50s and 60s whom I view as peers.

I have a secular worldview, so I do not date in order to find a marriage partner. Since I have been divorced I have dated men over twenty years older than me, and have considered all of them to be "peers".

Re the nuns in the stories leaving the convent in order to find husbands...during this time in history there would have been no other options other than marriage for these women if their families refused to accept them.

But...that is something the women would have had to consider before making the decision to flee the convent.

And I would express caution about the sentiment that the Luthers "learned to love each other."

If this occured in their case, that is good, but what would one in today's day and age if the love didn't grow after marriage?

[17. obewan said the following at 6:58 AM on Mar 7:]

17

Gee, if he married a 25 year old at 40, that gives me new hope! (Assuming I would want to "rob the cradle.")

Actually, I heard that in some of his writings he referred to his wife as "his ball and chain". That does not sound encouraging, but I suppose he might have been joking.

[18. John D. said the following at 7:17 AM on Mar 7:]

18

Melody (post 12) asks:

"What is wrong with a wife around your own age, guys?"

Abslutely nothing. There's nothing in the world wrong with older women, either, although marrying someone the same age or older (in my case, anyway), would mean forgetting about having children one day.

[19. AEB said the following at 7:24 AM on Mar 7:]

19

For you older singles, there is hope! My dad married for the first time at 38 and I was born when he was 40. Now granted, it was the second marriage for my mother, but the circumstances of her divorce were entirely not her fault (beyond the mistake of marrying the guy in the first place), and she had been living celibate for 12 years since her divorce. They just celebrated their 25th anniversary last summer.

[20. obewan said the following at 7:30 AM on Mar 7:]

20

Melody at #12 asks:

“What is wrong with a wife around your own age, guys?”

I don’t see anything wrong with a wife around my own age except for the fact that LITERALLY 97% of the women in my church singles group over age 35 are divorced.

If I want to marry a never married woman, I am limited to someone who is age 30-35, or at least 10 years younger than me.

I suppose divorce and remarriage might be Biblical in the case of adultery, but it seems more and more Christians these days are divorcing for reasons unrelated to unfaithfulness. I can name several women in our group who divorced simply because they “fell out of love” or had “irreconcilable differences”. Granted, some of them became Christians AFTER their divorce (which may change the Biblical remarriage thing); it still causes me to see a red flag. I prefer to avoid the controversy associated with trying to sort out all the excess “baggage”.

I will admit that when I meet a beautiful divorced woman my own age that I am tempted to compromise my standards and throw in the towel. In fact, I just got a call from a very beautiful woman (twice divorced) who is 10 years younger than me. I had not heard from her for 12 years. It is both encouraging and frustrating since she is still single and said she could not believe some woman has not “snagged” me yet. I suppose if a never married beauty 10 years younger threw herself at me like that, I would jump at the chance to marry her!

[21. Elizabeth R. said the following at 7:46 AM on Mar 7:]

21

@ #2
Yes, my husband and I married because we felt strongly that the Lord was leading us to. We were best friends and were very attracted to each other, our life circumstances lined up, so we got married. I was in love with him, but he was not in love with me and I knew that at the time. I'm not going to romanticize our decision. It shocks many people that our marriage started out based on cold practicality. Our first year of marriage was very hard for both of us. He had to learn to shoulder his responsibilities and learn to love me; I had to constantly take my disappointment to the Lord because I wasn't being treated the way I'd hoped.
But God is good and he graciously brought our hearts together. We really could not be happier or more in love now that we're several years into our adventure. I have no doubt that He meant my husband and me to be married. But I do suspect that we bungled the timing ourselves by getting married too quickly. Perhaps a little more time and thought could have averted some of the problems of our first year.

[22. Jeni said the following at 9:11 AM on Mar 7:]

22

It's exciting to me that Luther changed his mind about being a monk and being celibate.

As for the age difference thing - I have friends who have great marriages and she is 8-9 years older than he. I've also got friends where he is signifacantly older than she. Maybe it's not so much about the age difference as it is about the personalities, interests, visions, and life dreams that each person has for their life.

On a more personal note, as a single woman over 35 and creeping toward 40, I think frequetnly about the fact that the child-bearing years are slipping away from me. Which then in turn can limit the men who could be interested in me. I have been known wonder if men who want to get married and have children consider my age and immediately "write me off" because it may be that I'm getting too old to have kids.

Just some of my thoughts.

[23. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:31 AM on Mar 7:]

23

I have never considered marrying a man more than 10 years older than me.

Reason being, I would find it incredibly creepy to have my husband physically attracted to me when I look nearly exactly like my mother and she would be closer in age to him than I would be...

My mother and I are so much alike in so many ways, that I'm not sure I'd be ok dating and marrying a man that is closer to my mother's age than mine...

Any thoughts on this? Is it something that has been dealt with before and overcome?

[24. Elisabeth said the following at 9:39 AM on Mar 7:]

24

I found it extremely interesting that Luther married someone that much younger then himself! Ever since I started dating my current husband (25 years older) I've found that guys marrying younger gals is more common then I had ever thought!

My husband is in extremely good shape and amazingly we both have the same energy level and like staying at home more then going out. He has a child like spirit so in that respect there is no problem with differences in life experience. Now there were some concerns at the beginning about the age difference, but once my parents got to know him and everyone realized that we were both being totally upfront with each other all the obstacles disappeared and the Lord has really blessed our marriage.

I've always admired Luther since my mom read a book to me about him entitled "Kitty My Rib." The more I learn about Luther the more I realize that he led a fascinating life!

[25. Chris Krycho said the following at 10:01 AM on Mar 7:]

25

Rachael, just some encouragement for you. Though our circumstances are far different (agewise, etc.) I feel compelled to comment on your "silliness," etc. The woman I'm dating right now and I are both incredibly "crazy" people according to most of our friends. We do silly things - usually unintentionally - all too often, have clumsy moments, make jokes that no one thinks are funny, etc., and we're both hopeless nerds. The cool bit is, though pretty much no one else I know consistently laughs at my jokes - she does. The reverse is true as well. I delight in her silliness: I love it, find it attractive. The guy for you will be one who doesn't tolerate those things about you but rather appreciates them as a God-given part of who you are! And it will be good for both of you.

Louise, in response to your last question, I think it misses the whole point. One can choose to learn to love each other, or not. It's not whether emotions grow after the fact, but whether one sacrificially loves the other. (Emotions of some sort do follow that - maybe not "passionate romance," but certainly deep affection. We naturally respond thus [except in the case of sin interrupting] to love being lavished on us.)

[26. Dan (post #4 - not hiding behind numerous aliases) said the following at 10:42 AM on Mar 7:]

26

Re: Melody and others about older men/younger women couples.

I do agree with you that some men should be open to seeking spouses closer to their age.

In my case, it just so happened that my past GF's have been 7-10 years younger than me, and there was nothing "creepy" about any of it. I did not intentionally set out to date these women because they were younger than me or for some less than honorable reasons, it just happened that way. Regarding the one gal who was 10 years younger than me, I was encouraged by a friend who said specifically that she was good for me because she was yonger and had more potential to bear children. That was NOT the impetus for deciding to date her. It was because we had FUN together and got along great - Yes, you can still have fun past the age of 30!!!

I also believe that men should be more open to women closer to their age, and that they should also be open to adoption.

Also a few years ago I was set up with a gal who was 1-2 years older than me, and I perceive that SHE was the one who was at issue with the age difference, not me.

I also have some friends who have children who do have some medical conditions that MAY or may NOT be related to the parents marrying "older." Despite the hardships, I know that they love their children so much that they wouldn't have it any other way.

[27. Susie said the following at 11:03 AM on Mar 7:]

27

The original Luther article was so encouraging, it brightened the day of this 34-year-old single gal. Now I've read the blog and discovered there are never-married Christian men in the world. Things are looking up!

[28. Adam said the following at 11:08 AM on Mar 7:]

28

Ted,

No, Luther didn't mandate marriage for anyone. What Luther is reacting against is the priesthood, and forced celebacy because of a vow. The article says:

In the 1520s, Luther was about 40 years old and still single himself. For an unmarried man, he sure wrote a lot about marriage, arguing that it was not only helpful and honorable, but necessary (except for the very small minority of people gifted and called to singleness). He wrote, "As it is not within my power not to be a man, so it is not my prerogative to be without a woman. Again, as it is not in your power not to be a woman, so it is not your prerogative to be without a man."

Here is what Luther said with regards to the exemption. Notice, he says nothing about people who are "called" to singleness:

In the third place, from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19 [:12], "There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end.

Luther is therefore willing to say that there are, indeed, three people who are exempted from this commandment. Now, how does Luther understand this third category? Luther goes on later to say:

The third category consists of those spiritually rich and exalted persons, bridled by the grace of God, who are equipped for marriage by nature and physical capacity and nevertheless voluntarily remain celibate. These put it this way, "I could marry if I wish, I am capable of it But it does not attract me. I would rather work on the kingdom of heaven, i.e., the gospel, and beget spiritual children." Such persons are rare, not one in a thousand, for they are a special miracle of God. No one should venture on such a life unless he be especially called by God, like Jeremiah [16:2], or unless he finds God's grace to be so powerful within him that the divine injunction, "Be fruitful and multiply," has no place in him.

Luther clearly states that people in the third category voluntarily remain celebate. It is not something where they have no control over whether they remain celebate or not. Luther clearly states that a person who wishes to only begat spiritual children is not sinning. Yet, the "Marriage Mandate" position is that a person cannot do that. They say that, if he has a sex drive at all, it is to drive him towards marriage. Now, why does Luther use such strong language of commanding and necessity in the quotation given by the article? After the quotation of the article, and his explaination of the exemptions given above, Luther then says:

Don't let yourself be fooled on this score, even if you should make ten oaths, vows, covenants, and adamantine or ironclad pledges. For as you cannot solemnly promise that you will not be a man or a woman (and if you should make such a promise it would be foolishness and of no avail since you cannot make yourself something other than what you are), so you cannot promise that you will not produce seed or multiply, unless you belong to one of the three categories mentioned above. And should you make such a promise, it too would be foolishness and of no avail, for to produce seed and to multiply is a matter of God's ordinance [geschöpffe], not your power.

From this you can now see the extent of the validity of all cloister vows. No vow of any youth or maiden is valid before God, except that of a person in one of the three categories which God alone has himself excepted. Therefore, priests, monks, and nuns are duty-bound to forsake their vows whenever they find that God's ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is powerful and strong within them. They have no power by any authority, law, command, or vow to hinder this which God has created within them. If they do hinder it, however, you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication. For they are simply incapable of resisting the word and ordinance of God within them. Matters will take their course as God has ordained.

Notice, that Luther is objecting to the use of vows to remain single. The reason why he uses such strong language is because the Bible never gives "because a I made a vow" as a proper reason for refraining from marriage. He does allow a voluntary refraining from marriage as an acceptable reason for remaining single [however, I would say he would probably want to agree with Calvin about "the gift of continence]. Luther is allowing people to willfully refrain from marriage if they so desire, but is arguing that they cannot make any determination for tomorrow by a rash vow of celebacy. The moment that a person desires to get married, then he is obligated to pursue it.

Also, this one quotation from Martin Luther should remove all doubt as to whether or not Luther was "mandating marriage:"

Here I will let the matter rest and leave to others the task of searching out further benefits and advantages of the estate of marriage. My purpose was only to enumerate those which a Christian can have for conducting his married life in a Christian way, so that, as Solomon says, he may find his wife in the sight of God and obtain favour from the Lord [Prov. 18:22]. In saying this I do not wish to disparage virginity, or entice anyone away from virginity into marriage. Let each one act as he is able, and as he feels it has been given to him by God. I simply wanted to check those scandalmongers who place marriage so far beneath virginity that they dare to say: Even if the children should become holy (I Cor. 7:14], celibacy would still be better. One should not regard any estate as better in the sight of God than the estate of marriage. In a worldly sense celibacy is probably better, since it has fewer cares and anxieties. This is true, however, not for its own sake but in order that the celibate may better be able to preach and care for God's word, as St Paul says in I Corinthians 7 [:32-34]. It is God's word and the preaching which make celibacy, such as that of Christ and of Paul, better than the estate of marriage. In itself, however, the celibate life is far inferior.

Luther, in this very same sermon, says specifically that he does not want to "entice anyone away from virginity into marriage." Yet, that is exactly what mandating marriage does.

In fact, what I find interesting is that, when Luther preached this sermon, he was not married. Hence, if he was mandating marriage, he was accusing himself of sin. I think the author tries to get around this by saying that Luther feared for his life. However, notice in that same sermon, he does not allow that as a reason for someone to remain celebate.

The author of the article tries to get around this by saying that he was being just like the "bachelor to the rapture" men. However, the reality is that Luther was fighting the Catholic priesthood, and thus, the reason why Luther's marriage was so significant, and quite a shock is because Luther not only taught that priests and nuns could get married, he also went out and did it. Apparently, there were some people who discredited him because he believed that preists and nuns could get married, but he himself wasn't doing it. In other words, the reason it satisfied his opponents had nothing to do with a "bachelor to the rapture" mentality, but rather, with the idea that Luther was afraid to do something that he said was right, but which Rome said was taboo. Therefore, they reasoned, did he really consider this to be right? However, when he actually did it, it caused quite a stir.

What I find interesting is that Luther is a forerunner to my own view, the Presbyterian and Reformed view, the "gift of continence." Here is what he wrote in an earlier sermon [1519] with regards to this topic:

If Adam had not fallen, the love of bride and groom would been the loveliest thing. Now this love is not pure either, for admittedly a married partner desires to have the other, yet each seeks to satisfy his desire with the other, and it is this desire which corrupts this kind of love. Therefore, the married state is now no longer pure and free from sin. The temptation of the flesh has become so strong and consuming that marriage may be likened to a hospital for incurables which prevents inmat from falling into graver sin. Before Adam fell it was a simple matter to remain virgin and chaste, but now it is hardly possible, and without special grace from God, quite impossible. For this very reason neither Christ nor the apostles sought to make chastity a matter of obligation. It is true that Christ counseled chastity, and he left it up to each one to test himself, so that if he could not be continent he was free to marry, but if by the grace of God he could be continent, then chastity is better [Lul, 414].

In other words, Luther agrees with Calvin at this point about the basic fact that Christ has told us to be pure. It is the job of each individual to test themselves to see if they need the help of marriage to remain pure. If they do not need that help, then they are free to do either [although celebacy is better]. However, if you need the help of marriage, it is there for you, and you should take it.

Now, of course, this does not mean that a person who is struggling with sexual temptation should just run out and get married. He must test himself to see whether he does not have self control, or has self control, and is just refusing to exercise it.

Hence, I think we should view marriage like we view cold medicine. Cold medicine is there to help us. It takes away the symptoms of our cold, so that we are able to bear it while our body fights the actual cold virus which is the root of the problem. However, it is unable to actually take away the sin. Likewise, marriage takes away the symptoms of sin so that we can easier fight the true disease which is sin. We fight against that with the word of God, and ultimately, the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, while marriage takes away the symptoms of sin, it cannot sanctify. For that, we need to rely upon the finished work of Christ upon the cross.

Now, as far as women and men marrying people who are younger than them, I don't think the Bible forbids it. However, we also must remember that there were things that were acceptable in Luther's culture that were not acceptable today. For instance, a well known Lutheran who lived only about a century later by the name of Johann Sebastian Bach married his cousin. Of course, people shreek in horror when they hear that, but, indeed, that was something that was acceptable at that time. So, I think the discussion should be about whether or not most people should follow cultural norms if they are not found in the Bible.

God Bless,
Adam

[29. Carrie (the original) said the following at 12:33 PM on Mar 7:]

29

Marriage as cold medicine??? Are you joking???
Adam, you seriously believe that marriage cannot sanctify you?? You think, that living the with same woman day in and day out and both of you seeking to obey God, would have no part in the process of sanctification??
I'm sorry, but last time I checked relationships meant sacrifice and dying to self. If you think don't think that is sanctification, then I think you need to look the word up again.

[30. Adam said the following at 1:22 PM on Mar 7:]

30

Carrie,

Let me ask you, if that is the case, then why is it that there are so many unbelieving spouses? Why is it that there are spouses that become apostate, and go off committing adultery with other women? If marriage is something that gives us sanctifying grace, then every married person should be sanctified. However, there are many married people who apostasize, and never come back to the faith. How can that happen if marriage sanctifies?

Remember what I am saying. I am not saying that marriage does not help in the process of sanctification. However, it is not the cure for sin, and it only takes away the symptoms. Yes, being with the same woman every day is something that will, indeed, help in the process of your sanctification. However, it, in and of itself, has no power to sanctify. Only Christ and his shed blood can do that.

The problem is, Carrie, that just because people are in relationships does not mean that they actually *do* have sacrifice and dying to self. There are plenty of selfish married women and men out there. There are plenty of selfish people in relationships who cause a lot of hurt. However, according to your view, that should never happen.

God Bless,
Adam

[31. Eliza said the following at 2:17 PM on Mar 7:]

31

Adam,

I don't think that's what Carrie meant. Obviously just being married doesn't do anything for your holiness if you don't let it. In fact, a person is probably a lot more likely to sin than before! So many more opportunities :).

I think what Carrie meant is that there are indeed so many opportunities where you could sin against another person, and choose not to. This is the process of sanctification.

And I disagree with the analogy about cold medicine. In no way does marriage "take away" the "symptoms" of sin. It more likely exacerbates them. People see so many selfish married people because all of your selfish tendencies are a lot more obvious when you are sharing everything with someone else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only thing that I do get nervous about with large age differences is the whole authoritarian thing. It is more culturally acceptable for a man to be older and treat his wife as a lesser being than it is for a woman to be older and have a younger spouse. In the latter situation there is usually an assumption that there is some kind of manipulation or weirdness going on. And yet, even if you are a "complementarian" rather than an "egalitarian", there is no doubt that a younger wife should be treated with the utmost respect. It is never appropriate to "chastise" or rebuke a wife if the husband is not humble enough to accept equal chastisement...in the same tone of voice. From what I understand about Martin Luther's wife, she was quite able to hold her own in that family!

[32. Dan (my original moniker post#4) said the following at 2:42 PM on Mar 7:]

32

Re Susie (#27) and AEB (#19) and hopefully others:

It is nice to read your encouraging testimonies and to see how it brings you hope. So often on this blog it seems any article encouraging singles to pursue marriage eventually gets bogged down into an argument or debate. Good debates are not always bad, but its the same stuff over and over and over and over...

I say lets hear from others how this Luther/Katherine article gives hope to you.

[33. J. said the following at 2:50 PM on Mar 7:]

33

"On the scientific front, some studies are pointing to increased parental age as a cause for concern: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070830-000004.html. Perhaps we really should be marrying and having children younger after all (yes, I realize this is easier said than done in some cases)."

I meant to use the word paternal in the paragraph above, not parental.

[34. Adam said the following at 3:34 PM on Mar 7:]

34

Eliza,

I think what Carrie meant is that there are indeed so many opportunities where you could sin against another person, and choose not to.

In no way does marriage "take away" the "symptoms" of sin. It more likely exacerbates them.

Ok, I have absolutely no idea how you are going to bring these two together. If marriage exascerbates the symptoms of sin, how can there be more oppertunities to sin, and yet not? It sounds to me that, if it exascerbates the symptoms of sin, then there would not be more opportunities to sin against the other person, and choose not to.

Obviously just being married doesn't do anything for your holiness if you don't let it.

If God gives us sanctifying grace in marriage, and it does not sanctify us, then God has failed. So, then, we have a foundational disagreement. I believe man contributes nothing to his salvation. He does not "let" it. Left to himself, he would never "let" it. Grace is irresistible. Otherwise, man must contribute to his salvation.

In other words, to believe that marriage sanctifies is inherently synergistic. That is the point to which I was driving. That needs to be pointed out to those who are reformed, and yet believe that marriage sanctifies you.

God Bless,
Adam

[35. BDB said the following at 5:56 PM on Mar 7:]

35

Let's see...my boss' daughter married a guy 10 years older. At first, my boss was really unhappy about this - he came into my office wanting to know where young people meet so he could distract his daughter. But in the end, the reality was that his daughter had some health problems and wanted to have kids immediately after college; a guy 10 years older could afford that immediately because he had been putting his financial house in order the whole time.

I really think that many people have unrealistic expectations about how financial things work in this economy. There's so much conflicting advice: if you want to support a family the way many people "expect," with an SUV, house, etc, you need to make $100,000/year and live like you make $50,000/year so that you can save, tithe, etc. appropriately. They way I see it, if you make enough money to support a family, you don't have time to see them. A lot of marriages founder when people finally start to face operational reality and start to realize that they need to adjust their expectations. Sometimes people renew their commitment. Sometimes they decide that they "deserve" something better than reality. I'm certain that the high divorce rate within the church causes people to want to slow down and resist pressure to get married. If there is any pressure.

When you add $120,000 in student loans, then do the math - it's pretty much impossible to support a family for about 10 years, even with modest expectations. When you encounter a woman upset about being single, ask if she'd be willing to marry someone with a $1200/month student loan payment who works 12 hours a day. Their reaction is usually about as positve as asking if they'd marry someone with a chronic but manageable disease.

(Incidentally, I used this argument once with someone. He had two law school offers, one with free tuition. He wanted to get student loans and go to the more prestigious school. His parents asked me to talk to him. What I told him was that if he had $60,000 in student loans it would significantly reduce his flexibility in getting married, and probably force him to take an unpleasant job working 60-70 hours/week. He kind of choked on that, but went to the law school with free tuition. I haven't told his parents what I said to convince him.)

Aside from financial expectations, I really feel for Motte losing his parents at such a young age. I'm sure that people's experience within their own family is what creates (or doesn't create) a sense of urgency.

Not only are all four of my parents (two by acquisition) quite healthy, but my grandparents are 92 and still driving and arguing politics. Perhaps this is why I have three older cousins who are unmarried (and own their own homes). It creates a much different expectation about life.

[36. Lora said the following at 7:29 PM on Mar 7:]

36

My gramma was 3 years older than my grampa, but she didn't tell him how old she was until after they were engaged, lol.

[37. Amanda L said the following at 10:27 PM on Mar 7:]

37

My dad is eight years older than my mom, but as far as I have seen, they have always been on a level playing field.
They both have different areas of maturity that level eachother out.
My dad doesnt patronize my mom because she's younger, and she doesnt treat him like her dad because he's older.
Oh, and my mom's father was 12 years older than her mom.
They had some issues, but more related to some bad habits than their difference in ages.

[38. BDB said the following at 12:39 AM on Mar 8:]

38

Thinking about Kelly (#7)'s comments, there are something that help bridge the experience difference.

In the example gave, my boss' wife is a cancer survivor. When his daughter met her future husband, he was working through his mom's battle with terminal cancer. So, they both had their expectations shaped by that. It tends to put a lot of other things into perspective.

In contrast, I know another couple that had a pretty fast courtship - they got married within about one year of meeting, not unlike Ted's article about how that's possible.

Unfortunately, it's not working. She's already pregnant; he can't handle it and started drinking a lot more, so they're separated and talking divorce.

Ironically, this girl's dad is one of those "Wild at Heart" guys who is really big on men being Men and taking initiative. Well, his daughter married someone like that, then hit a wall...

[39. Rachael said the following at 12:46 AM on Mar 8:]

39

Chris,

Thanks for your kind encouragement! It's really neat that you and your special person are enjoying each others' 'silliness'... :)

Thanks again!

[40. Childless single woman said the following at 8:17 AM on Mar 8:]

40

Luther is certainly mandating marriage, except for those that either are eunuchs or have renounced marriage and made themselves eunuchs in order to serve God in a manner which would not accommodate a wife and family.
This is entirely consistent with what we know of as the "marriage mandate" position. As Luther points out, the voluntary exemptions affect "not one in a thousand", and as I doubt very much that the "not one in a thousand" would be bothering much with the Boundless blog anyway, for our purposes here, I would say it was actually quite irrelevant.
Marriage is mandated in the Bible, as Luther clearly points out.
Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so.
I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.

[41. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:00 AM on Mar 8:]

41

Eliza got my drift: marriage is a means of sanctification.

Since I'm reformed, Adam, I'll point out the flaw in your logic: we have nothing to do with sanctification/salvation.
One of the touchstones of the reformed faith is "We were saved, are being saved, and will continue to be saved". So, Adam, you never asked Jesus into your heart? If you never asked Jesus into your heart, how can you be saved?
If you did, then you were not a passive agent in salvation.
Yes, God's grace is irresistible, to those who are willed to see such a thing.
What about worship? Are you a passive agent in worship? The hymns . . . who is singing them? Are you? If you sing hymns, again, you are not a passive agent in salvation or sanctification. You get to choose.
So it is with marriage. Marriage can be good. God says marriage is good. If the Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth and Giver of Life who can "snuff you out before lunch"(to quote my landlord) says something is good, by golly, I'm going to believe Him.
So, marriage is good. Therefore it is a means ordained by God to sanctify His people. People can choose to destroy marriage as our current society has demonstrated. However, if people choose to do good by an institution that is held together by God, then they are participating in the means of sanctification that God has willed for them.

[42. Becky said the following at 4:36 PM on Mar 8:]

42

I have a hard time with the "marriage as cold medicine" analogy. Cold medicine is something unpleasant,something *I* tend to avoid until so utterly miserable I can't function. I down it quickly, immediately rinsing my mouth, trying to forget the experience and move on as quickly as possible.

I would think (being single, I have *NO* room to talk) that marriage would be a partnership- two individuals with shared hopes and dreams uniting to make them come true. If I marry, I hope that my marriage and home will be a place of refreshment and rest. That my husband and I will care for each other when we are weak, and remind each other of God's sovereignty and beauty, that we will be more effective at expanding God's kingdom together than we would be separately. Will there be more opportunities to sin? Yes. But there will also be more accountability, a person with skin on to whom we are responsible. There is more potential to sin, but also the strength of two individuals united to resist.

[43. Eliza said the following at 9:04 PM on Mar 8:]

43

Adam,

"Exacerbate" means "to intensify, inflame, or worsen". So, I was just saying that marriage intensifies the opportunities for sin. It does this because the "iron sharpening iron" effect, which is common among Christian community, is accentuated.

I probably shouldn't have responded to your original comment because I don't really want to argue with you anymore. We obviously have fundamentally different ideas of how the world works and continuing to verbally disagree is not going to be helpful.

[44. Ame said the following at 1:30 AM on Mar 9:]

44

Christina #23 ... my mother is exactly 20 years older than I, my father three years older than she ... for that reason I have found it "creepy" to think about being married to a man whose age would be closer to my parents' than mine.

[45. kaj said the following at 12:40 PM on Mar 9:]

45

I personally agree with Christina (in green) {Comment #23} and Ame (Comment #44) in regards to age preferences.

I am 31.05833 years old at the time of this post, and I would prefer a man who is slightly older, but not old enough to be my father!

As the female who is supposed to let the man "take the lead" and do her share of "submission," I would feel awkward having someone younger than me tell me what to do!

I am looking for someone who can be a true partner and to whom we can together combine our experiences and God-given talents in marriage.

I have not deliberately "put off" marriage. I hoped someone would find me at the Christian college I attended, where there were a fairly high concentration of Christians, let alone those in my denomination of choice.

That did not happen. I was interested in all kinds of guys who I felt had good character, common interests, etc., but it seems I was more interested in them than they were in me. I was involved in many campus activities and minstries, so I wasn't just hiding in a hole studying somewhere. In fact, I think I may have even sacrificed my academic performance for some social opportunities.

When I left college and moved back to my hometown, there were even fewer guys that could be considered. Most of them had married and/or left the hometown, or even left the church altogether.

(I did, on two separate occasions serve in international volunteer missions, and one of the rules of the organization I went with discouraged dating colleagues or the people I served, as it could be distracting and/or detracting from my missionary service).

Through pressure of some well-meaning friends, I even tried online dating. I was discouraged to be "hit on" by many men considerably older than me, practically turned down by guys my age, and one my age turned out to be emotionally needy (on top of that, he was still living with his parents!).

To further frustrate me, I kept getting "hit on" by divorced men, especially considerably older men (like 40-50).

(to the divorced people out there, this is not aimed at you. I hope God continues to heal and bless you).

While there are some who were truly abandoned by unfaithful wives, the online sites I tried did not disclose their reasons why they are divorced. I believe Scripture backs me up on wanting someone who has not been through divorce.

On top of that, my parents are divorced, and my experience of being a pre-stepchild (my mom and stepfather dated for four years before getting married) has considerably biased me against marrying someone who is divorced and/or already has children. I don't want to put any kids through that.

So, I feel a discouraged in that I feel like I have "saved myself" for marriage, and all I get to do is pick through the "leftovers." I see some dear friends of mine have happy marriages to people their own age, and I say to myself, "why can't I have that, too." I feel pressured to just "settle" and be "open-minded." I have tried to make wise choices in relationships, and this is the thanks I get?

[46. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:00 PM on Mar 9:]

46

Ame,

Now to find out if it would be worth it to overcome that inhibition towards guys 10+ years older than ourselves :)

[47. Adam said the following at 3:18 PM on Mar 9:]

47

Carrie,

Since I'm reformed, Adam, I'll point out the flaw in your logic: we have nothing to do with sanctification/salvation.
One of the touchstones of the reformed faith is "We were saved, are being saved, and will continue to be saved". So, Adam, you never asked Jesus into your heart? If you never asked Jesus into your heart, how can you be saved?
If you did, then you were not a passive agent in salvation.
Yes, God's grace is irresistible, to those who are willed to see such a thing.

Then, no, you are not reformed. That reminds me of Norman Geisler saying that God's grace is irresistable on the willing. That is not what irresistable grace means. It means that, when God chooses to save us, including the events that happen in our sanctification, that grace cannot be resisted by those to whom grace has been given.

What about worship? Are you a passive agent in worship? The hymns . . . who is singing them? Are you? If you sing hymns, again, you are not a passive agent in salvation or sanctification. You get to choose.

The only reason I worship God is because he has given me grace, and changed my heart so that I love him, and thus, desire to worship him. Otherwise, I would never worship him, because of the fact that I am totally unable to do so. It is only God's grace that frees me from this inability, and effectually enables me to worship God.

So, marriage is good. Therefore it is a means ordained by God to sanctify His people. People can choose to destroy marriage as our current society has demonstrated. However, if people choose to do good by an institution that is held together by God, then they are participating in the means of sanctification that God has willed for them.

Well, then, you have just left the reformed communion all together, because now you are saying that marriage is a means of grace, and the only group that says that are the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

As I said, this is not reformed at all. This is not irresistable grace, and it is not how it has been defined historically. Irresistable grace means that, to whoever God freely decides to give his grace, that grace cannot be resisted by the sinner. In fact, R.C. Sproul one time said that it is much better termed "effectual grace," that is, grace always produces its desired effect.

Not only that, but now, how do you avoid the charge of synergism? If you believe that grace is only irresistable on people who are willing, then does that not mean that our salvation is partially dependent upon God's will, and partially dependent upon your will?

God Bless,
Adam

[48. Adam said the following at 3:50 PM on Mar 9:]

48

CSW,

Luther is certainly mandating marriage, except for those that either are eunuchs or have renounced marriage and made themselves eunuchs in order to serve God in a manner which would not accommodate a wife and family.

Where does Luther say, "accomidate a wife and family?" In fact, Luther specifically uses the phrase "willfully refrain" when he is talking about those who have made themselves unichs for the kingdom of God.

This is entirely consistent with what we know of as the "marriage mandate" position. As Luther points out, the voluntary exemptions affect "not one in a thousand", and as I doubt very much that the "not one in a thousand" would be bothering much with the Boundless blog anyway, for our purposes here, I would say it was actually quite irrelevant.

Actually, Luther never said that they would always be "not one in a thousand," but that they *are* "not one in a thousand." He is talking about his time, at the time of the reformation, when he was dealing with the issue of the priesthood. Nowhere does Luther even attempt to bring that out of this text.

Marriage is mandated in the Bible, as Luther clearly points out.
Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so.
I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.

As far as Luther "mandating marriage" he was only mandating it for those who currently desire it. That was the point of my original post. That has nothing to do with a person who wants to wait until his late thirties to marry, and can do so in a God honoring fashion. Again, it is amazing to see the anachronism being read into Luther in order to service a particular solution to a social problem.

No one needs to have a "good reason" for delaying marriage, because the Bible doesn't teach that it is a sin. There is not a single text in the entire Bible that says in vocabulary or concept that delay of marriage is a sin. That is a modern invention from people who are looking at the Bible through the lens of the culture, rather than looking at the culture through the lens of the Bible. We need to be careful that we look at sociological problems from a Biblical perspective, and not read our bitterness and proposed solutions back into the text of the Bible.

Finally, CSW, you never addressed the fact that Luther later on in the exact same sermon says that he does not wish to entice anyone away from virginity into marriage. How can you say that if you believe that this is what this sermon is about?

God Bless,
Adam

[49. Adam said the following at 3:56 PM on Mar 9:]

49

I have a hard time with the "marriage as cold medicine" analogy. Cold medicine is something unpleasant,something *I* tend to avoid until so utterly miserable I can't function. I down it quickly, immediately rinsing my mouth, trying to forget the experience and move on as quickly as possible.

Lol

To clarify, I think that what I was trying to point out is the idea of marriage in relationship to sanctification. Marriage can remove the external sins, but it cannot remove the inner evil desires of the heart. That is the point. For that, you need the grace of God through the shed blood of Christ on the cross. That bonding that Becky is talking about can remove the external manifestations of that sin because there is more accountability, but it cannot remove the internal evil within the heart. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can do that.

God Bless,
Adam

[50. Paul H said the following at 4:12 PM on Mar 9:]

50

Adam said:

Luther is allowing people to willfully refrain from marriage if they so desire, but is arguing that they cannot make any determination for tomorrow by a rash vow of celebacy. The moment that a person desires to get married, then he is obligated to pursue it.

...

It is the job of each individual to test themselves to see if they need the help of marriage to remain pure. If they do not need that help, then they are free to do either [although celebacy is better]. However, if you need the help of marriage, it is there for you, and you should take it.

Adam, in stating that a man is free to "pursue" and "take" a wife, you should have included the proviso, "if God lets him get married." Because, of course, God has ordained for some men to desire, pursue, and even need marriage, but then He withholds it from them, according to His sovereign will. Right?

;)

[51. Kelly said the following at 6:51 PM on Mar 9:]

51

kaj - I have such a similar story! I feel like I'm being presented with the 'leftovers' when I've tried to make Biblical choices the whole way through.

Perhaps God wants us to learn humility and sacrifice by marrying a divorced man. Perhaps we are prideful and arrogant for hoping for someone without baggage, after all, we are also sinners (just in different ways).

Of course this makes me think, "It's just not fair!" but that's the reality of a fallen world.

---

I was a little horrified to read in some of the above comments that older men will deliberately exclude women in their age group because they want children. Women don't have that CHOICE, the choice was biologically taken from them. And it seems like they're being penalized for something they had no control over.

Imagine a law that enforced people marrying someone within 3 years age of themselves. If men had that same biological-clock-desperation that women do when they approach 40, I wonder if we'd see a lot more marriages?

[52. obewan said the following at 7:38 AM on Mar 10:]

52

CSW at #40 Writes:
“Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so. I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.”

Not a Godly lifestyle? Isn’t that a bit harsh? What about Boaz in the Bible? To be fair, you would need to apply the same logic to women who have gone several decades without marrying, which I would refuse to do.

In many of your posts, you SAY there is a shortage of MEN. Fine. My experience has shown me there is a shortage of NON-DIVORCED single women.

As I said in other posts, in my past I was involved in support of the military. The church (near a large base) that I attended, had a ratio (at the worst times) of 12:1 men to women in the under age 30 singles group. Beyond, age 30 the ratio flipped in favor of the men, but virtually all of the women were divorced.

I was stuck in that situation until age 35, and had only one real “girlfriend” (that was very contentious). I can count the number of “dates” over a 12-year span on one hand. True, there was MAYBE one unattractive spinster that I MIGHT have hooked up with, but at the time what was I supposed to do? Fake my feelings and lead her on because she was the only option?

Now, if I “choose to delay” marriage it is because 97% of the single women in our church group are divorced. Would you say that marriage to a divorced woman is a Godlier lifestyle than life as a celibate single? If you can not accept the fact that I face a real shortage of options, then that forces me to feel the same way about women who claim there is a shortage of men in the church.

[53. John D. said the following at 8:51 AM on Mar 10:]

53

Childless single woman (post 40) wrote:

" ... Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife."

Frankly, that's not very helpful for those of us who find ourselves in that situation. Suppose that in my forties I really am making an effort to find a wife. Now you're telling women to avoid me like the plague because, for one reason or another, I have not yet married.

Do you want me to continue to be single?

[54. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:52 AM on Mar 10:]

54

Obewan:

I hear ya, and my experiences are very similar to yours. Personally, I think it's a larger demographic issue than anything else, and I try to avoid assigning blame to one sex over the other.

After all, both sexes have their issues.

I have a few single women from other locales who chime in on my blog space from time to time. One says there are plenty of single men in her church, but she's not interested in any of them, yet complains that she is 28 and not married. Go figure!

Another is in another metro area, far to the north of me, in her late 20s, and says she wants a full-time career even when she has kids. She took exception with a Heather Koerner post on these pages, and--yes, Ted, you read this correctly--I actually stuck up for Boundless on that one.

In my church experiences, most of the unmarried women in my age bracket are either (a) old enough to be my mom, (b) divorced, or (c) both (a) and (b).

I don't want to say that my particular experience is reflective of the general any more than Debbie Maken's experiences are reflective of the general, but I do suggest that the 60%/40% mantra--often touted by the mandaters--falls short of any reasonable standard of intellectual honesty.

When you break them down by age group--in terms of never marrieds--you get a different picture. Even then, it may vary from congregation to congregation. (This would account for Maken's experiences and yours and mine.)

I've heard women who complain that the single men aren't going to church. While I don't doubt their stories for a second, I've also seen my fair share of women in the Church spurn single Christian men for non-believers.

Both sexes have their issues. Ergo, I avoid the blame game. And I am always ready to provide an earful when people wish to get prejudicial with me.

[55. Paul H said the following at 9:05 AM on Mar 10:]

55

Adam said: The only reason I worship God is because he has given me grace, and changed my heart so that I love him, and thus, desire to worship him. Otherwise, I would never worship him, because of the fact that I am totally unable to do so. It is only God's grace that frees me from this inability, and effectually enables me to worship God.

That must be terribly gratifying and enriching to God: to receive your love and worship only because he makes you love and worship Him. Oh, I forgot, He cannot be enriched... because He cannot feel passion... because he cannot change in any way.

Thank you Calvin, Augustine and Aristotle!

[56. Ro said the following at 9:46 AM on Mar 10:]

56

The post and article remind me of a debate that’s been raging in my head for a while:)
I’m not sure if desiring marriage is actually a good thing. Or at least, so we are often told, particularly by the married women in the church.

For one, I know I wish I could go back to my college days when I didn’t really have a strong desire to want marriage. Mainly, because in the past two years that I have been desiring marriage, I wish that I didn’t desire marriage. Mainly because sometimes, well, it just gets painful wanting it. I’d far rather I didn’t want it..

If you’re doing all you can to make marriage happen, and you’ve praying about it for years – surely you can conclude that at that time – God just doesn’t want you married? For whatever reason? That seeking marriage (which is a Godly thing to do), and being denied it, you have to realize that God just wants you single. For the next year or two, or however many he may choose. The evidence strongly seems to suggest that God does want people single sometimes, often (as is my case) for large parts of your twenties. It is with sadness that I realized that the blessings of rejoicing in the wife/bridegroom of your youth are clearly not meant for all of us.

So, to me, there seem to be more categories:
1. Those who choose to be single because they are gifted with celibacy, and can work better for the kingdom as singles
2. Those who marry, as they are not gifted for celibacy
3. Those who do not have a choice. They simply don’t have the choice. They may seek marriage, but find themselves single for years/decades. But clearly, because God is sovereign – he wants them single – and not to be married in those years, despite their lack of gifting towards celibacy. (And as pointed out by Luther, being tripped up by sexual sin, even though they don’t want to be…)

For me personally, I wish that I didn’t value marriage highly, because then it wouldn’t matter to me that I was still single. I just prefer (and was much happier) in those days before I started seeking the Godly goal of marriage. I was happier not knowing that it was something I should be seeking, rather than being aware that its something I should be seeking and being continually frustrated in my efforts at pursuing it. I long with nostalgia for my pre-wanting/seeking marriage days.

On another note, I’m not sure that wanting marriage is a good thing, because I am often told that those who want marriage appear needy, and those who are most likely to get married are the girls who are completely content in their singleness. So if I could only keep trying hard enough to want marriage less – it seems I might have a better chance of marriage. Which leads me to believe, that wanting marriage, if only to avoid the pain caused by unfulfilled deeply held desires, is something I would rather not want…

[57. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:46 AM on Mar 10:]

57

CSW says:

Men delaying marriage is not a Godly lifestyle, and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife. Luther had a good reason for doing so.
I doubt there is any other man reading this blog that does.

Well, CSW...

(1) Do you extend the same sentiments toward those Christian women in the Church who spurn single Christians for nonbelievers? I can point to no small number of those cases, and it is overwhelmingly the women at fault on that one.

(2) Do you honestly think it is just a matter of a man "deciding" to find a wife? Our society isn't nearly as Patriarchal as Luther's was. While I wish it were, you probably don't.

(3) Do you extend the same judgments against women who spurn marriage in favor of career and decide--only when they are in their 30s--that they want to make room for a husband? I know no small number of them.

(4) Do you extend the same judgments against women who--in spite of having no small number of single men in their churches--refuse to date any of them, complaining that they are not interested?

(5) Do you extend the same judgments against women who wait late in life to marry, then when they find a Christian man, decide they are not "romantically attracted."

I say none of this to pick on the women, but I would suggest that anyone who aims solely at one gender is ranting one-sidedly.

Recently, I had someone ask me why I'm not married yet. I was in a congregation of about 200 people. I kindly asked her if she knew any single women in the church.

She said didn't know of any.

I then told her that this is the story of my church experience, and that even the new methods--such as eHarmony and Match.com and others--are not all they're cracked up to be.

I once said--half-jokingly--that what we need to do is get all the women with no men in their church into the same church where we have a bunch of men with no women. Ultimately, I'd suggest that the problem is more regional.

In some areas, it's the men spurning the women; in others, it's the women spurning the men. That dynamic is an economic reality that prevails when one group outnumbers the other.

Churches ought to be on the lookout for that, as such abuses are real and they do promote cynicism among the Body.

[58. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:35 AM on Mar 10:]

58

Adam, being "willed" and being "willing" are two different things.
When I said "willed", I meant that to imply that the Lord willed you into submission to His grace. Once the Lord willed it, you became willing.
I think, Adam, you are falling into the pitfalls of Reformed thinking. You are looking this as an either/or issue. "Either God has everything to do with it or Man has everything to do with it". I'm saying it's a both/and.
Since you are reformed, then I'm sure you familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Let me point WCF IX. 4.
"4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil."
We can't not respond and be participating in our salvation and sanctification. The great reformers (Martin Luther, Calvin, etc.) would agree.
And, I'll still stick by my "marriage is a means of grace". Just because the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people say it, doesn't make it wrong. They believe Christ was crucified too, should we not believe them on that issue??

[59. Jennifer said the following at 2:11 PM on Mar 10:]

59

About age differences in marriage, here are the facts, from the 1999 U.S. Census figures:

Slightly over 60% of all couples marry within 3 years of each other. About 13.8% of men marry women 4-5 years younger than themselves, and 12.3% are 6-9 years older than their wives. Only 7.2% of men marry someone younger by 10 years or more (Like Motte and Ted). Only 6.4% of women are 4 or more years older than their husbands.

What does this mean? Expecting to marry someone significantly younger is not a realistic ambition for either sex.

Stories about 70 year old first time brides are NOT inspiring-- they merely highlight the fact that more and more Christian women are living most of their lives without marriage, mostly due to the shortage of single men in the church. A shortage that exists regardless of the protestations of those guys who claim that their churchis the exception.

Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives, as these census figures reveal that these situations are exceptions to the rule. What's more, men who think that waiting years to marry will improve their chances of scoring a "better" (younger, more attractive) wife are oblivious to the fact that a lot of those older guys have made significant compromises for their younger brides (ie. younger but not necessarily attractive, previously married with children, a different culture or socio-economic group).

The biblical example of marrying "the wife of your youth" exists for a reason.

[60. BDB said the following at 2:26 PM on Mar 10:]

60

CSW (#40) wrote:

>>and Christian women should think very carefully before dating a man that has managed to live many decades beyond sexual maturity, before deciding to find a wife.<<

Ok, so what would you say are acceptable reasons for men to delay marraige? Graduate school? Military deployment overseas?

Sin can certainly impact marriage - but you don't really think that women are sinless, do you?

Men who take initiative aggressively are more likely to get married earlier; and advance in their career, and get divorced as the put their career first. But they're good at taking initiative, so they don't hesitate to hit on women 20 years younger.

Women make different choices that reduce their marriage prospects. In a 1981 book, "Mark of a Man," Elisabeth Elliot warns men to not marry any woman who considers her career to be more important to, or as important as, marriage and family. She acknowledges that this a dogmatic position to take, and spends a chapter explaining what steps a husband must take to support an intelligent woman who takes this route.

At first I was shocked to read that. But upon discussion with several women I know with graduate degrees, I learned that they had deliberately chosen fields that were compatible with motherhood: education, nursing, allied health, even accounting/bookkeeping. My sister works part time - as an audiologist - it requires a doctorate (Au.D.) but has the same flexible hours as a part time job in an office or retail. Pays quite a bit better, too. But she deliberately chose something compatible with motherhood. I didn't find this out until 10 years later.

In contrast, some women deliberately choose careers that are too demanding to be compatible with marriage/motherhood. A lot of MBA students are in this category. They follow the work hard/play hard mantra; and by play hard I mean lots of alcohol on cruises, ski vacations, etc. My pastor would say, "Attempting to fill the void." This is probably why so few women seek MBA programs; the jobs that MBA are hired for typically require 50-80 hours/week. I had a few frank discussions with my MBA professors about this, and they were saddened by how many of their former students were divorced because they put their career first.

Yes, the reasons why people are single are important. But from what I've seen, both men and women can choose to serve money instead of serving God. Everyone must choose.

[61. Ted Slater said the following at 4:12 PM on Mar 10:]

61

Jennifer wrote, "Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives."

I don't think Motte's wife is significantly younger than he is.

I don't think I've ever "boasted" that my wife is 12 years younger than I am. She just is. And I didn't "acquire" her; we married each other.

I'm fine with my having married Ashleigh. And I think I provide encouragement for men who've found themselves a bit older and still want to marry. And perhaps my story may serve as a warning to some women who are *intentionally* putting off marriage for some particular reason; they may be passed by by a man her age, who may be looking for someone with more vigor and youthfulness.

But I don't think I've ever "boasted," and I'm not "boasting" now. It is what it is, as they say....

[62. Jennifer said the following at 4:14 PM on Mar 10:]

62

Adam quotes Luther:

"If Adam had not fallen, the love of bride and groom would been the loveliest thing. Now this love is not pure either, for admittedly a married partner desires to have the other, yet each seeks to satisfy his desire with the other, and it is this desire which corrupts this kind of love. Therefore, the married state is now no longer pure and free from sin. The temptation of the flesh has become so strong and consuming that marriage may be likened to a hospital for incurables which prevents inmat from falling into graver sin. Before Adam fell it was a simple matter to remain virgin and chaste, but now it is hardly possible, and without special grace from God, quite impossible. For this very reason neither Christ nor the apostles sought to make chastity a matter of obligation. It is true that Christ counseled chastity, and he left it up to each one to test himself, so that if he could not be continent he was free to marry, but if by the grace of God he could be continent, then chastity is better [Lul, 414]."

And then says:

"In other words, Luther agrees with Calvin at this point about the basic fact that Christ has told us to be pure. It is the job of each individual to test themselves to see if they need the help of marriage to remain pure. If they do not need that help, then they are free to do either [although celebacy is better]. However, if you need the help of marriage, it is there for you, and you should take it."

First of all, as far as Luther agreeing with Calvin, I think that Luther predates Calvin, does he not?

Secondly, we must be reminded that although these are our venerable reformers, their writings are not infallible and beyond reproach. I doubt that many contemporary theologians would regard ordinary fleshly desire in marriage to be "impure". Again, we must look to scripture, which says in 1 Cor 7:36 that if a virgin marries "he sinneth not".

And nowhere does Christ or anyone else in scripture suggest that we "test ourselves" to see if we need "the help of marriage to remain pure". That sounds downright DANGEROUS, and a bit "fleecy", imho.

Christ offers the option of for an individual to choose to remain single for the sake of kingdom work, but He does not suggest that celibacy is better than marriage. As Luther did correctly say, "One should not regard any estate as better in the sight of God than the estate of marriage. In a worldly sense celibacy is probably better, since it has fewer cares and anxieties. This is true, however, not for its own sake but in order that the celibate may better be able to preach and care for God's word, as St Paul says in I Corinthians 7 [:32-34]. It is God's word and the preaching which make celibacy, such as that of Christ and of Paul, better than the estate of marriage. In itself, however, the celibate life is far inferior." And in Paul's case, he is discussing its advantages "for the sake of the present distress (v. 26, 28).

Whether or not marriage is a means to sanctifying the individual isn't really relevant. The Bible is as concerned with moral state of its early communities as we are today. And so it's messages about marriage are directed to the masses, and for good reason. It's common sense that societies that see a drop in marriage rates among their youth (ie. during wartime, eg. WWII), see increases in premarital sex and its related social and spiritual ills (Romans 1:26).

So although the scriptures do not say specifically to the individual that you need a good reason to delay marriage, it raises larger questions about whether we are being good stewards of our bodies to delay marriage, without much "begatting" of "spiritual children". Fair questions, I would think. So Adam, I don't know where you get the idea that Boundless or anyone else you call "marriage mandate" is opposed to those (with sex drives or not) being single for the sake of doing kingdom work.

And if challenging individuals to ask themselves about their reasons for delaying marriage (and the consequences for doing so) makes one "marriage mandate", then sign me up. Despite some differences in views, I'll gladly join the good company of Luther, who said: "Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end."

He couldn't have made it any clearer than that.

[63. Jennifer said the following at 4:53 PM on Mar 10:]

63

Paul H said:

"Adam, in stating that a man is free to "pursue" and "take" a wife, you should have included the proviso, "if God lets him get married." Because, of course, God has ordained for some men to desire, pursue, and even need marriage, but then He withholds it from them, according to His sovereign will. Right?"

It is true that despite someone's best efforts, they might not get married. But the Bible does not includes these kinds of provisos, particularly when it talks about marriage, which is almost always discussed in terms of human effort and volition (ie. Proverbs 18:22, 1 Cor 7:9, 36, 39, 1 Cor 9:5). Why? Perhaps because the Lord could forsee the immobilization and fatalism created by late 20th century "let-God-write-your-love-story" kinds of teachings.

[64. BDB said the following at 5:24 PM on Mar 10:]

64

Incidentally, this is not a new phenomenon. Elisabeth Elliot wrote a newsletter article about men delaying marriage and women frustrated when they were passed over for younger women. She wrote the article in 1990.

http://www.elisabethelliot.org/newsletters2/jan.feb.1990.pdf

At first I thought this was before Nintendo was invented, so EE couldn't blame video games. But it turns out that Nintendo was founded in 1889. Before men played video games, they were out playing cards I guess...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo

[65. Rachael said the following at 5:28 PM on Mar 10:]

65

Re: "leftovers"

For people who feel they are a "leftover" or only have to choose from "leftovers":

Remember that God works in amazing ways and that His power doesn't rest upon human power.

Moses didn't feel confident about his speech. Midwives saved infants. Matthew was a tax collector. Rahab was a prostitute. Peter denied Christ. Paul persecuted Christians. David committed adultery and had Bathsheba's husband put in a situation where he'd die. The Levites didn't have land. Here are some smatterings from last year's Sunday School notes: "God's pattern of salvation always involves suffering. Joseph was in the pit. Christ was in the dark because [He was] removed from the Father", "God chooses the weak", "God chose the lesser, the weak, the 2nd born. The Abel. The Isaac. Jacob chooses Rachel's son as [the] 1st born."

...As the Lord said to Paul in 2 Cor. 12:9: "But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'"

Is there suffering in the waiting process? Remind yourself of the numerous passages in scripture on trial, on suffering, on endurance, on the precious faith that can be beautified through trial, on the hope up ahead, on Christ's sufferings, on the power of the Holy Spirit...

What a precious, precious faith we have! I'd take that over marriage anyday. Would I take my faith over marriage every moment? In theory, yes, but perhaps more often than not my concerns get the better of me so that I lose focus on what truly matters. May we be reminded of our faith moment by moment. As the song goes: "I need Thee every hour." Not just, "I need Thee in theory of knowing You are better than marriage," but, "I need Thee every hour."

And on another note. What types of people do you care about? Are you sensitive to the underdog, to the weak, to the mariginalized, to the oppressed? Do those types of people grab your heart...maybe my thought is too abstract, but, if we feel somehow 'marginalized' (we don't need to, but our heart may tell us otherwise) by being older unmarried singles...in a way...how cool is that?! (I know, a 'band-aid solution' that only scratches the surface.) It might help fuel our passion for the marginalized by BEING one of "them"...in a way...isn't that kind-of cool? In a way, being one of "them" means that "they" are one of "us"....bridging the gap....

Maybe my thought is too abstract...

But for what it's worth....

[66. BDB said the following at 5:40 PM on Mar 10:]

66

You know, there is another economic cause of delayed marriage. There was a time before student loans.

My grandfather and siblings, including the girls, went to college in the depression. They took turns, the others working to put one through school. It worked.

I know of other people of previous generations who did the same thing: their wives worked to put the husband through school, then his salary was enough to support he family on one income.

I never met any women my age in college - or since - who would consider part of their life's plan being putting their husband through school to avoid student loans. If I had, it would have definitely gotten my attention...

[67. Jennifer said the following at 6:03 PM on Mar 10:]

67

Amir,

Both sexes may have their issues, but not every issue is a 50/50 thing.

Acknowledging that there's a shortage of men in our churches is not a "blame game", it's a statistically demonstrable fact. Check out the enrollment breakdown for Christian colleges on ChristianCollegeGuide.net:

San Diego Christian College: m-40%, f-60%
Bethel College: m-36.14%, f-63.86%
Baylor University: m-43.57%, f-56.43%
Trinity Christian College: m-36.48%, f-63.52%
Trinity International University: m-41.67%, f- 58.33%

(you'll find higher number of males for those listed that are seminaries and graduate schools).

So as far as breaking things down by age group, college rolls give you a pretty similar picture to what's going on in most churches, on the young adult front. Churchformen.com identifies young unmarried men as being the most unchurched of all demongraphic groups.

You seem to want people to understand how difficult it has been for you as a single man, but when you deny and minimize something that's as obvious as the shortage of single men in our churches, well, it doesn't bring much credibility to your cause. Nor does complaining about the exceptionally picky (men can be picky too, and most Christian women have lowered standards when it comes to looks and charm because of the man shortage, which works in the favor of the guys) and overambitious career women, who are few and far in Christian circles. Some rogue blogs have even suggested that the shortage of men in our churches is the fault of the women!

For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them. I believe that this is the main reason why we have a man shortage in the church.

Of the "good guys" who remain in church, we really do need to avoid the "blame game" because it is harder for some than others to find wives, and we just don't know every individual's personal situation. But that doesn't mean that the "man shortage" must be something that we never speak about.

Indeed, single Christian women are in a unique situation, than when it's not acknowledged, can result in women unduly blaming themselves for their lack of romantic success and, like Ro, mistakenly believing that God does want them to desire marriage, which is absolutely heartbreaking.

[68. Paul H said the following at 6:30 PM on Mar 10:]

68

Jennifer #63 -- In case you weren't sure, my comment to Adam was pure sarcasm. :)

You said: "It is true that despite someone's best efforts, they might not get married."

True; but it wouldn't be because God didn't "let" him get married.

"...the Bible does not includes these kinds of provisos, particularly when it talks about marriage, which is almost always discussed in terms of human effort and volition (ie. Proverbs 18:22, 1 Cor 7:9, 36, 39, 1 Cor 9:5)."

Indeed.

"Why? Perhaps because the Lord could forsee the immobilization and fatalism created by late 20th century "let-God-write-your-love-story" kinds of teachings."

That, and because He's not in the business of writing our love stories. He's created us in His likeness, possessing a will -- which we are free to exercise in marrying, not marrying, or deciding whom to marry.

And He also isn't in the business of sabotaging our efforts to get married in order to teach us a lesson (like that we shouldn't want to get married too much), as Adam believes.

[69. J. said the following at 6:32 PM on Mar 10:]

69

Ted wrote:

"And perhaps my story may serve as a warning to some women who are *intentionally* putting off marriage for some particular reason; they may be passed by by a man her age, who may be looking for someone with more vigor and youthfulness."

Ted, I hope you realize how angry the sentence above will make many of your female readers and that you're prepared for the fallout.

How many single, never-married Christian women do you TRULY know who are intentionally delaying marriage? During my 10+ years of post-college singleness, in all my dealings with numerous single, never-married women of various denominational backgrounds, I have never met ONE.

I'm going to stop typing before I write something that would be deemed unfit for posting.

[70. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:33 PM on Mar 10:]

70

Jennifer says:

Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives, as these census figures reveal that these situations are exceptions to the rule. What's more, men who think that waiting years to marry will improve their chances of scoring a "better" (younger, more attractive) wife are oblivious to the fact that a lot of those older guys have made significant compromises for their younger brides (ie. younger but not necessarily attractive, previously married with children, a different culture or socio-economic group).

As someone who has kicked Ted around as much as anyone over the past month or so, I'd say you're not being fair to Ted (Or Motte for that matter).

Quite frankly, there is plenty of Biblical precedence for a man marrying younger. Is it the ideal? I dunno. Would I recommend it in every case? Probably not.

On the other hand, I will say this much. If I come across a marriageable Christian gal, whose age is much lower than mine, the age difference will not stop me.

If you object, then you'd better be ready to provide a more equitable answer.

[71. Jennifer said the following at 6:54 PM on Mar 10:]

71

Ted says:

"And perhaps my story may serve as a warning to some women who are *intentionally* putting off marriage for some particular reason; they may be passed by by a man her age, who may be looking for someone with more vigor and youthfulness."

Nice. At least we know what was truly in your heart and mind when you wrote it.

Comments like this one do nothing to convince anyone that you're not boastful, Ted. Petty and spiteful might also be added to the list. Not very becoming for someone aspiring to a role of Godly leadership.

[72. dana111 said the following at 7:42 PM on Mar 10:]

72

I agree with Amir. As a 25 year old woman, I am completely okay with marrying someone 35 or older. So, I am not offended by Ted's or Motte's opinion about marrying younger wives. I know that I haven't met a 25 year old male yet that I would consider marriage material.

[73. Adam said the following at 7:47 PM on Mar 10:]

73

Carrie,

Since you are reformed, then I'm sure you familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Let me point WCF IX. 4.
"4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil."

Carrie, that is talking about conversion, not salvation. What grace does in conversion, in the words of the confession, is to free us from the bonds of sin, and enable us to do good. Regeneration and Sanctification are parts of the entirety of salvation. All the confession is saying here is that the grace that is given to us in salvation is still effectual to accomplish its purpose, namely, the freeing from the bondage of sin, and enabling him to do good. It is the remaining corruption in him that causes him to still do evil. However, that is distinct from sanctifying grace, which gradually sanctifies us, until we finally reach heaven. However, in both instances, the grace is irresistible, because it always accomplishes its goal. If sanctifying grace does not sanctify, then it is not irresistible. That was the point.

Jennifer #59,

The biblical example of marrying "the wife of your youth" exists for a reason.

So, does the biblical example of committing "iniquity of youth," [Job 13:26], "sins of youth," [Psalm 25:7], and "reproach of youth," [Jeremiah 31:19] likewise exist for a reason.

Jennifer #62

First of all, as far as Luther agreeing with Calvin, I think that Luther predates Calvin, does he not?

He was born before Calvin, but there was quite a bit of overlap in years.

And nowhere does Christ or anyone else in scripture suggest that we "test ourselves" to see if we need "the help of marriage to remain pure". That sounds downright DANGEROUS, and a bit "fleecy", imho.

Actually, I would say that it flows from the Bible's command to do whatever is necessary to live a holy life.

So although the scriptures do not say specifically to the individual that you need a good reason to delay marriage, it raises larger questions about whether we are being good stewards of our bodies to delay marriage, without much "begatting" of "spiritual children". Fair questions, I would think.

Well, then I would simply ask where it is that the Bible does this.

So although the scriptures do not say specifically to the individual that you need a good reason to delay marriage, it raises larger questions about whether we are being good stewards of our bodies to delay marriage, without much "begatting" of "spiritual children". Fair questions, I would think. So Adam, I don't know where you get the idea that Boundless or anyone else you call "marriage mandate" is opposed to those (with sex drives or not) being single for the sake of doing kingdom work.

Ok, but I would say that *everyone* is supposed to be doing kingdom work. That is the whole point of being a Christian.

And if challenging individuals to ask themselves about their reasons for delaying marriage (and the consequences for doing so) makes one "marriage mandate", then sign me up. Despite some differences in views, I'll gladly join the good company of Luther, who said: "Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end."

He couldn't have made it any clearer than that.

Well, and as I pointed out, Luther is willing to make an exemption for those who willfully refrain from marriage. Hence, he is not saying that people who willfully put of marriage are sinning. Again, that is a modern invention.

Also, you can stand with Boundless on this issue. This is an in house debate. While there are forms of this "delay of marriage as a sin" idea that is, indeed, cultic, Boundless is is not one of the proponents of the cultic version of these ideas.

Paul H.,

That must be terribly gratifying and enriching to God: to receive your love and worship only because he makes you love and worship Him. Oh, I forgot, He cannot be enriched... because He cannot feel passion... because he cannot change in any way.

Thank you Calvin, Augustine and Aristotle!

What reformer ever said he cannot change in any way? He cannot change with regards to his *nature,* but when it comes to his emotions, he certainly can. Again, as I pointed out to you before, you should actually read reformed writings on the doctrine of immutability. Open Theists misrepresent the reformed doctrine of God time and time again.

God Bless,
Adam

[74. Ashleigh Slater said the following at 8:45 PM on Mar 10:]

74

Jennifer, as the younger woman who married Ted, I thought I'd weigh in. I have to say that I laughed at being described as being acquired. Makes me sound like a sofa or perhaps a lamp that a grandparent willed to him. :-)

From your response, it seems that perhaps you're reading things into our relationship that simply aren't true. For example, neither Ted nor I set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves. But in our particular case, it happened because that's what God had for us. During our courtship the Lord made it very clear to me that Ted was the man I was supposed to marry.

The truth of the matter is, Ted wasn't seeking out a younger woman. Before we met, while he was praying about marriage, for example, he did seek the Lord regarding a couple of different women at church much closer to his age.

So we aren't some sort of poster couple endorsing the older man marrying the younger woman. Nor am I some young woman that he "boasts" about marrying because of my being 12 years younger than he. What we are is an example that if God is leading in that direction, there is freedom.

[75. Sara said the following at 8:47 PM on Mar 10:]

75

Amir, I think people protest a bit because you'd be less likely to say,

"If I come across a marriageable Christian gal, whose age is much *higher* than mine, the age difference will not stop me."

Not that it doesn't make biological sense and all, but in this age of concern for equality, many women would like men to be more proactive about marrying women closer to their own age--if not older in order, to offset the habit of marrying young. A couple years is nothing, but simplistically speaking, for every 20-year-old woman a 35-year-old marries, that makes it that much harder for another 35-year-old women to 'get' a husband. (No special interests here; I'm young and have sometimes dated guys at least a few years older than me, but I sort of feel guilty doing it.) So often, men's reasons for not dating older women (not necessarily older than them) have to do with tired old innocence and ease-of-domination reasons, not the childbearing-capability reasons they claim.

[76. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:30 AM on Mar 11:]

76

Jennifer says:

Both sexes may have their issues, but not every issue is a 50/50 thing.

Acknowledging that there's a shortage of men in our churches is not a "blame game", it's a statistically demonstrable fact. Check out the enrollment breakdown for Christian colleges on ChristianCollegeGuide.net:

San Diego Christian College: m-40%, f-60%
Bethel College: m-36.14%, f-63.86%
Baylor University: m-43.57%, f-56.43%
Trinity Christian College: m-36.48%, f-63.52%
Trinity International University: m-41.67%, f- 58.33%

(you'll find higher number of males for those listed that are seminaries and graduate schools).
So as far as breaking things down by age group, college rolls give you a pretty similar picture to what's going on in most churches, on the young adult front. Churchformen.com identifies young unmarried men as being the most unchurched of all demongraphic groups.

That is not necessarily true, and in fact on the pages of Boundless, the Barna numbers for never-marrieds--when broken down by age group--have the men outnumbering the women in almost every age bracket.

You seem to want people to understand how difficult it has been for you as a single man, but when you deny and minimize something that's as obvious as the shortage of single men in our churches, well, it doesn't bring much credibility to your cause. Nor does complaining about the exceptionally picky (men can be picky too, and most Christian women have lowered standards when it comes to looks and charm because of the man shortage, which works in the favor of the guys) and overambitious career women, who are few and far in Christian circles. Some rogue blogs have even suggested that the shortage of men in our churches is the fault of the women!

I never minimized any of your struggles, and in fact I have emphasized on these very pages that I tend to avoid the blame game. This is because there are pockets where women are experiencing the same dynamic that the men are.

In fact, it was you who tossed the bomb here, assuming that it is the men who are generally responsible for the predicament of women. I was responding to that.

For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them. I believe that this is the main reason why we have a man shortage in the church.

Sounds to me like you are the one playing the blame game now.

Of the "good guys" who remain in church, we really do need to avoid the "blame game" because it is harder for some than others to find wives, and we just don't know every individual's personal situation. But that doesn't mean that the "man shortage" must be something that we never speak about.

You were the one who attacked men who put off marriage, and you made some very unfair, gratuitous assertions about men.

Indeed, single Christian women are in a unique situation, than when it's not acknowledged, can result in women unduly blaming themselves for their lack of romantic success and, like Ro, mistakenly believing that God does want them to desire marriage, which is absolutely heartbreaking.

You have no problem sticking it to the guys, and yet you aren't willing to accept that there's a mother lode of us guys who are in the same boat.

As for every issue not being a 50/50 thing, here's what I'm seeing:

(1) A Church culture that discourages those who aspire to marriage. (A problem that Debbie Maken rightly attacks.)

(2) A Church culture that does not prepare young people for the Biblical responsibilities of marriage. Youth ministry is largely more fun and games than real, no-nonsense discipleship.

(3) A demographic dynamic that is largely unprecedented in American history. Children will not grow up in the same area (and even when they do, they will switch churches often, assuming they grow up in the church), will go to college and pursue careers far from their hometowns, and will move often throughout their careers.

(4) More women are spending their childbearing years pursuing full-time careers than ever before.

(5) Both sexes have fallen upon some dangerous vices. For men, it is porn and metrosexuality; for women, it is bulimia and a predisposition to dating nonbelievers. (And no...men aren't the cause of women going bulimic or dating nonbelievers any more than women are the cause of men getting into porn or metrosexuality. We're talking gender-specific vices here.)

I could walk into a shopping mall and start throwing darts. Half the men I hit will be current or former porn users whereas half the women will be current or former bulimics.

It's almost funny when I'm at the gym. The gals seem to be obsessed with showing off their bodies. Skin-tight outfits, halter tops (or whatever the heck they call those things today). So do the guys: they'll wear tank tops to show off their arms.

As for what I wear at the gym? I wear baggy shorts and long-sleeve running shirts. Besides, at 5-foot-3, I am not all that visible anyway. ;)

[77. obewan said the following at 6:36 AM on Mar 11:]

77

Jennifer at #59 Wrote:

“7.2% of men marry someone younger by 10 years or more (Like Motte and Ted).

Motte and Ted have done their male (and thus, female) readers a disservice by boasting of being able to acquire much younger wives, as these census figures reveal that these situations are exceptions to the rule.”

I don’t think it is a disservice at all, and I do not agree. The reason the census figure is so low is probably due to the fact that most people marry younger. It says nothing about the CHANCES of an older person FINDING a spouse. The probability may still be quite favorable; it is just that fewer people exercise that option. If I wanted to consider getting married to a divorced person, my chances might actually be quite good of me finding a spouse 10 years younger and me getting married in my 40’s.

[78. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:13 AM on Mar 11:]

78

Sara says:

Amir, I think people protest a bit because you'd be less likely to say,

"If I come across a marriageable Christian gal, whose age is much *higher* than mine, the age difference will not stop me."

And why would I be less likely to go that route? Here are the reasons:

(1) If she's ten years my senior, she is overwhelmingly more likely to be divorced and therefore Biblically ineligible for marriage, as that would make me an adulterer.

(2) If she's ten years my senior, she is almost certainly incapable of bearing children.

I can't speak for other guys, but those are MY reasons.

Not that it doesn't make biological sense and all, but in this age of concern for equality, many women would like men to be more proactive about marrying women closer to their own age--if not older in order, to offset the habit of marrying young. A couple years is nothing, but simplistically speaking, for every 20-year-old woman a 35-year-old marries, that makes it that much harder for another 35-year-old women to 'get' a husband.

I'm more than happy to marry a 35-year-old woman. The issue, however, is whether I would marry a 51-year-old woman. The answer to that--apart from a specific Divine Directive--is no.

The scenario I proposed was with respect to my experiences: I have not found ANYONE marriageable in my church experiences. Ergo, if the only marriageable person happened to be in her 20s, that would not be a hindrance.

(No special interests here; I'm young and have sometimes dated guys at least a few years older than me, but I sort of feel guilty doing it.) So often, men's reasons for not dating older women (not necessarily older than them) have to do with tired old innocence and ease-of-domination reasons, not the childbearing-capability reasons they claim.

Depends on what you mean by "ease of domination". If by that you mean a Christian guy like me won't date a feminist, you would be absolutely correct. On the other hand, if you mean some sort of sick power trip, then you would be mistaken about me.

On the other hand, like I said, I cannot speak for the other guys...

[79. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:16 AM on Mar 11:]

79

Dana says:

I agree with Amir. As a 25 year old woman, I am completely okay with marrying someone 35 or older. So, I am not offended by Ted's or Motte's opinion about marrying younger wives. I know that I haven't met a 25 year old male yet that I would consider marriage material.

Way to go, Dana...now you have me putting on my ninja outfit so I can hijack your cradle...

JUST KIDDING! ::well...by half anyhow::

[80. Ted Slater said the following at 8:46 AM on Mar 11:]

80

Adam, post #28: Well-said.

[81. Paul H said the following at 11:19 AM on Mar 11:]

81

Adam said (#73): "What reformer ever said he cannot change in any way? He cannot change with regards to his *nature,* but when it comes to his emotions, he certainly can."

First, God's nature includes His ability to feel emotions. And secondly, Calvin didn't agree with you:

“[God] is incapable of every feeling... when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode [figure] of speech...”
-Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1, XVII, xiii

Both Luther and Calvin wrote of God forever remaining "unmoved" and being "immovable," totally unaffected by anything man does, because if He was affected by us in any way, He would experience a change in His state of being (his nature). And they were right.

While he was obviously not one of the Reformers, Augustine had a huge influence on both Luther and Calvin, and on the classical formulation of God's attributes. He wrote in The City of God:

"Indeed, to say that He is affected at all, is an abuse of language, since it implies that there comes to be something in His nature which was not there before. For he who is affected is acted upon, and whatever is acted upon is changeable. ... But in God the former purpose is not altered and obliterated by the subsequent and different purpose, but by one and the same eternal and unchangeable will He effected regarding the things He created..."
- Augustine, The City of God, pp. 399-400

"The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain."
- Augustine, The City of God, p. 515

And, also not a Reformer, but certainly a strong reformed believer, C.S. Lewis wrote:
“We correctly deny that God has passions... He cannot be affected by love...” (Miracles, pp. 92-93)

And, Calvinist Bruce Ware of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary published a Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God in 1986. His “reformulation” states that:
“Scripture does not lead us to think of God as unchangeable in every respect (absolute immutability)... [but] God is changeable in relationship with his creation, particularly with human and angelic moral creatures...” (God’s Lesser Glory, p. 73)

Why would this strong reformed (and anti-open theism) author feel the need to "reformulate" the doctrine of immutability to allow for the possibility that God experiences true relationships (i.e. feels passion) if it was not to correct a byproduct of the classical formulation of immutability, which is that God is impassible?

Here are a couple articles on the subject for anyone who's interested:

"Our Passionate God"

"The Bible, Immutability and Impassibility"

[82. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:36 AM on Mar 11:]

82

Jennifer says:

Comments like this one do nothing to convince anyone that you're not boastful, Ted. Petty and spiteful might also be added to the list. Not very becoming for someone aspiring to a role of Godly leadership.

Perhaps Ted can clarify. But, having been a professional for 18 years, I think I know what he is getting at.

I don't think any Christian gal consciously says, "I'm going to spend my entire 20s and early 30s pursuing a career, then get married once I get established." On the other hand, that is what logically happens.

Part of it might be an attempt to justify the 4+ years of college and investment in that education. Part of it might be a lack of trust in men. Part of it might be a quest for self-satisfaction based on some expectations she and/or others have placed on her. Still, there could be other reasons and I cannot speculate on particulars.

I've seen that dynamic my entire professional life. In addition to being very career-oriented, they are often quite perfectionist.

In fact, I recently had an eHarmony match with whom I was conversing. I was really hopeful to get to meet her, as she seemed like an excellent conversationalist and had many similar views with mine. Trouble is, she was an attorney who traveled internationally, spending most of her time in Europe.

She broke that relationship off, deciding she did not have the time for it. Given that she is 36, I asked her when she thought she would have time. No answer.

Having said all that, there is a biological reality that women face: the reproduction clock is finite. Ergo, putting off marriage--consciously or unconsciously--carries consequences.

I say that with the caveat: I realize there are many women who are single for the same reasons I am: they had no control over certain life circumstances.

I doubt that Ted is focusing on them. Nor am I for that matter.

On the other hand, when a woman goes into her late 20s, has Christian men in her church from whom to choose and ignores them, or insists that she must have her full-time career, she is doing herself--and the men--a disservice just as the man who eschews Christian women does to himself and the women.

Did I get it right, Ted?

[83. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:44 AM on Mar 11:]

83

Adam,

I get the feeling you are pursuing Celibacy.

Is that a true statement?

If it isn't, when, in your view of scripture and/or opinion, would you consider beginning to pursue a wife?

Do you think the call for marriage applies to you (assuming not celibate) in today's society?

Do you take issue with others desiring marriage as a God-given gift and taking seriously what they perceive as the command to pursue it?

Or is your primary problem the inclination that we would encompass everyone (regardless of calling) in that command?

I'm just curious. You seem to take the opposing view in nearly every thread...either you really don't think the same as everyone else or you just really enjoy playing devil's advocate.

Though I agree with Carrie that marriage is a means whereby sanctification can be worked out, I don't believe it is the only one.

Waiting is just as much a means of sanctification >.<

As much as I dislike this waiting and waiting and constant waiting for a husband, I've come to realize and working on accepting that the waiting isn't going to matter when I discover whether it will happen or not. You see, if it does happen, I'll be standing at an altar in white looking at my bridegroom as he says "I do". If not, I'll be standing in white as my bridegroom's arms open wide to embrace me (my view of heaven =p).

No amount of waiting is going to matter at that moment. Years of waiting will feel as if they had paid off to be standing here in this moment with the one God worked for me to spend the rest of my life with.

[84. Jennifer said the following at 1:16 PM on Mar 11:]

84

Ashleigh said:

"Jennifer, as the younger woman who married Ted, I thought I'd weigh in. I have to say that I laughed at being described as being acquired. Makes me sound like a sofa or perhaps a lamp that a grandparent willed to him. :-)".

From your response, it seems that perhaps you're reading things into our relationship that simply aren't true. For example, neither Ted nor I set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves. But in our particular case, it happened because that's what God had for us. During our courtship the Lord made it very clear to me that Ted was the man I was supposed to marry."

First of all, about "acquired", Proverbs 18:22 (ESV) reads "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD." So I don't know what the problem is with the use of the word "acquired", which means pretty much the same as "find".

And I honestly don't know how you got the idea that I think that you and Ted "set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves". I'm not reading anything into your relationship (as if I care!). If anything, it sounds like you're reading too much into my post.

My objection, and I repeat, is not with age differences (even of more than 10 years), but with setting them up as examples in a way that gives the impression that they are more common (and thus attainable) than they really are. To do so enables unrealistic expectations.

btw- a little tip in communicating with fellow believers who are single...statements like "the Lord made it clear that this is the man I'm supposed to marry" are not helpful. Very few believers can expect to have this kind of divine guidance in mate finding, and certainly the scriptures do not speak of it. But when married people like yourself claim to have been "singled out" to receive this kind of word from the Lord, it leads others to think that this is what they're supposed to wait for. See other articles on Boundless about "the bondage of guidance" and how it immobilizes believers in their decision making.

[85. Jennifer said the following at 3:36 PM on Mar 11:]

85

Amir,

I really hope the Boundless folks don't censor this out, because I really want to clear up a whole bunch of misinterpretations that have not only me boggled, but everyone else as well, I'm sure...

About Barna's numbers for never-marrieds ("when broken down by age group--have the men outnumbering the women in almost every age bracket"). You missed the fine print. It's referring to Christians at large (loosely extrapolated from census data), NOT THOSE ATTENDING CHURCH.

I repeat: there are shortages of young marriageable Christian men ATTENDING CHURCH. This matters because the surplus single Christian women who do attend are taught from day one that you must be EQUALLY YOKED, making unchurched guys pretty much off limits.

"I never minimized any of your struggles, and in fact I have emphasized on these very pages that I tend to avoid the blame game. This is because there are pockets where women are experiencing the same dynamic that the men are." Sorry, but it's minimizing to say that "there are pockets where women are experiencing the same dynamic (assuming you mean opposite sex shortages), when it's the other way around: most regions find a shortage of young men in their churches, with some pockets where the situation is reversed (ie. Alaska).

"In fact, it was you who tossed the bomb here, assuming that it is the men who are generally responsible for the predicament of women. I was responding to that:'For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them.'"

Amir, I am at a loss as to what the problem is here...I go on in my next paragraph to say "Of the "good guys" who remain in church, we really do need to avoid the "blame game" because it is harder for some than others to find wives, and we just don't know every individual's personal situation." So I'm NOT attacking all men, but rather defending those remaining church going men, and taking non-church goers to task. Being a church going guy, one would expect that you'd be pleased with my support! Or better yet, that you'd take the lead and address those non-church going guys, rather than rushing to their defense.

"You were the one who attacked men who put off marriage, and you made some very unfair, gratuitous assertions about men" Excuse me? Where do I do THAT?

As for what you see, it's pretty much what I see too: a Church culture that discourages those who aspire to marriage and does not prepare young people for the Biblical responsibilities of marriage. Unprecedented demographic dynamics. And yes, more women are spending their childbearing years pursuing full-time careers than ever before, but still the majority of women are not aggressive career pursuers, they want children and want them soon (80% want to be stay-at-home moms).

As for gender specific vices, eating disorders in women aren't as common as earlier feminist writings declared to be, but pre-marital sex among secular women certainly is, which creates a "why-buy-the-cow-when-you-can-get-the-milk-for-free" dynamic, which undermines the timely marital aspirations of all women, but especially those churchgoing women who play by the rules. As I said before, men avoid church when they are getting sex in the secular world from secular women, and this has a lot to do with why there's a shortage of young marriageable men in the church (lest you think that Christian women are more likely to date non-Christian men than the other way around). Again, this is not to attack "all men", but to show how the secular world (that includes secular women) lures non-churchgoing Christian men away from the church, creating a surplus of single women there-- a disadvantage for mate finding (giving a bit of an edge to the "good guys" that remain behind).

As for marrying older, go ahead! I never expressed any issues with men pursuing their highest aspirations -- only misinforming them about their odds for success when pursuing much younger women.

PS, typo: I meant to say "like Ro, mistakenly believing that God doesN'T want them to desire marriage..."

[86. Athena said the following at 5:26 PM on Mar 11:]

86

In reflection to Ro's post: (#56)

I think if left to myself, there will always be mixed feelings concerning marriage. It sounds wonderful but on other days, it just seems a lot of work. It is nice to have a lifelong companion but I have no idea what'll happen 10, 20 years from now. On some days it will seem very attractive, and on other days I'd just wish for contentment in singleness.

However, when I return to God's word, the issue won't be just marriage or no marriage. It will be striving to delight in God alone, and letting Him give me what I need and not what I want. Usually this translates to His peace and satisfaction in Him, as opposed to some guy or some idol I've been harboring at the moment.

As for the older men marrying younger women issue: I have not found any problem connecting with brothers and sisters 10 years older than me in conversations. I often find them to be more enriching than talking with my peers. However, I am not sure whether I can contribute equally to a marriage partnership on a practical level if I were to marry someone 10 years older. I think it just boils down to whether the guy in question likes you enough. If a mutual commitment is made, you'll both make the effort to make things work while handing the relationship to God.

[87. Jessica said the following at 5:45 PM on Mar 11:]

87

I absolutely LOVED the article about Luther and Katherine. I thought it was so HEROIC of Luther to free those nuns from the convent. This article brought hope to my soul, because it inspired me, to read about a single man who was focused on GOD'S interests first. I liked his feisty line: "I'll marry my Katie to spite the devil." I thought it was very romantic as well. I'm a very feisty woman myself. I'm a personal believer that certain individuals whom people think they rub them the wrong way, because they're always questioning, always challenging, never content with the status quo-these are the kind of people that God uses. Being feisty is not a bad thing if you use it to God's glory. Being strongwilled for the cause of Christ-standing up for what you believe, and what you disagree with, is not a bad thing. My name means "God's grace," but I cannot stand injustice. I believe that even if you have a strongwilled child- if you teach that child to use that strong will for God, then you will have raised a mighty warrior/warrior princess for the Lord. I thought it was also refreshing in the article to read that Luther saw the practicality of marriage, and he was an advocate for it-I appreciate godly men who stand for something. I seek to find that kind of man someday, God willing.

[88. Jessica said the following at 5:51 PM on Mar 11:]

88

I would rather be "cherished" by my husband than him feel "mad passionate love" for me right off the bat. A dear friend of mine has a beautiful story. Before they were married, she was in the Philippines, and they wrote letters back and forth. He was in the Navy. She had a heart problem.She told me she married her husband because she wanted him to pay for her heart surgery. She didn't love him at first. He loved her, before they married. She GREW to love him after they were married. She essentially told me, "Marry someone who loves YOU more than YOU love HIM." I think that's wise advice for all of us. (Isn't that a beautiful story? They are happily married, and have two adopted children from Japan.)

[89. BDB said the following at 7:47 PM on Mar 11:]

89

Ashleigh (#74) wrote:

>>For example, neither Ted nor I set out to marry someone significantly older or younger than ourselves. <<

You know, this brings up an interesting point. I'd probably discourage a 29-year-old guy from pursuing a 19-year-old college girl.

However, what happens if the woman is 28? If a 38-year old man discovers that a 28-year-old is interested in him, should he send her away? If she's already through high school, and college, and still unattached...well, would you say that the guys her age had had their chance by then?

Jennifer (#84) wrote:

>>and certainly the scriptures do not speak of it. <<

Actually, they do. See Genesis 24.

Granted, most of us don't have camels to use to ask God for a "sign."

A modern equivalent might be at a potluck. Say a man starts cleaning up plates, folding chairs, etc. Then he notices that an eligible woman, without being asked, starts doing the same thing. That would be an example of generous character equivalent to Genesis 24. No burning bush needed. But if the guy had prayed before hand asking God to call an eligible woman to do precisely that - and someone does - he should pay attention. But the "test" used in that case was something the woman could observe needed doing, and she did it without being asked.

I was cleaning up after a funeral reception once. Suddenly a 7-year-old girl handed me a folding chair. I thanked her, stacked it...and then her 5-year-old sister handed me a chair. And then someone stood up and the 7-year-old took their chair and brought it over to me (which could have been a safety problem.) Clearly, someone had taught these children to help out, and as soon as they observed someone doing work, they started helping without being asked. If they continue to grow up that way the next 15 years, it will be quite an example of servant-heartedness.

[90. Adam said the following at 8:37 PM on Mar 11:]

90

Paul H.,

“[God] is incapable of every feeling... when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode [figure] of speech...”
-Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1, XVII, xiii

You have taken this quote, as well as the others, grossly out of context. Here is what Calvin actually said:

13. What then is meant by the term repentance? The very same that is meant by the other forms of expression, by which God is described to us humanly. Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him. Though he is incapable of every feeling of perturbation, he declares that he is angry with the wicked. Wherefore, as when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode of speech accommodated to our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated whenever he exercises Judgment, so we ought not to imagine any thing more under the term repentance than a change of action, men being wont to testify their dissatisfaction by such a change. Hence, because every change whatever among men is intended as a correction of what displeases, and the correction proceeds from repentance, the same term applied to God simply means that his procedure is changed. In the meantime, there is no inversion of his counsel or will, no change of his affection. What from eternity he had foreseen, approved, decreed, he prosecutes with unvarying uniformity, how sudden soever to the eye of man the variation may seem to be.

He was talking about the fact that God cannot have unrighteous rage. Calvin believed that such would be sinful for God to have perturbation. Apparently, there were people that were arguing that God was repenting because he sinned in the accounts[such as the case of Moses pleading for the lives of the Israelites], because it said that he was angry, and then it said that he repented. He then goes on to discuss the analgious usage of language as a solution to the problem, and how he believes that the Bible is just describing God in this way so that we can understand in order to avoid having to charge God with rage. However, why is it that you left out, by elipses, that Calvin was talking about all of a specific feeling, not any feeling at all?

Both Luther and Calvin wrote of God forever remaining "unmoved" and being "immovable," totally unaffected by anything man does, because if He was affected by us in any way, He would experience a change in His state of being (his nature). And they were right.

Well, it is very easy to say that, it is much harder to provide the quotation. When the reformers talked about God not being effected by us, what they were referring to is the fact that God is not contingent upon man. God does not become less just or righteous because of something man does. Thus, God's nature is not based at all on the actions of man. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not God can have feelings such as anger, sadness, etc. Again, I am still waiting for a quotation.

This should also explain the quotations from Augustine. He was talking about the same thing Calvin was. Augustine is addressing the issue of what appears to be God's rage of which he repents. Did God sin in that instance? Obviously not. That is what Calvin and Augustine are arguing against.

The both the title and the quotation by Bruce Ware is likewise is ripped from its context. In his introduction, Ware claims that he is using the term "reformulation" in the sense of *clarification.* He speaks of how process theologians were attacking Thomas Aquinas' [not Augustine's] teaching on this topic, and he wants to give a more firm, Biblical presentation of the teaching. Here is what he said:

The past twenty-five years have witnessed a number of significant restate-ments of the doctrine of divine immutability in light of an increasing appreciation for God's real relatedness to the world.1 In particular, many Roman Catholic theologians have devoted much thought to this doctrine in an attempt to answer the harsh attacks of process theology against Thomas' development of the doctrine.2 But only recently have evangelicals entered this contemporary discussion,3 and here their contributions, though very helpful and insightful, have only suggested general lines of the doctrine's reconstruction. The purpose of this article, then, is to offer a more thorough reformulation of the doctrine of divine immutablility in a manner that holds firmly to the evangelical commitment to Scripture as the authoritative source of the self-revelation of God.

So, the point is to reformulation Thomas' teaching in the light of scripture. Not to change classic reformed teaching.

In fact, he mentions that Anselm points out that the emotional aspect of God's mutability is the very foundation of the immutability of his nature. Because his nature is holy, he will always look upon sin with anger. Hence, it is because of his unchanging nature that he has changing emotions. Far from your argument that the two of them cannot coexist, the one actually establishes the other.

Again, Paul, if you want to keep erecting strawmen, keep at it. Comparing the reformed teaching on the immutability of God to the demiurge is a horrible misrepresentation. Then again, I shouldn't be suprised, given that you are an admirer of Bob Enyart, who said that it was possible that, from all of eternity, the father could have hated the son.

In actuality, the type of self-determinism of open theism is very popular in pagan religions such as Hinduism, neo-Paganism, Buddhism, and other religions. In fact, all three of these religions deny that their is a God who knows the future exhaustively. I can draw far more parallels from open theism to these religions than you ever could from Calvinism to the demiurge.

Adam

[91. Rachael said the following at 8:59 PM on Mar 11:]

91

Hi Jennifer,

I'd prefer to be found than acquired :), but it doesn't really matter. I have to admit, I'm not sure all of what you've been writing, but you mentioned 70 year old brides... Do you remember if you saw a story about that on this blog or somewhere else? I thought I recently read something about there being an older (maybe 70 something?) engaged woman that died before she married...if you saw this story do you remember where you saw it? I'd be curious to look at it again...

Thanks!

[92. Christina said the following at 9:11 PM on Mar 11:]

92

Here's a thought (beware some bitterness coming up)

I know its not the norm, but I've known many single christian men. Some of them in hot pursuit of wives. They sat in the same living room as me during bible studies and lamented over the lack of godly christian women.

I sit there wondering why it is that only the non-christians seem to think I'm a great catch. Its not like I live a life that's blatantly secular...I am a very solid and un-silent believer.

So I wonder, you think maybe the girls dating the secular guys are really dating them because there's a lack of guys in the church? Or because the guys claiming to want the godly christian woman are letting those women be pursued by non-christian guys with no competition?

When 2 guys sit in a room knowing of the need in the room and state outright that they want a godly christian wife, turn around, and leave, without even starting a conversation with the godly christian woman sitting in the same room as them (who isn't unattractive), makes ya wonder what she'll do when one non-christian guy spends 3 months talking to her trying to work up the guts to just ask her to a movie.

To me, the un-churched guy who asks the girl out shows a lot more qualities worthy of a 'yes' then the 2 churched guys that walked out the door without a word.

[93. a sassy sister said the following at 10:02 PM on Mar 11:]

93

Wow....
once again this posting has gotten pretty interesting, but to respond to the only question I can answer(since I am not an older man) is this: I don't believe Luther was mandating marriage. Please inform me if I'm wrong, but when you say that marriage is mandatory, it would seem to put marriage on a equal par with the exlicit Biblical commands given in the The Ten commandments(even though Scripture does not EXPLICITLY SAY for ALL CHRISTIAN SINGLES TO GET MARRIED AND HAVE CHILDREN).

It is one thing to encourage single men and women to get married FOR THE RIGHT REASONS(a longing for being able to pour out love on another person and help them intimately walk out God's plan for their lives). It is another thing to imply that all single men and women MUST get married in an extreme attempt to react to the cultural attack on marriage and the family.

What about mandating striving for maturity in all aspects of our life(spiritually, emotionally, physically,socially)? What about encouraging adulthood with the understanding that marriage and family IS NOT ALWAYS the necessary factor for a person to really be an adult that loves and obeys God?

[94. Carrie (the original) said the following at 7:06 AM on Mar 12:]

94

Jennifer #84
Statements like "The Lord made it clear" are hopefully true of every married couple.
Would you really want to get to the altar and be doubting?? Would you really not to know that this is the person that the Lord has for you??
I'm sorry, but I can't imagine getting to the altar and one or both of us thinking "Well . . .I'm still not sure. I'll say these vows and hopefully I'll keep them."
There is a certain amount of fear and trepidation we should experience in dating/courting (where would "faith" be if there wasn't?), but at some point during the dating/courting process we should be asking God "is this what You want?". If through prayer and counseling one or both realizes that the relationship isn't a good thing, then a break-up is needed. However, if you are dating/courting and you realize the relationship is a good thing then you have realized that "the Lord has made it clear".
That phrase isn't some mysterious message in the clouds that people should seek before going on a first date. It is a conclusion they should arrive at after already taking intiative in a relationship.

[95. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:16 AM on Mar 12:]

95

Here's how it works, Jennifer.

I'm generally a contrarian. Had you made a flagrant attack on the gals, I would have emphasized that the guys have their issues too. An example of this: on my blog, I once put out a post on the latest obesity statistics, and one of the respondents started talking about the women who are obese. My response: in all fairness to the gals, the guys are in no position to talk (as they are only slightly better on that front, and even then it's not significant enough to write home about).

It's called intellectual honesty. While we all get frustrated from time to time, we don't do either camp any good service by browbeating them. Fact is, you attacked men in general, not in particular.

In contrast, Obewan did not seem to attack the gals; he merely relayed his experience, which was not far removed from mine. Had he said, "Men are single because the women are out there playing the harlot", I would have ripped him a new one.

On the other hand, you and CSW were attacking the men in one-sided fashion. Look at your following quote:

For every church-going girl who spurns a church-going guy for a non-Christian, there are even more guys that don't even bother setting foot in a church in the first place because they don't want the sexual opportunities afforded to them in the secular world declared verboten to them. I believe that this is the main reason why we have a man shortage in the church.

You have no statistics to show that the Christian men are fornicating around with secular women any more than the Christian women are fornicating around with non-believers--and yet you proclaim it as if it were Gospel. On the other hand, talk to almost any singles minister and he will tell you about the divorced women who end up in their classes, who were "unequally yoked", whose husbands left them. If anything, that's a prima facie case that the fornication dilemma exists at least as much among the women as the men. Of course, that ought to make sense, as it always takes two to tango...

When pressed, you brought out stats for CHRISTIAN colleges to make your case for the shortage of men in the Church.

Is that was passes for critical analysis? Did it occur to you that (a) all Christians do not attend Christian colleges and (b) when we are in college, the focus is typically on getting the good grades so we can have a good chance of getting a nice job and/or get into a reputable graduate program? It's not like the Christian men--or women for that matter--are the party animals running around in togas and getting drunk while at college. In fact, if you major in engineering or the hard sciences, such partying is the exception and not the rule.

And I will stick to my guns regarding gender-specific vices. Having talked to enough college administrators--Christian and secular alike--almost any of them will tell you about the prevalence of bulimia among the college gals, and the porn usage among the guys. Almost every women I have dated has had prior issues--in one case current issues--with bulimia (I nearly went broke trying to help her). Moreover, almost every Christian gal I know who is married--even the happily-married ones--has had (and in some cases still has) such issues. I also have a very good friend in the medical world who encounters such disorders quite frequently. That doesn't include the pastors I know who deal with it whose experiences are also reflective of what I am talking about.

With bulimia, it's almost never the men but almost always the women whereas with porn it's almost never the women but almost always the men.

[96. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:26 AM on Mar 12:]

96

Jennifer says:

As for marrying older, go ahead! I never expressed any issues with men pursuing their highest aspirations -- only misinforming them about their odds for success when pursuing much younger women.

If they are older--and have otherwise been seeking a mate--then the odds of finding a much younger mate can't be any worse than their realized odds have been so far.

Ted is making no statements with respect to odds, only granting legitimacy--a legitimacy that has both Biblical and historical precedence--to those who would otherwise feel pressured against expanding their horizons.

If anything, that is necessary to challenge a Church culture that often discourages singles from seeking mates. (That's another dynamic that you have all but completely ignored in this.)

[97. Rachael said the following at 9:23 AM on Mar 12:]

97

BDB (89),

Encouraging to know other people notice helping out w/out being asked. I notice that even at service things...who is in the kitchen helping a bit longer than the others? I notice those same things. Neat that the young kids helped you. They're being trained right :)

[98. Elizabeth R. said the following at 12:07 PM on Mar 12:]

98

I know of a soon-to-be married couple that have a significant age gap. The bride is barely 20, the groom in his mid thirties. My personal opinion is that a match like this is inappropriate, but none of their family, friends, or church seem to have a problem with it. Am I out of line for feeling like this?

[99. AEB said the following at 12:09 PM on Mar 12:]

99

Can we start a thread about whether or not it's appropriate for divorced people to remarry? This is a very personal issue to me since I am the child of such a remarriage.

[100. BDB said the following at 2:30 PM on Mar 12:]

100

Rachael (#97) wrote:

>>Encouraging to know other people notice helping out w/out being asked.<<

It kind of applies to how my grandparents met. My grandfather noticed this "new girl" in church who could sing all the songs without looking at the hymnal...he was in the choir...

Ironically, my grandmother was church-shopping because she was tired of her church being too focused on dating and not focused enough on spiritual things...she literally walked 2 miles into town and watched for people carrying Bibles; presuming that they were probably going to a good church. She then followed them...

Of course, at the time she didn't realize that my grandfather was in the habit of walking the pastor's daughter home...