 |
I spent that evening the way I did most Sunday nights — doing laundry, changing the sheets, mopping the kitchen floor.
The evening I met my now-fiancé was truly mundane. But how God brought us together was far from ordinary. In "A Year to Love," I recount the last year of my life and how God introduced me to my soon-to-be husband, Kevin.
Though 30 was not the age I anticipated meeting the man I would marry (I expected that day to come much sooner), I have no regrets about my past decade as a single woman. Just as I have watched God faithfully lead me in many areas of my life during those years, this year I have seen Him do the same in my romantic life.
I used to wonder why I couldn't seem to meet someone great (when many of my friends could and did), and my mind couldn't even comprehend how God would bring a godly man into my life. More than once I tried to force it; I tried to settle for a relationship that just wasn't quite there, or I became attached to a person who didn't demonstrate the spiritual quality I knew God desired for my future spouse.
But my relationship with Kevin, though a fantastic story, had a very natural quality. I simply couldn't get away from him:
In his sermon series on Song of Solomon, Tommy Nelson talks about courtship and marriage in terms of a race. Nelson says that as Christian singles "run the race" God has set before them, they should be looking to see who is to their right and left as they run. Who is keeping pace, running nearby, heading the same direction?
I had been running that race alone throughout my 20s. Sometimes I would look over and catch a glimpse of someone, but inevitably they would veer off another direction or pass me by. Even a few godly relationships just did not click. In those moments, I would cry out to the Lord and try to understand His love and His purpose for me.
From the day I met Kevin, he kept popping up next to me — church, children's ministry, improv.
I would never want to use my own story to oversimplify the journey from singleness to marriage. However, if I could, I would give back some of the worries I experienced before meeting Kevin. Ultimately, I did not have to do much (other than be myself) to attract the right guy's attention. I'm not saying our relationship has been without challenges or that we don't have to put forth effort to make it work (we do). I am saying that my relationship with Kevin didn't require forcing. Our lives naturally fit together, our community approved of our relationship and we both have absolute peace.
I used to say that God had so faithfully led me in other areas of my life that I expected Him to do the same if and when a godly guy entered the scene. That has been the case. Whether I'm single or married does not change God's character. Regardless of my circumstances, He is worthy and He is good.
The only insight I have come up with is that God knows and He loves. There is no formula to how He brought Kevin and me together. I do know that we were each faithfully serving the Lord where He had placed us. We were running the race. And God chose to intervene in some significant ways so that we would run it together.
Run faithfully today. You never know who may be running nearby.
I understand the concerns expressed in Suzanne's recent post, and appreciate that some may have come to regret how Joshua Harris' book I Kissed Dating Goodbye has affected their dating philosophy.
Here's the thing, though: I think that too many people have simply read the title of Joshua's book, or heard others give caricatures of the principles explored in it, and have gone on to either reject its biblical messages altogether or embrace an anti-social perversion of it.
The author of the article that Suzanne references in her blog, for example, seems to have misunderstood what Joshua was saying, and implemented that faulty set of principles, and now has rejected it. He came to believe, for example, that the choice was between "actually speaking to a girl" and "refusing to date based on my loyalty to spiritualized groupthink." Both are bad options, and he went with the latter for a few years.
Good for him for changing his mind; bad on him for his cynical tone and mischaracterization of what Joshua had written, and for not owning up to his own relational mistakes. Instead of blaming his "insecurity" and "struggle with confidence" and "awkwardness" with dating on "some stupid, self-righteous decision I made in high school," for example, blame it on something that has a biblical remedy: fear of man.
Joshua Harris recognizes that there are many misunderstandings about his first book, and has responded to some of them on his Web site.
I still stand by the message of that book that premature, short-term romantic attachments can be a big distraction from serving God -- especially for teenagers. But in the years since I've also seen that a legalistic application of these ideas can be unhelpful, too.
One of the misapplications has been cutting off guy-girl relationships altogether, something he's not encouraging in the least:
The heart behind [this book] is not to force someone not to date or not have relationships with the opposite sex. The message behind it is really "don't pursue romance until you're really ready for commitment."
That's exactly what we say at Boundless: Dating is great when it's intentional, when you're in it to try to figure out whether someone could become your spouse.
Harris goes on:
I encourage anyone: If anything in your life becomes more important than God, and keeps you from serving Him, you should be willing to kiss it goodbye.
Joshua had just come out of a sinful relationship. He knew that the way he had been "doing dating" was wrong, principally because he hadn't put God first. May we adopt this same attitude, that if we're dating in a way that diminishes God, may we be counter-cultural enough to kiss it goodbye.
And may we stop blaming Joshua for our relational failures, own up to our misunderstandings and mistakes, and press on.
A few weeks ago, I read an interesting article in Relevant Magazine called, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Where Did it Go?" As the title suggests, the article criticized the revolution brought about 12 years ago by Joshua Harris' book I Kissed Dating Goodbye.
Josh's book came out when I was in high school and was very influential in my decision not to date during those years. The principles of holiness and godly relationships that Harris put forth were sound, and I believe its wisdom saved me heartache and kept me focused in my walk with the Lord.
Harris' suggestion that young people not date exclusively unless marriage was in the picture -- and then with proper accountability -- took my Bible college campus by storm. I noticed two opposite reactions to Harris' philosophy: 1. Men who pursued women with the intent for marriage (which ended in short, intentional courtships followed by marriages -- 42 my junior year!); 2. A lack of social interaction between men and women. After all, if you didn't have your eye on someone who you could see being your future spouse, social interaction of the dating variety was discouraged.
My general sense at the time was that men were confused by Harris' advice. They wondered how to bridge the gap between "just friends" and getting engaged. I even had a friend of mine (who was interested in pursuing me) ask this very question. "If we can't date, what's the next step?" In the ambiguity caused by not knowing what to do, some did nothing. In his article, Tim Holland writes:
Looking back on my decision not to date until I was “ready for marriage,” it is evident that this course has led me to become a bit of a cripple when it comes to approaching women. I have invested hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in coffee shops around Seattle, thinking that I might strike up a conversation with a cute girl one day, perhaps land a date and discover that we have both chosen the same names for our children. Right ...
I just wish I had more to show for the past 10 years of my failed romantic life than a few quick flings, an extensive knowledge of the Star Trek universe and the deep brokenness that weighs heavily upon my heart. While putting the brakes on dating was good wisdom for some of my more sexed-up peers, I could really have used a good kick in the pants to throw me into gear.
What do you think? Is Holland's criticism fair? Is the philosophy to avoid the world's idea of dating a deterrent to men pursuing women? One guy I asked about this thought Holland's argument was a "cop-out." Anecdotally, many of the guys I know who at one time were unsure about Harris' advice, figured out how to proceed and are now happily married.
What do you think of Harris' I Kissed Dating Goodbye 12 years later? How has it impacted you?
I was talking with a coworker a couple weeks back, a single woman in her late 20s, when the conversation turned to this blog. She is an occasional Boundless reader, and like many others I've met, she has what you might call a love/hate relationship with The Line.
Some days she enjoys reading very much -- at other times it drives her crazy.
So I suggested that she consider contributing to the discussion; if not via the comments section, then perhaps by suggesting potential topics. A few days later, I received the following suggestion in my in-box:
[How about] a post for singles without using any of the attached phrases/sentiments? Ready? Go. I’m holding a giant buzzer, like in Outburst.
- Don’t worry, God is in control
- God has a plan for you
- It will come in time
- You need to put your faith in God
- You need to be content with just God
- Your priorities are obviously not in the right place
- You’re obviously not satisfied with God
- He’ll/She’ll come around when you stop looking
- You need to put yourself out there more/get involved
- You need to serve more
- God thinks you’re a princess -- He’s just not ready to share you yet!
- Lots of people wish they were single again . . . enjoy it while it lasts.
- Most people are waiting till their 30s today
- The right girl/guy is out there somewhere
Now, I'm the first to admit that I've addressed a few of these subjects myself. And while I'm not about to start defending clichés, I'll also acknowledge that there is a lot of truth in some of the sentiments behind them. In other words, while the meaning still has value, perhaps we've simply heard them repeated so often that the lessons are lost in translation.
But maybe that's just me. How about the rest of you -- particularly singles -- are you tired of hearing the same-old, same-old, or do these expressions still provide some measure of comfort and reassurance? Or, on a related note, is there a particular phrase that you would prefer to never hear again?
I remember when I was first introduced to the concept of living together. I had just watched the movie Baby Boom with my parents, and my mom asked me, "Do you know what was wrong with that movie?" I didn't. Mom explained to me that the man and the woman lived together without being married. To my young mind, that option was completely foreign. In fact, I had simply assumed the couple in the film was married. Fast forward to the present day. Some 60 percent of young adults will live together before they marry. Not only is it acceptable; it is expected and even considered prudent. As Scott M. Stanley and Galena Kline point out in today's featured article, the belief that living together is helpful to marriage is a myth: The majority of young adults do believe that living together helps people make decisions about marriage as well as provides a way for couples to work through issues before making a lifelong commitment. In fact, over half of younger people believe that living together prior to marriage will lower their odds of marital problems and divorce. Research, however, suggests something quite different.
The main reason for this cited by the authors is the theory of inertia: It suggests that external pressure to remain together starts to build when a couple moves in together. You move in together, buy a place, get a dog, spend less time with friends and more time alone together, and maybe declare the other as your beneficiary for financial matters — and these things make it more likely that you will stay together. In other words, there is an increasing weight of forces that favor your staying together when you live together. In the words of Scott's commitment theory, living together increases the constraints of leaving the relationship.
Basically, living together is a form of marriage, but a cheaper, flimsier one. The authors point out that living together often "just happens" rather than being the willful decision of marriage. I supposed within Christian circles, living together before marriage was clearly considered a sin, but the discussion on our Facebook page shows that even believers may not view cohabiting as out of bounds. Apart from the evidence that suggests living together is bad for marriage, I appeal to Paul's words in Ephesians: "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people" (5:3). Regardless of whether you live under the same roof, sex outside of the covenant of marriage is not God's plan for sexuality. It's no wonder that couples who have cohabited report less satisfaction in marriage and a higher rate of infidelity and divorce. Straying from God's plan always has consequences. If someone tries to tell you otherwise, they are promoting a lie.
The disturbing part of the article Steve blogged about is the reason most of the women "doing konkatsu" it gave: they want to quit their jobs. Yuriko Akamatsu, a 35-year-old office worker, has attended two matchmaking parties in the past six months. "I want to get married because I sometimes feel like quitting my job," said Ms. Akamatsu, who didn't find Mr. Right at either party. "Marriage is like permanent employment."
That approach is all wrong. Some government officials like the idea because they're worried about falling birthrates. Again, in itself, it's not a great reason for encouraging marriage. What about the churches? Some are making money on the trend by charging for prayer services. Yes, charging! The irony (which will surprise few of you savvy Boundless readers) is the overabundance of women in such deliberate settings, and the dearth of marriage-minded men. (But really, given the conditions, can you blame them?) Apart from Ephesians 5, and a bold commitment to live it out, our human efforts at getting, and staying, married are doomed to end in divorce, or at best, survive in misery. To the single men and women of Japan, I say, "Start reading Boundless--you'll get a lot more help getting married than you will hanging out at the Green Bar!"
I was intrigued by an article featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this morning. Here's how it started:
Desperate to turn around his money-losing singles bar last summer, Yuta Honda decided that marriage would be his only salvation.
Abandoning a marketing plan based on the ephemeral attractions of one-night commitments, Mr. Honda rechristened his place a "konkatsu bar," a place for "marriage hunting."
These days, his Green Bar is packed with marriage-seeking singles in their twenties and thirties -- a rare success story in the Roppongi entertainment district, where businesses are closing right and left in the economic downturn.
Singles bars have always been notorious for opening their doors to people looking for all types of relationship connections, but Mr. Honda found success in narrowing his target audience to those who were specifically seeking marriage.
My sense is that Mr. Honda provided a valuable service to his patrons by allowing them to self select among those who wanted to skip relationship games and cut to the chase of their primary desire--marriage.
What's your impression on this approach? Does it seem too blunt to immediately hold up the possibility of marriage in a gathering of singles or does this filtering approach actually sound appealing to you?
In the past 10 years I have been a bridesmaid four times. I've worn the dresses and uncomfortable shoes. I've attended the rehearsal dinners, played silly games at the bridal showers and given the speeches. Most recently, I stood up as a bridesmaid at my sister's wedding -- my sister who is nine years younger.
As much as I am glad for my friends who have found their loves, I've sometimes felt like second fiddle. Other times I've felt just plain alone and miserable. But recently as I was meditating on the story in Song of Songs, I noticed this wonderful cast of characters called "the friends." In today's featured Boundless article, I write:
Throughout the book, the role of the friends becomes clear: rejoice, challenge, help and protect. The implication is that without these friends, the betrothed woman would be lost and vulnerable to impropriety or unwise decisions.
It's unfortunate that our culture often reduces bridesmaids to token friends who swoop in wedding week to wear impractical dresses and shoes. The friends in Song of Songs are not of this variety. They are deeply invested in the health and happiness of the betrothed couple.
Being the friend of the bride is an important role that can be mutually edifying (Romans 14:19). Watching my sister's romance and subsequent marriage was a profound experience for me. For the first time, I caught a vision for what God can do in a relationship He ordains. I caught a glimpse of this type of encouragement in Song of Songs:
No matter how stellar of a friend you are, finding yourself continually in the pack of "friends" and never the "beloved," can be disheartening. I imagine that is why the beloved encouraged her friends with this statement:
Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and by the does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires. (2:7)
This message was so close to her heart that she repeated it three times. Her relationship with her beloved is so affirming, miraculous and right, that she wishes the same for her friends. I believe she is telling her friends to wait on God's timing for a beautiful, heaven-honoring romance. She is urging them to hold out for the love God has for them and not settle for chasing after it in their own way.
So all of you serving as bridesmaids or groomsmen this summer, be encouraged. Put the effort forth to support and rejoice with your friends and recognize that someday it may be you. Eight months after going dateless to my sister's wedding I became engaged. And I'm thankful I did not awaken love in my timing.
Today Candice answered a question that I believe meets singles right where they're at. That question, in essence, is: How and where can I meet a potential mate? Candice points out the importance of a network—friends and family members who can make the introductions. According to research by The Marriage Project, Candice writes, most people meet their spouses through introductions by a family member or close friend. In the end, it's not so much "where you go" to find a mate, but who you know and what they know about you.
I like Candice's advice. I also believe this goes beyond simply meeting people who will introduce you to potential mates. My investment in my Christian community affected my relationship with my now-fiancé, Kevin, in a slightly different way. We met on our own—a chance meeting at Starbucks. But because we attended the same church, he heard good reports from those in the church who knew me and saw how I was serving. Months before we began dating, seeds were planted in Kevin's mind about my character by people who knew me. A few of them even encouraged him specifically to consider a relationship with me. Though he didn't have romance on his mind at the time, when he decided to start a Bible study for twenty-somethings, I was a likely choice for co-leader. And that connection led to our relationship. As Candice points out, a healthy investment in mentor relationships can hold multiple benefits. Ask them to pray with and for you about your desire for marriage. They might surprise you by the introductions they can arrange. And even if they don't know any eligible bachelors right now, their discipleship will benefit your spiritual maturity. Further, they may be able to give candid advice about other improvement you can work on to make yourself more marriable.
Another fantastic blessing of cultivating this level of community is that when you do find yourself in a relationship, you have instant support, accountability and encouragement as you walk through courtship, engagement and into marriage. Our community was thrilled when Kevin and I got engaged, because they knew us both and approved wholeheartedly of the match. Candice's win-win advice produces positive benefits that extend beyond introductions.
I have a big announcement. But you'll have to listen to this week's Boundless Show to find out what it is.
I will tell you that you will hear me discuss my relationship with Kevin and our age difference (I am older). At first, it was a deal breaker for both of us. But once we came around (in God's timing and through His obvious orchestration), we discovered some of the unique—and sometimes delightful—aspects of a May-December relationship.
On the podcast, Ted and his wife Ashleigh also discuss their age difference. In their case, Ted is the elder of the two. How does the more-than-a-decade difference play out in their marriage? On many counts, they say, it doesn't matter.
I walked away from our discussion with this: In the search for a godly mate, keep an open mind. Don't focus on incidentals, such as age, social status or career success. Instead, concentrate on the person. Is he or she godly? Are the two of you compatible? Do you see evidence that God is confirming the relationship?
Enjoy the discussion (and the announcement)! Then share your thoughts here.
Relationships can really mess you up. Take professional golfer Sergio Garcia for example. In a USA Today article featuring Garcia and his return to the U.S. Open at Bethpage Black after nearly winning there in 2002, he talks about how his break-up with Greg Norman's daughter, Morgan-Leigh, has affected his game this year.
Garcia, who has slipped to No. 4, said in May that he has been reeling since his relationship ended with Greg Norman's daughter, Morgan-Leigh.
"A couple of personal things happened, and that didn't help," Garcia said about the state of his game. "Then, obviously, you lose a little bit of confidence, and it's harder to recover from that. When your head is not where it should be, it doesn't matter how much you practice, because you are not thinking about what you are doing.
Even when relationships are done biblically, there's almost always an emotional investment that requires healing if it ends. When they're not done biblically, they can feel like mini-divorces requiring a sports psychologist. (Not that Garcia needed one though.)
It'll be interesting to see how Garcia does this weekend. Especially given the focus required for a sport like golf where the slightest distraction can give you the yips .
From ScienceDaily.com we get this headline: "When Young Men Are Scarce, They're More Likely To Play The Field Than To Propose." According to the press release:
In places where young women outnumber young men, research shows the hemlines rise but the marriage rates don't because the young men feel less pressure to settle down as more women compete for their affections.
But when those men reach their 30s, the reverse is true and proportionately more older men are married in areas where women outnumber men.
This finding comes from a University of Michigan researcher named Daniel Kruger,who studies evolution and how it relates to contemporary behavior. Taking an evolutionary perspective, Kruger would have expected men who are outnumbered to take a rational "survival of the species" type-approach and to compete for a partner in order to pass along their genes, but that's not what he found.
"Marriage patterns aren't rational because men and women have somewhat different reproductive strategies," Kruger said. "Men have a greater reproductive benefit than women from having a greater quantity of relationships. If they can leverage their scarcity into attracting multiple short-term partners, they will not have as much of an incentive to settle down."
Those of us who don't proscribe to an evolutionary view of life recognize that men and women have a lot more on their minds than "reproductive strategies." We know humans are driven by motivations that are more complex than simple animal instincts. What other motivations do you think might be at play than the evolutionary theory Kruger offers?
For additional food for thought on this topic, check out the article series Plenty of Men to Go Around that Candice wrote. That article provides the reminder that there just aren't many metro areas where single women outnumber single men. Despite conventional wisdom, single men outnumber single women in the great majority of communities throughout the United States.
As a (mostly) dateless single for nearly a decade, making choices in my personal life that would benefit a future relationship wasn't always on my mind. For example, I should be a way better cook by now. But the busyness of single life and a lack of desire to cook fine cuisine for one has left me woefully handicapped in the kitchen. It's OK, it's not too late to learn, I hear.
However, I did focus on some things that would benefit a future relationship. In "Single While Active," I wrote: "I can wait on the Lord and trust His perfect plan for my life, while taking steps to prepare myself to be a good wife and mother." Those steps included cultivating a proper attitude toward men, praying for a husband, living a full life, finding a marriage mentor and trusting God.
I can honestly say that those five focuses really benefited me as I began this season of dating. Living a full life allowed me to interact with Kevin through children's ministry, improv comedy and a young adult Bible study. Disciplining myself to have a loving and gracious attitude toward men made me stand out as an encourager. Praying, trusting and inviting wise counsel, encouraged me in my singleness and kept me from giving up on God and what He was doing in my life.
To those of you non-dating singles, I say this: What you do now will affect your future relationships. One area in which this became apparent both through my experiences and those of friends is the area of purity. When I was not in a relationship, I sometimes let the purity of my entertainment choices, thoughts and attitudes slide. It didn't seem as important when I didn't have the temptation of a live person in my everyday life. In "Leaving the Edge," I wrote:
Putting our sexuality under Christ's lordship is a lifelong discipline, whether single or married. I know that I have struggled with purity issues just as much outside of relationships as in them; the impurity just manifests itself in different ways. As my friend says: "Being in a relationship just brings to the surface sin and impurity that was already lurking beneath the surface."
Loose sexual boundaries in a dating or even engagement relationship will carry over into to marriage. Adultery, pornography, abuse and all types of sexual dysfunction plague Christian marriages and families. And these are simply behaviors that overflow from a heart where sexuality has not been brought under Christ's control. A heart where gratification trumps God's way. Sex is about giving sacrificially to another person within a covenant relationship, not taking whatever you can get away with.
I understand now how the disciplines I have developed (and not developed) affect my current relationship. Cultivating holiness is a lifelong pursuit for the believer, regardless of marital state. Seeds of righteousness planted in your single years will bear fruit in your future relationships and marriage. Likewise, weeds of sin left untended will certainly harm them. Singles (and not-singles) should heed the words of Galatians 6:7: "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows."
It is prudent for believers to sow good seeds at every stage. Reaping a good harvest is sweet.
Some of you who read "Thoughts of a Newly Not-Single" about how I met my boyfriend Kevin, may have noticed a puzzling time lapse: Met perfect-for-me, evangelism-bracelet-recognizing-guy in June; became not-single in March.
It was perfect and it was not perfect.
Two weeks after our initial meeting, I discovered that Kevin was significantly younger than me. We both decided at that moment (though of course unspoken) that the age difference was a deal breaker.
And so, life returned to normal and all thoughts of anything between us were forgotten. Kind of. The thing was, Kevin just kept popping up in my life. A month after we met, he was hired as a children's ministry coordinator at my church, so I saw him each Sunday. Then I organized a fundraising comedy improv show in the fall, and the woman in charge of finding actors recruited Kevin to act in the show.
Our interactions through those months, though completely platonic, revealed to each of us the character and vision of the other. Because I served fifth graders at our church, Kevin would hear about what I was doing from members of the children's ministry staff. I would watch his leadership in the children's area as well as among our peers.
In his sermon series on Song of Solomon, Tommy Nelson talks about Paul's analogy of a race for the Christian life. Nelson points out that as Christian singles "run the race" God has set before them, they should be looking to see who is to their right and left as they run. Who is keeping pace, running nearby, heading the same direction? "Ask that person to run a few laps," he says (speaking to the men). "That's dating or courtship."
That was Kevin's and my experience. As we were running (metaphorically), we would keep glancing over and seeing the other person. The final straw was when he asked me to co-lead a young adult Bible study at the beginning of this year. I accepted, still in a platonic state of mind, but the connection and cooperation we experienced as we began to do ministry together was too great to ignore. Eventually, we prayed through the age difference issue and felt peace about proceeding in spite of it.
Some dating and married friends of mine have described similar barriers that had to be overcome in their relationships. My sister had to accept her now-husband's speech impediment. Another friend had to come to terms with her boyfriend's diabetes. A third worked through being more highly educated than her intended. The violation of one's expectations can come in many forms.
In "7 Myths Single Women Believe" I wrote:
Just as my junior high mind projected who I would recognize as "the one," my grown-up self entertains expectations of how I'll feel when my "soul mate" arrives on the scene. The truth is, God knows best the kind of man who will inspire me to greater devotion to Him. As I seek the Lord, I can trust Him to reveal that person to me in whatever way He sees fit.
The benefit of a not-perfect element to the relationship is that when God overcomes the barrier, you feel even more confidence in what He is doing. It also forces you away from your "checklist" for "the one" and opens the door for God to give you something you wouldn't have known to pick for yourself. In my experience, that something is better than you would have expected.
Do you believe you will find that one unique person on the planet who "completes" you? If so, you may be a soul-mate-ist, someone who believes in soul-mate-ism, which Dr. Scott Stanley defines in today's Boundless article as:
The belief that you will find in a mate the one unique person on the planet who understands your deepest desires and fears, accepts all of who you are unconditionally and who becomes joined to you, making one complete whole in mind, body and soul. The power of this type of relationship is so great that you will know fully and rapidly when you find "the one." Further, if you have not married "the one," you should move on.
If this describes you, be warned that there may be consequences as you pursue marriage. As Dr. Stanley says, any unrealistic expectation that conveys some sort of heavenly connection will make earthbound relationships more difficult.
Did you read Monday's Boundless article Premarital Doubts? It's about an engagement gone wrong. Guy meets girl online, begins dating, gets to know family, gets engaged ... sees red flags.
I wonder if our checkup for seriously dating couples would have helped. Here's a description:
What’s really important for a healthy, lifelong relationship? The Couple Checkup for dating couples helps identify what really matters when considering a forever partner. It brings fresh insights, relevant advice and real-life perspectives on a variety of areas -- communication, compatibility, family backgrounds and more!
Each personalized assessment delivers:
- A detailed relationship report (15-20 pages)
- An easy-to-use interpretation guide
- Insights into 20 key relationship dynamics
- Personality, compatibility and background insights
- Suggestions for future growth
And more!
If you'd like to do everything you can to avoid an engagement gone wrong, it may be worth your while to spend 30 minutes and $30 dollars to take our checkup. Just go to www.family.org/couplecheckup.
Many of you know me as the single girl who writes articles for singles (and not-singles). Well, in March, God began a new chapter in my life: I began the transition to becoming a not-single. The change was so sudden and unexpected that I have struggled to shift gears. Because of that, I have been hesitant to talk (in a public way) about the godly guy in my life. But God has been working as steadily in my not-single state as He did in my single state, teaching me new things about myself and my relationship with Him. And He's been prompting me to begin talking about it. So here's my first insight as a not-single. Not-Single Insight No. 1: There's Nothing Wrong With You Well, technically there is something wrong with you. After all, we are all sinners (Rom. 3:23). But many times during my singleness, I struggled with wondering if there was something about me that was defective. In "Seven Myths Single Women Believe," I wrote: For a long time I believed that if I were thinner, I would attract a husband. Magazines with images of women with flawless skin and model-thin bodies fuel that inner voice that says, You're not thin enough. You're not pretty enough. Or worse, I wonder if it's my personality. I talk too much. Or I laugh at the wrong times. Or I'm too assertive. It's easy to look at married women and wonder: Why them and not me? Single women. There is nothing wrong with seeking to improve your faith, character and outward appearance. That's not what I'm saying. But what the Lord has shown me through my relationship with Kevin is that the right kind of relationship affirms the person God has created you to be. The first time I met Kevin, I was wearing a wordless book bracelet. (Read the story of the wordless book). It was the night before I began serving at VBS at my church and I had made the bracelets for all the kids in my class. It happened to be an outward sign of a core passion of mine: child evangelism. I was meeting a friend at Starbucks and the barista asked me: "Where did you get that bracelet?!" I was surprised to have the bracelet recognized. I told the barista, who introduced himself as Kevin, that I was teaching VBS and he said: "I'm going to be a children's pastor!" Our initial conversation and "click" arose from something that was integral to who I am. The words from my "7 Myths" article reveal a diminished understanding of God's purpose for relationships. Changing who you are to attract someone veers away from God's design for bringing people together. I'm not saying it's not a great temptation to try to be something "better" to attract a special someone's attention. However, our calling is to be the people God created us to be. After all, a childish bracelet and accompanying childlike enthusiasm may deter one fellow, but it may be irresistible to another. God is teaching me that the best kind of relationship is one where each person's God-given traits and gifts are affirmed in the presence and personality of the other.
I was so busy getting ready for my Dad's visit last week that I kept putting off my Q&A deadline. Alas, the final extension came and went, and even though Ted is exceedingly patient with me in such situations, he was headed off to the Next conference, so this time, it really was too late to get a new column done in time.
I asked him to run a classic. And he did. But because I was so busy enjoying my Dad, and watching him teach our kids how to play Whist, and going to the zoo, and dodging uncharacteristic rain storms, I didn't realize till this morning which column he chose. And the reason I realized it was that you all are writing to say, "I'm shocked to see that the 'Guys just know' statement was published AGAIN."
Ugh.
So again, I'll apologize for ever writing that. ;)
Apparently guys don't just know. ...
And so, to Michael, and all the other men who wrote [and wrote again] to challenge my assertion about men, thank you. I'm sorry for diminishing the nature of the risk you have to take when you act biblically in relating to women. Though this doesn't change my advice about what women should do, it's worth noting that in the dance of courtship, men are indeed taking a huge risk when, even in the face of possible rejection and with no hint of success, they ask women out.
To the men who overcome their anxiety and fear of possible failure to do so, it is no small act of courage. Thank you.
You can read the whole mea culpa here.
Okay, my title is a bit misleading. But “In Defense of
Klutzes Who Spout Pick-Up Lines Without Realizing It” wouldn’t fit.
Lisa’s “What’s Your Line” (and its many responses) made me both laugh and cringe,
remembering a long-ago incident that still brings an involuntary wince every
time I think of it.
All through high school I worked at a Publix Supermarket,
bagging groceries. One day a girl roughly my age was going through the
checkout, and I couldn’t take my eyes off her. Sure, she was pretty, but that’s
not why I was staring. I was certain I knew her from somewhere, but I just
couldn’t place it.
I kept staring as I bagged the groceries, and she was
becoming increasingly uncomfortable. When she finally got to the end of the
checkout, my curiosity got the best of me.
Even as my mind shouted a slow-motion Noooooooo! my mouth said, “Hey, don’t I know you from somewhere?”
Her eyes could have bored holes through plate steel as she
snatched her groceries, turned on her heel and stormed away. The middle-aged
woman running the cash register laughed uproariously. Me, I felt at that point
that I could have walked under a cockroach without bumping my head.
So, yes, ladies, be aware of the slick pick-up artists, and
follow the good advice you’ve been given. But also be aware that sometimes the
guy has no bad intentions; he’s just put his mouth in gear before fully
engaging his brain.
Oh, and to this day I still don’t know where I knew this
girl from.
The other day I was walking through the mall during my lunch hour. As I headed toward the door of a department store on the way out to my car, I heard whistling. Not a shrill, catcall-like whistle, but a warbling, birdsong-like whistle. After a minute or two, I turned around to see a guy walking about ten feet behind me.
"It wasn't me, I promise!" he exclaimed, raising his hands in apology. He then quickened his stride, caught up to me and said, "You have a nice set of eyes."
I literally did not know how to respond. I wasn't sure I heard him correctly, so I lamely said, "What?" He repeated his statement. "Oh, thanks!", I replied, and bolted off like a frightened rabbit.
As I walked to my car, I thought about this encounter. He seemed like a nice guy. I gave him points for boldness. Thankfully, I hadn't responded rudely. But I didn't know what to make of it. How had he expected me to respond? Did he think I'd return the compliment, strike up a conversation, give him my number? I find it hard to be balanced in situations like this. On the one hand, I'm flattered and impressed. On the other, I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that this is a perfectly acceptable way to meet women. Should I have asked him to join me at Orange Julius so I could inquire after his faith, character, marital status (necessary, I've found) and ability to support a wife and family? Maybe I could've gotten his email address and immediately filled his inbox with Boundless articles on dating and courtship?
A few years ago, I had a key made at Ace Hardware. The guy handed me my newly-minted key with his phone number wrapped around it. I botched that connection by staring at the slip of paper and blurting out, "Why did you give me your number?" A less awkward incident happened in the Wal-Mart card aisle. A guy approached me and said, "Can you help me pick out a card for my mom?" What girl doesn't want to be helpful in situations like these? I said, "Sure," and he used the opportunity to strike up a conversation. I thought that was pretty smooth, and in that instance, I didn't end up acting like a total freak. It seemed more natural and normal. The guy asked me out, but after some pointed questions from me, admitted that he was in fact married. Yikes (see above).
What's your experience either getting or giving pickup lines, and do you think this "cast the net" approach is ok, especially for Christians? If we're all griping about the lack of eligible dates and mates in our churches, should we instead be trolling the checkout aisles, gas pumps and dental waiting rooms that we frequent?
I have girlfriends who are so frustrated with their lack of dates, they think a numbers game is in order. They're willing to talk to a bunch of guys in hopes one of them will turn out to be a Christian. And single. And emotionally healthy. I'll admit, I've heard of Christians who met their spouse on the train, in a Starbucks, at a baseball game. It works! The sovereignty of God seems to occasionally include pickup lines.
So what do you think? Opinions needed. And perhaps some advice for me in these situations is warranted, too.
If you happen to watch The Bachelor TV show, you may be familiar with the controversy of the last season. Plugged In Online author Meredith Whitmore describes it this way: When Mesnick dumped first-place fiancée, Melissa Rycroft, for Molly Malaney, the second-place "love of his life," I stood up and yelled, "He did NOT just do that!" Then I pretended to stab him repeatedly with my fork.
Seriously. In my opinion, the show hit a new low this season. Whitmore asks: Does The Bachelor influence our real-life dating culture, or does our dating culture influence The Bachelor? The bachelor and his harem (oops, the contestants) live out relational myths that even many Christians seem to hold as reality. The show also plays into our American lust for instant gratification, since in a measly six-week span, the bachelor is expected to date 25 women—disposing of all but one—to find what he always trumpets as true love. But if it's love, then why do most of the couples break up? And moreover, why do so many of us, too? Enter the myths that The Bachelor and our culture hold dear.
Whitmore names four myths perpetuated by the show:
- A couple should always feel in love.
- Love just happens—you can't direct it.
- Love is mostly about getting your needs met.
- It's healthy and normal to have sex before marriage.
Her insights are well worth reading. What do you think of The Bachelor and similar shows? Do such programs simply spotlight the worst aspects of dating or do they fuel them?
I'm in the midst of writing and editing the articles and pieces of articles that will make up the girls' version of the Guy's Guide to Marrying Well. If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth a minute to click on the image and flip through the free booklet online (heck, it's worth it just to hear the cool sound effects!).
I think the end result will be even better if I know what you think should be included. What articles or topics would you like to see in the soon-to-be completed Girl's Guide to Marrying Well?
So what'll it be? Please leave a comment if you have some ideas.
It's no surprise that singles want to put their best foot forward in a dating relationship. Why else would women spend so much time pre-date getting their hair and make up and clothes just so? But what if your best asset isn't your looks, personality or character, but your money?
In this week's Q&A, a Boundless reader asks if its OK to let his wealth be the lure. He writes,
I'm wondering if it's wrong for a man to focus on financial security as a "selling point" to a potential wife? It's not as if I'm going to wear a sign around my neck saying, "Good paycheck, high credit score, looking for wife," but you get the idea.
What would you think about a blind date setup that promised not a great personality but a fat wallet?
To read what I think about it, check out my answer here.
I married an older woman--well a day older.
Since Candice and I are so close in age, it's been a challenge for us to know at times how to answer couples who ask about a big age difference in their relationship. Some have wondered if such an age gap makes them more vulnerable to divorce.
That's why I was encouraged to see this topic covered in a round-up of recent marriage research (by the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center). After reviewing what is considered to be the largest and most comprehensive study on this topic, the report offers the following insights:
Some previous research in the United States and in Europe has suggested that a large age difference between a husband and a wife is associated with an increased risk of divorce,
especially when the wife is older than the husband. But this finding is not consistent
across studies. ...
Consequently, the widely-held belief that a large difference in ages between spouses, especially when the wife is older than the husband, is a risk factor for divorce, has
been significantly challenged. Marriage and relationship educators may find it useful to know that regarding marriage, a notable age difference between spouses (or potential spouses) does not necessarily create a cause for concern.
An age difference can seem like a wide gulf for a couple looking back on their relative age during their teen years (for instance a guy who says, "Wow, you were still in the sixth grade when I got my driver's license."). Every year between one and eighteen just seems so majorly significant. That's why you don't see many 12-year-olds dating 18-year-olds. Those gaps can close quite a bit, however, as couples move into their twenties. While your age tends to define you up until twenty, you define your age from twenty forward. You can choose to be either a very mature or immature twenty-year-old.
What's been your experience in considering (or marrying) a spouse who isn't your age?
The other day I was talking with a good friend of mine and she congratulated me on my months-old relationship with a godly guy. She said, "I can genuinely say that I am happy for you. That's not true of everyone." She proceeded to tell me of a friend who, after being in relationship after relationship, met her soul mate in a pet supply store parking lot days after a major break-up. "It's just not fair," my friend said. "I wait patiently and try to follow God, and she meets someone moments after getting out of an unwise relationship." I had to deal with those feelings when my sister got married in October. First unfair factor: She never lacked for a boyfriend since eighth grade, while I had dry spells of years. Second unfair factor: She met her husband a month after getting out of another serious relationship and they married within a year. Third unfair factor: I'm nine years older than her. I wrote on my blog: Some assume that I would be discouraged by the fact that my little sister is getting married before me—after all, I have waited nine years longer than she for a godly spouse. I won't deny that an occasional question of God's fairness has crossed my mind, but by His grace, Bekah and Ezra's journey has encouraged me in a profound way and renewed my hope. I also recognize that He is writing different stories for me and my sister—both of them for His glory. He has blessed her with Ezra in this season, because that is what she needs—or perhaps He just wishes to delight her in this way. And I have no reason to doubt that God can, and will, do the same for me in His timing. I'm not claiming a promise that does not exist. I am only blessed by this outpouring of God's love and grace on my sister and trusting that He desires to lavish His love on me, too (1 John 3:1).
When issues of God's fairness in regard to my love life (or lack of it) arise, I must decide if I believe that He loves me. Because if I do, I must also believe that He has reasons for the frustrations and delays. I told my friend that she should view her friend's Petco parking lot encounter not with jealousy but as an encouragement. After all, at the right time God may choose to do something equally miraculous for her. That has been the case for me. God works in lives differently, but that does not mean He is rewarding the undeserving while overlooking the faithful. My best advice comes from Hebrews 12:2: "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith." He is perfecting us. And when we embrace that process we can appreciate the highs and lows that it brings—because the One who knows us best and loves us most is writing our story. At that point it ceases to be a fairness issue, because we're letting go of our own expectations and inviting God's best.
Before you go on to read this blog, let me encourage you to read the blog post and article referenced below if you haven't already done so.
Essentially, a young woman was torn between allegiance to her dad and allegiance to her boyfriend. And she was asking us for advice.
I thought there was a lot of helpful discussion following my blog post, exploring issues of trust and privacy and maturity and such. But some of the comments on my blog post quickly assumed the worst about the young woman's father:
- "He could also learn to show a little more grace. It sounds like he still resents the boyfriend's prior sins"
- "her father's micromanagement"
- "This to me seems completely inappropriate and bizarre"
- "it looks like her father isn't really 'protecting' her so much as he is infantilizing her"
- "she could ruin a wonderful thing with a wonderful man and continue an unhealthily controlling relationship with her father"
- "the father is overly controlling"
- "I think her father delving into her boyfriend's sexual history is a bit creepy"
- "the father is really not interested in his daughter getting married, but would rather have her live at home forever"
- "it sounds like that they have a codependent, enmeshed family"
- "her parents' conditional and infantilizing love"
- it sounds like a controlling, fundamentalist father with an iron fist on his firstborn daughter"
- "This article shows exactly how this keeping daughters at home movement is hurting females. It sounds like these movements are not about helping daughters but more for making for power hungry patriarchs."
Ouch.
Being a father now, one who dearly loves his three pre-K daughters, it hurt to see such harsh words for a godly man who was doing the best he could to bless his daughter. I also felt that maybe we didn't have the whole story, so I asked the young woman who sent in the original question if she would send me her thoughts on the blog discussion. Here's what she had to say:
* * *
"Wow! Settle down, people!" That was my thought upon reading the flurry of comments on Ted's blog post.
The first thing I want to do is defend my dad. He is a wonderful, godly man, a devoted and loving father, and he truly wants what is best for me. He's not some creepy control freak who doesn't want me to ever get married — he has spent hours and hours in prayer for me and my future spouse. Iron fist? No way. I love, respect, and trust my dad.
John Thomas and Ted Slater are reading the situation rightly — I have an outstanding father who is worried about his daughter.
There is only so much one can say in a letter to an advice column, and it's hard to determine what is pertinent. Some readers have been making wild assumptions based on what I wrote. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I've lived a life of perfection and never disobeyed my parents in 27 years! My intent was to show how seriously I take my dad's advice and that I want to honor him.
And I do understand, at least a little, why he would be concerned. My position is that while his concerns may be valid, I don't think it's time to shut this down completely. Maybe we can talk this over and try to come to an agreement with a little give and take, and a little sympathy for the young man's side.
I have no intentions of destroying my relationship with my father over this. After all, I've known and trusted him for 27 years and I know he has my best interest at heart. I want God to be glorified in the outcome.
* * *
You're free to leave any kind of comment you'd like, but I'm especially interested in exploring the following here:
- Why are we so quick to assume the worst about a father who seems to have a close, loving relationship with his daughter? Maybe we just don't see this enough, and when we do see it, it strikes us as oddly foreign, unrealistic, a fairy tale? And we recoil?
- If a situation is ambiguous, why must we fill in the blanks, and then form strong opinions based on the assumptions we've made? Why can't we reserve opinion, or hold our opinions lightly, especially when we lack sufficient information to make an informed opinion?
I've invited the young woman who sent in the question to participate in this discussion. She's really busy, and will be without an internet connection for a few days, but she'll do her best to answer your questions and inject her own thoughts when she does get a chance.
Jeffrey Whiting, a regular commenter here on The Line, sent us a fascinating e-mail earlier this morning. He's given me permission to publish it here.
* * *
...
Also, at the outset of this message I would like to mention I am in complete agreement with the very practical, sensible and Christian ethic that [Candice], Suzanne, and Dr. Mohler articulate about reserving all sexual intimacy for marriage. I am happy to proclaim my solidarity with this conviction as the most authentically Christian understanding of intimacy and its hallowed place within the confines of marriage.
That being said I have had difficulty with applying this ethic in my "relationships" (for lack of a better word) with women, but perhaps not in the way you would expect.
Let me explain: It seems that in the area of sexual morality the teachings of the Christian religion and romance are often contrary to each other, because they derive from rival moral traditions.
Christianity places great importance on commitment ("the man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife"), fidelity ("thou shalt not commit adultery"), and permanence ("what God has joined together let no man put asunder") as the organizing principles between men and women that are decreed by God to perpetuate the species and glorify Him.
Conversely, romance has an often contrary list of principles: repeated separation and reunion (Tristan and Isolde, Romeo and Juliet), infidelity (Anna Korenina) and passability (for a more contemporary example: the TV show Friends) as means to generate passionate connection, "chemistry" and feelings of "being in love" that are the necessary conditions for a man and woman to be together.
On one hand the Christian ethic teaches one thing about how men and women are to relate to each other and the romantic tradition often teaches something completely contrary! Yet, both traditions have coexisted for the better part of a thousand years in Western civilization and neither seems poised to overtake the other as the dominant ethic in governing relations between men and women. It seems the two traditions will continue their uneasy co-existence during my lifetime and for many years to come.
Indeed, some would argue that the two outlooks can be harmonized, but I am not so sure, and that is what brings me to my dilemma:
It is all well and good to advocate the teachings of the Christian religion on these matters and I have done everything possible to follow them in my overtures to women. I have never had sex or even kissed a woman. However, in the "relationships" I have had my experience has been that by following Christian moral prescriptions the women eventually loses interest because she is not feeling "chemistry" or the level of passion she has been conditioned to expect.
To further clarify: I'm not talking about initiating foreplay or sex, I'm talking about what the authors above advocate such as not kissing or being physically intimate. You see, the romantic ethic has taught us that some level of physical escalation seems to expected by women from men and I can't help but wonder about — and feel discouraged by — the idea that following the Christian ethic has resulted and will result in being single even longer than I desire.
What is your reaction to my thoughts on this subject? Do you have any guidance you would be willing to share?
Pax,
Jeffrey Whiting
* * *
I can't introduce this concept any better than Jeffrey has. And I, too, would love to hear your thoughts on this subject.
Not too long ago, I was having a conversation with a friend and she mentioned how maintaining physical boundaries with her boyfriend was a lot more difficult than she expected. "I mean, we're not teenagers anymore!" she said. Basically, maintaining physical purity—even in a relationship consisting of two committed Christians—was more difficult than anticipated. Anyone relate?
My brother is a youth pastor, so I've thought a great deal about the messages Christian teens receive about sex from the church. Most of it is of the "true love waits" variety. If you ask, "Why does true love wait?" the party line answer is that sex will be more fulfilling if you do. Plus, you'll avoid those nasty consequences that label you with a social stigma—such as getting pregnant out of wedlock.
But the meaning of sex and God's call for purity goes so much further than that simplistic presentation. I recently read Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. The book really transformed my thinking on sex and chastity. Maintaining purity as a believer is not just about controlling inappropriate sexual behaviors and managing consequences, it is about allowing God to transform your heart and whole way of thinking. I wrote the following in today's featured article "Leaving the Edge:"
If you are in a relationship—even a godly one—a whole universe of purity choices presents itself. Is kissing OK? What about making out? What touch is appropriate and what touch is sinful? On the ladder of physical expressions that ends with sexual intercourse, at what level does one begin sinning?
The flaw in these questions is that the emphasis is on the wrong thing: the behaviors. Purity is a heart issue. Luke 6:45 says: "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart."
This is a heart issue. Even self-control, as needed as it is, only manages sexuality. In response to my article, Daniel Weiss Senior Analyst for Media and Sexuality for Focus on the Family Action wrote the following:
One thing I would have added in this article is the idea of sacrificing a lesser love for a greater one. We sacrifice what we want now, for what we are promised in the future. I sacrifice sexual touch with my girlfriend now to enjoy uninhibited, chaste, complete intimacy with her later. Or, I sacrifice sexual activity in this life in order to experience the full communion of the saints in the next. These aren’t theoretical; but very real choices with eternal payoffs.
The main truth we need to grasp as believers is that God has a radically different—and infinitely better—design for sex than the world delivers. And keeping in step with the Spirit by embracing purity at every stage allows sex to be what God intended—a sacrificial covenant seal that reflects Him. Since the Garden of Eden, Satan has been trying to convince us to take something less than God's full deal for us. Pushing physical boundaries in relationships does exactly that. When we leave the edge, God has so much more for us.
The dilemma in today's featured Boundless article, "Not Telling Dad," is an awkward one. Essentially, the question is, "Does my 31-year-old boyfriend have to answer all my father's questions?" Specifically questions about whether the boyfriend, who has "lived a pretty wild life," has any sexually transmitted infections.
I can see different sides to the situation. On one hand, why is the father being so intrusive, not trusting his 27-year-old daughter to make wise decisions about her boyfriend? On the other hand, why is the boyfriend afraid to be transparent? Is he hiding something that he's ashamed of, something secretive that a father would sense and an in-love girlfriend might not?
She could just dismiss her father's questions, saying it's none of his business anymore. But doing so would damage her relationship with her father, and simply put off a conversation that must eventually take place.
So what advice does Boundless Answers columnist John Thomas give? Hm.
In Relationships: Recession-Proof Business?Carolyn McCulley weighs in on a recent article in the Economistthat reports online dating sites are on the upswing in a slow economy. From the article:
Not many industries are doing well in the recession. But along with discount retailers and pawnbrokers, online-dating sites such as eHarmony.com and OkCupid.com have seen business look up. There are several theories to explain why. It may be that people have more time to devote to their private lives as the economy slows; that uncertain times increase the desire for companionship; or that living alone is expensive, whereas couples can split many of their costs.
It does seem a lagging economy may cause people to examine what really matters in life, including meaningful companionship. But this reality has a more sinister expression. McCulley notes that an online site that arranges extra-marital affairs is also experiencing an increased business. According to the site's manager, people suffering financial problems "want to do something that makes them feel better about themselves, and $49 is a tiny expenditure for a life-altering affair.”
McCulley writes:
In both cases, the church has a ministry opportunity before it. Instead of seeking to profit from people's loneliness, the church can present both the good news of the gospel and the teaching to support relationships and marriages. As I've written before, the church should be involved in helping singles meet and marry because marriage is a God-ordained institution and, in the face of cultural opposition today, it is an institution that needs supporters. There is a HUGE cost for adultery and it's one that ripples well beyond the individuals involved.
Meaningful relationships are a valuable commodity regardless of the economic situation. But as McCulley points out, where there is a greater felt need there is greater opportunity.
Comedian Steve Harvey is on a book tour. I know this because in the three times I've had the TV on in the last forty-eight hours, I've seen him twice and learned once again that Lost is not for the drop-in viewer.
Harvey's new book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man: What Men Really Think About Love, Relationships, Intimacy and Commitment, seems to be creating quite the buzz and is #2 over at Amazon.com.
Monster disclaimer: I have not read the book. But I was intrigued by the interviews I watched. In them, Steve offered some advice that I think is sound (have some standards set before you start dating) and some that was not (he advises the "90 Day Rule"--to wait 90 days before having sex, but also says that he doesn't know anybody who can wait until marriage to have sex).
But what really grabbed my attention was the anecdote Harvey told about himself, his daughter and her grandfather. Evidently, all three were gathered at a family function, along with "the new guy"--his daughter's current boyfriend. As Harvey put it, the new guy had been around the house about five times by then so Harvey figured he had "made the cut."
At some point, boyfriend, Harvey and granddad were in the kitchen together and granddad turned to boyfriend and asked, "So, what's your plan for my granddaughter?"
Boyfriend hemmed and hawed a little bit. "Oh, you know, I don't really have a plan right now," boyfriend replied. "No, no, no," granddad replied, "what is your plan for my granddaughter?"
At this point, Harvey related how he was getting really interested and had everybody sit at the kitchen table. Because, Harvey said, granddad and I know one thing because we're men too: There is a plan. He may not want us to know it. He may not want her to know it. But there is a plan.
Eventually, Harvey said, boyfriend admitted that he didn't have any long-term intentions for the daughter. "We're just kickin' it," boyfriend told the two men.
"Great," Harvey said, "now let's invite my daughter in here as well because I think she would like to know that she's just bein' kicked with."
"They broke up the next day," Harvey said.
In the short discussion that followed, it seemed that Harvey was trying to make the point that a woman should be willing to ask the tough questions. But, even though grandad had actually asked the tough question, it didn't seem like Harvey embraced the idea that he (and dads and granddads in general) should have a place in asking those tough questions too. It made me think of Candice's book, Get Married: What Women Can Do To Help It Happen, and what she wrote about inviting your parents (and/or mentors) to be a part of your dating process: (another article about that here)
"Parents used to be very active in their daughters' preparation for marriage, their opportunities for worthy suitors, their protection from rascals ... That's rarely the case anymore.
...[Single women] have been abandoned, left to fend for themselves when it comes to getting married. For better or worse, they're all they have. No longer do young men dating young women recognize any authority or protection in the equation. It's just the guy and his date. No questions asked.
...While some parents are showing renewed interest in their daughters' struggles to marry well, most women still face the challenge of going it alone. If you're one of the few with a dad who is trying to follow a biblical model, you're blessed. Thank him and allow him to live out the responsibility God has called him to. If you don't have that support, you can ask for it."
My dad was not an integral part of my dating process. Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that my dad could be an asset in helping me to select dates (and, possibly, refuse some), hold suitors accountable and provide me with guidance.
Looking back, I realize that both parents and mentors would have made valuable contributions to me as a young woman. And, truth be told, there are certain questions only a dad can ask. And a certain way that only dads and older men can ask them. "What are your intentions for my daughter?" is just a different question than "Don't you think we should define our relationship?"
I think there's room for both of those questions. And it would be so nice for us to know from the beginning who was just planning on "kickin' it" so we could do a little kicking to the curb ourselves.
According to a recent study, college women may drink to excess to impress men, but the men aren't impressed.
The participants, aged 18-25, filled out online surveys during the 2007 fall semester. The women answered questions relating to how many drinks they thought a typical college guy would like his female friends to drink as well as the maximum number of drinks he would prefer. The men then answered questions related to their preferences.
The results? The majority of women (71 percent) overestimated the men's actual preferences by an average of 1 1/2 drinks.
"There is a great, and risky, disconnect here between the sexes," lead author Joseph LaBrie said in a statement. "While not all women may be drinking simply to get a guy's attention, this may help explain why more women are drinking at dangerous levels."
Reading this article made me, quite frankly, just sad. The author is right -- probably not all of these young women are drinking simply to get a guy's attention. Maybe some of them, for some reason, enjoy knocking back five or more drinks. But my guess is that it's not very many.
I'm sure that not all women who dress provocatively do it for a guy's attention. But I really wonder if their idea of "these clothes make me feel pretty" isn't based at least somewhat on the power to turn a man's head.
And there may be those Sex in the City "Samantha" types who just want to have unattached, unencumbered sex. But I've comforted one too many college roommates who gave themselves to a man only to be dumped once again, to really believe that to be the norm.
For me, this study was just a reminder. A reminder that I am the Lord's but I am also living in a world saturated with "Girls Gone Wild" messages of how to attract a man. I need to intentionally face those messages and filter them through the Word of God. The world may tell me to sex it up. But my God tells me that He cherishes modesty. The world may encourage me to table dance for the party, but my God tells me that He cherishes a gentle and quiet spirit. The world may tell me that drunkenness is attractive. My God tells me that it's not.
One of the desires of my heart is for a man who loves the Lord to also love me. I need to understand that following the world's advice will not make that happen. And, in the end, I really don't want the world's advice. I don't want to be an object who loses her worth at the first sign of a root or a wrinkle. My God tells me that I am a fellow heir who is to be loved and respected. Girls, I'll take that every day of the week.
Imagine if you could know that the cute guy you see every week at the grocery store has the potential to be your perfect match? What if you didn't have to wonder if that pretty girl in your class shares your love of sushi and old movies? A new technology may help compatible singles "find" each other, according to WSJ:
Students at the University of Maine recently announced a prototype for a wearable matchmaking device called the "Friend Finder." The gadget, programmed with information about the wearer's interests and tastes, features a series of LED lights that flash whenever another user with compatible interests is within 30 feet — allowing humans to mimic the romantic signaling of fireflies.
While the technology may sound progressive, author Dara Horn points out that its not really anything new. She should know. In 1966, her parents met and married through one of the first computer dating services: Operation Match. Her dad and mom each received a computer print-out containing six names of compatible singles. Horn's father took out all six women. This service may bear a resemblance to modern-day online matchmaking services, but Horn points out that our perceptions have changed:
What truly makes Operation Match seem quaint today was the absolute faith with which the computer's results were received. The wildly popular service processed more than a million questionnaires from students nationwide within three years, and its success reveals less about computer programming than about social norms. Baby-boomer college students, only a couple of generations removed from the arranged marriages of the past, had every expectation of marrying in their early 20s — and perfect faith that modern science could do no wrong. As my mother put it: "This was the ultimate science, the highest technology. The list of matches even came as a computer printout! Who could dispute it?"
Today's young adults searching for love are more wary of technology and its ability to procure a "soul mate." Online dating services and social networking sites can become non-threatening ways to check out the opposite sex — from a distance.
For a risk-averse generation accustomed to screening everything, the greatest challenge is simply gathering the courage to pick up the phone and call a stranger, no matter how "compatible" that stranger supposedly is. The idea of wearing lights that flash "I'm available" would hardly appeal if we were brave enough to break the ice ourselves. In an age of personal computers, we have become more impersonal: We have the technology, but we no longer have the guts.
Horn doesn't propose how to get back the guts — only that we need to. I agree. After all, the flash of a smile and resulting conversation is way more personal — and fun — than the flash of a wristband. In the end, technology can only do so much. Courage and intentionality are required to make something happen. As a woman, I appreciate when a guy takes a risk. "Friend Finder" or no.
I've witnessed several young couples in the beginning stages of a relationship become frustrated over the other's worship-style preference. One of them likes a more traditional service; the other prefers something more contemporary. It seems a silly consideration when framed like that. Surely compromise is the appropriate response. I mean, we don't want the path to marital bliss to be disrupted by mere preference, do we?
But what if the differences go beyond preference? What if the way we worship says more about our doctrine than our tastes?
In a letter published in New Horizons, an elder writes a young man, "James," in college about his courtship to a young woman who finds their worship service dull. But instead of giving advice about the prudence of compromise in such matters, he focuses on the doctrine of irresistible grace. And "if you're wondering how this relates to worship," he writes,
... think about the motivation for many so-called improvements in worship—changes designed to make it more engaging, lively, or moving. The argument invariably is that such changes will make worship more effective, as if our efforts in ministering God's word will make the grace of the gospel irresistible. (The same logic seems to inform churches with lots of programs. Programs will seemingly be more influential than a narrow focus on ministering God's word.)
Now I'm not writing this to promote the merits of the elder's argument, only the weight he is giving the issue as he mentors this young man. He encourages James to carefully consider questions of worship and whether he wants to hear them the rest of his life if he marries the "person who is asking them now."
I believe too many of us gloss over the motivations behind our preferences, particularly in a dating context when emotions are at their highest. But since worship is one of the most intimate acts in which married people engage, I would give it its due.
In my Q&A column last week, I insisted that guys "just know" when a girl is interested and therefore, there's no need for women to give any sort of permission for the man to initiate. However, in view of the several reader comments that arrived challenging my assertions, I do think a tempering of my thesis is in order.
I still believe it's the man's responsibility to initiate and assume all the risk of asking a girl out, knowing that she might say no. I also believe that while women should be friendly and kind, they don't have the responsibility of giving guys a green light.
What I realized I need to adjust is my understanding of how men think. Apparently they don't just know. It was an email from Michael P. that finally convinced me. He wrote,
I am 25 years old, and looking back I can think of very few situations where I "just knew." ... I am sure that many single girls are or have been attracted to me. Yet I can think of only a few situations where I "knew." Quite frankly I have far more frequently figured it out from third parties or long after the fact.
I agree, that this is no excuse for myself or any other guy, and further more I think all your advice in the matter on how a girl should handle things is correct. I just wish you would stop asserting that "a guy will just know." It simply is not true, and I fear it serves to undercut the seriousness with which young people might receive your otherwise excellent advice.
So I wrote him back and asked, "What would you suggest is the solution? If guys don't always know, should the girls give them a signal? Or are you just asking me to take back that assumption and concede that guys don't always know?"
He graciously replied,
I guess I really am just asking you to take back your assumption. I think it grates at guys because they want to be mature and pass on the flirts but are frustrated that they then have to ask out a girl without being sure of what response they will get. Facing the risk of being rejected takes a huge step of faith. Perhaps when you say we "just know," it sort of comes off as you are throwing it in our face. You encourage guys to be "real men" and take a chance, and then turn around and tell the ladies that it's not really all that big of a risk because we somehow naturally already know that she will say yes.
And so, to Michael, and all the other men who wrote to challenge my assertion about men, thank you. I'm sorry for diminishing the nature of the risk you have to take when you act biblically in relating to women. Though this doesn't change my advice about what women should do, it's worth noting that in the dance of courtship, men are indeed taking a huge risk when, even in the face of possible rejection and with no hint of success, they ask women out.
To the men who overcome their anxiety and fear of possible failure to do so, it is no small act of courage. Thank you.
The letter started simple enough:
I am a young man currently in Bible college and I have a "lady-friend" whom I have known for about a year now that I like and am seriously considering dating. Spiritually, I have found her to be mature and our beliefs are essentially identical.
Then it took a twist:
However, I feel somewhat shallow/guilty because I have been struggling to decide whether or not to date her because of her health. She has had this medical condition....
In reply, Boundless Answers columnist John Thomas wrote the article "Dating Someone with a Medical Condition." His conclusion: "If God leads you to marriage with your friend, you can unequivocally trust Him to provide all you need for both of you to thrive."
We've received a few e-mails in response to John's article. This one, from a young woman who herself struggles with a disability:
As a single young woman with a chronic medical condition, I was naturally intrigued by the title of this article. However, as I read it, I felt a little incensed, both by the question and the response to it. However, I do not wish to judge the young man who sent in this question -- as fallen creatures, we are all prone to superficiality. I would also not wish to discourage anyone from asking questions like this (no matter how shallow they may appear), as I appreciate personally how important it is to have a website like this, where such questions are answered anonymously and with careful consideration of God's Word.
While I do not dispute the advice that was given per se, I do feel that there were some extremely important factors that were not considered. First of all, where was the consideration of the young woman's feelings in all of this?
I appreciate that it is difficult for a "healthy/normal" person to understand what it is like to live with a chronic illness -- I had very little concept of the difficulties before I developed health problems. However, I do believe that the young man concerned should have been advised to consider this issue very carefully. Even though the young woman considered here has probably adjusted very well to her condition, this does not mean that she doesn't worry about it herself. She is probably a little nervous of what the future may hold -- even though she is single, she has probably thought about the effect of pregnancy on her diabetes (and vice versa), and worried about developing complications in later life. She may even be concerned about passing on the condition to any children she may have.
Eclipsing all of this, however, is the overriding feeling that having such a condition renders a young woman "damaged" or "abnormal." The effect of chronic illness on a person's lifestyle can be very insidious (many of my colleagues and acquaintances do not know the true extent of my health problems), but any restrictions on lifestyle (no matter how small) can have a deep impact on a person's self-esteem -- especially if one is young and supposed to be "in the prime of life." Having to inject insulin in a public place, having a coughing fit in the cinema, or feeling so exhausted that you're always the first one to leave a party reinforces the idea that you are "different" and not "normal."
If this woman knew this man's misgivings about dating her, I have no doubt in my mind that she would be extremely upset at this -- she has probably had moments where she has felt that life is unfair and her condition has placed one too many restrictions on her life, and now she may feel that it is costing her the opportunity for a loving relationship and all that may follow that -- marriage, children etc.
Furthermore, I do not understand how the perceived logic in "avoiding what could be a problem down the road for her and ... our children." Do you seriously believe that if a "healthy" couple married that they (or their children) may not have health problems in the future? Either partner may develop a medical condition, or become injured in an accident etc etc. I'm sure we all know individuals who were perfectly healthy when they got married but developed medical problems later in life.
Conversely, there are many people who were living with medical conditions when they married, but have had a normal family life and healthy children. Any couple may also carry recessive (i.e., imperfect) genes, which result in any children being at risk of having a genetic illness.
In short, none of us can predict our (or anyone else's) future health -- only the Lord God knows what lies ahead. Even though I am a doctor and have a good understanding of my condition, and make any necessary adjustments for it (working hours and specialty choice etc), I do not believe that the presence of my medical condition should automatically preclude me from marrying and having children -- there are very few absolute restrictions. Above all, it is important (as mentioned in the article) to consider all the risks, and of course to seek God's guidance in prayer.
Apologies if this sounds like a rather wordy rant -- that was not my intention. I just felt compelled to give the other side of the story (maybe it hit a raw nerve?), and I hope that this will be of some use to you.
This young woman's e-mail did give me insights I didn't have before reading it. How about you? Are you open to dating someone with a "medical condition"? And if you have one yourself, what are your thoughts about all this?
So we've entered what is probably the most awkward week for a budding relationship. It's always unnerving when you hit that "I-think-we-may-like-each-other" moment in the days leading up to Valentine's Day. I mean, you don't want the instant pressure of the "love holiday" entering an already delicate equation. I've noticed most guys will kind of get real quiet a little before February 14 and then pick things back up the following week.
Once a guy was asking me on a first coffee date the week before V-Day. Even though February 14 was open for both of us, we agreed to meet on the 15th. It just seemed...well, less weird.
Here's another observation I have about Valentine's Day: Women who aren't dating like to plan man-free parties. I've already been invited to three. I don't want to read too much into it, but these parties — with catchy names like Ro-tic (romantic without the "man") and S.A.D. (singles awareness day) — seem to be a rebellion against romance.
I remember one year some friends of mine were planning this type of party — the "we-don't-need-boyfriends" kind. At the last minute, my friend said, "We're changing it. I've been convicted that this kind of attitude is wrong, so we're just getting together for some worship. Anyone can come." I still admire that girl.
Valentine's Day is a fine holiday, in my opinion. Sure, it's commercialized (and it ruins those New Years resolution diets), but so is Christmas. I think it's nice that couples have a special day to celebrate their love and commitment if they so choose. And I think singles should be good sports and not see the holiday as some type of excuse to mourn or be bitter.
How will you spend Valentine's Day? Offer to babysit so a couple can go out Saturday. Get some friends together for a meal. Send someone a Valentine. Deliver a pink cake to your grandma. And if you're brave, meet someone for coffee — if things work out it will make a good story. Just do the unexpected. Love is a wonderful thing, people. And that should be celebrated year round.
P.S. Join us today for the Search for a Godly Spouse Forum at 4-6 p.m. (EST)
"How to End a Relationship Like a Man" is the feature today from the folks over at The Art of Manliness. And it might be just the thing a guy needs as he contemplates ending a relationship just before Christmas -- especially if he's considering terminating it like the guy does in the opening illustration: "Matt's relationship status has been changed to 'single'  ." The first time I saw this on Facebook I nearly choked on my bagel. Not only was Matt experiencing the black pit we call "breaking up," but he had to face the uncomfortable reality that his new status was being shared in real-time with 437 of his friends, co-workers, and associates.
I felt terrible for him, even thought about giving him a consolatory call ... until I found out from a mutual friend that his status change was actually his cowardly method for breaking up with his girlfriend. No phone call, no meeting, just a quick status change to let his partner know that things just weren't working out.
The amazing part of this story is that most of you reading it probably aren't all that shocked. It's not the first time you've heard of this dastardly deed or something similar. Somewhere along the line it became acceptable to hide behind the curtain of technology when faced with the unpleasantness of ending a relationship.
So what should men do differently? The Art of Manliness folks offer four guidelines (excerpted here): 1) Talk Early and Often ... The time of the actual breakup should not be the first time your partner is made aware that you have issues with how things are going. ...
2) Always End it in Person ... If you can't handle the prospect of ending a relationship in person, you shouldn't start one in the first place. ...
3) Be Clear ... One of the most telling signs that a break-up was not handled in the proper manner is when your partner walks away still unsure of exactly where the relationship stands or why things played out the way they did.
4) Be Considerate ... If possible, point out some of the positive things that came out of the relationship. Unless it was awful from beginning to end, there are most likely some good attributes of your partner that can be mentioned. In the end, try to be as much of a gentleman when ending the relationship as you were when you started it. ...
5) No Hanging Chads ... While phrases like, "Maybe down the road," or "Just not right now," may seem like a kinder, gentler way of breaking up, they are actually quite cruel if they are not an accurate representation of your feelings. ...
Christmas is not a great time to end a relationship, but for relationships that have run their course, it's best for men to end them like a gentleman.
Just as I suspected a year ago, eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren, a confessing Christian, has agreed to facilitate relationships the Bible explicitly condemns. As part of a settlement in a discrimination case filed against eHarmony, the company will launch a new dating service for the gay community called Compatible Partners.
Here's the story: The settlement is the result of a complaint New Jersey resident Eric McKinley filed against the online matchmaker in 2005. McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn't get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.
"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," he said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."
Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, acknowledged any liability. Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay New Jersey state division $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay McKinley $5,000.
McKinley called the settlement "fabulous" and said he was happy with the outcome. He's considering signing up for the new site once it launches.
Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony said it plans to launch its new service, called Compatible Partners, on March 31.
It's not like eHarmony lost the case. They settled. They simply rolled over with little more than a whimper. And I believe there are only two reasons for this: 1) The case provided cover for the company to launch a more hedonistic service for more riches or 2) They feared losing and were looking after the bottom line, wanting to protect the empire Warren has built on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of disappointed romantic hopefuls.
Like the Boy Scouts of America, eHarmony should have been willing to shut the whole thing down instead of helping precipitate sinful sex between men and men and women and women.
Not to belabor the point, but I must chime in on Heather's excellent post on Mr. Darcy. I, too, am a lover of P & P (only the BBC version will do). It began when my college English professor played a portion of the film in our lit class. A friend and I watch it yearly, just after Thanksgiving.
The truth is, this story evokes something in a woman's heart that is worth considering. One of my favorite passages from Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller makes this point: Here's a tip I've never used: I understand you can learn a great deal about girldom by reading "Pride and Prejudice," and I own a copy, but I have never read it. I tried. It was given to me by a girl with a little note inside that read: "What is in this book is the heart of a woman." I am sure the heart of a woman is pure and lovely, but the first chapter of said heart is hopelessly boring. Nobody dies at all. I keep the book on my shelf because girls come into my room, sit on my couch, and eye the books on the adjacent shelf. "You have a copy of Pride and Prejudice," they exclaim in a gentle sigh and smile. "Yes," I say. "Yes, I do."
While I don't advocate men using Pride and Prejudice as a means to impress women (although I find this anecdote amusing), there is a nugget of truth in Miller's observation. What is it about the story that "is the heart of a woman"? Heather gave two examples: a woman's desire to bring out the best in a guy, and her attraction to a faithful, devoted, strong man.
I have another to add. Women swoon over Mr. Darcy because he is strongly and exclusively drawn to Elisabeth. He sees who she is — a reader, a walker, a devoted sister — and he cannot help but love her for the things that make her unique among women (despite the fact that she is not an ideal match for him socially). That is a woman's dream. To be seen, accepted and desired for who she is.
Additionally, as some commentors noted, both characters change. They bring out the best in one another — and challenge each other on their shortcomings — which is one of the primary functions of marriage: "As iron sharpens iron" (Prov. 27:17). Of course, this type of refinement can happen outside of a romantic context, but romance and marriage can be a special glue that allows such influence to "set."
In this sense, the dream of changing someone is not an unbiblical fantasy (although it is God who does the changing). If you open your heart to someone, both of you will change. That's not even a question. If the changes you desire to see are those that drive both of you closer to the Savior, then such a dream is not wrong.
My take on the whole P & P issue is to keep your dreams about love and marriage as long as they flow from the heart of God. Philippians 4:8 may be a good test: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things." Personally, I think Mr. Darcy's character fits the bill.
Several weeks ago, we had a very lively discussion emerge on Motte's Whom Not to Marry blog about 19th-century novelist Jane Austen, her books and, specifically, the hero of her novel Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy.
Some gals praised what Mr. Darcy's character represented -- chivalry, integrity, morality and all things gentlemanly. Others begged to differ -- "pompous prat" was a personal favorite of mine.
A few men seemed a little frustrated with the general female fascination with Mr. Darcy. They pointed out how Jane Austen is no expert on marriage (having never been married herself). They also expressed the concern that Mr. Darcy is an idealized fictional character and, therefore, no realistic model of a flesh-and-blood husband.
So, it's been bouncing around in my head lately. Why Mr. Darcy?
I'm a Jane Austen fan myself. I love P&P. But why? Are Austen's works just like chocolate truffles for my brain? Are we females hardened little vixens intent on being the mistress of a castle? After more than a decade of real life Christian marriage, should I be warning my single friends to burn their Austen libraries for their own sakes? Run, girls, run?
I don't think so. But here's what I do think. While not an expert on marriage (Austen herself seems to concede this by ending all her books at the altar), Austen is very adept at capturing the desires of the female heart. No, men, it's not the money or the looks or the pompous-prat-ness. In fact, my hypothesis is that it isn't who Mr. Darcy is that captures our imaginations so much as what Austen writes Mr. Darcy to do. Two things he does, to be specific.
First, it's the steadfastness of the character's love. Above almost all, guys, we want husbands who will love us without wavering, who will never leave us. God has commanded us to respect our husbands and submit to you as the head of our homes. Truthfully, that can be scary. Peter encourages us not to give way to fear and, gals, we need to look to our Lord as our ultimate source of security. But, men, when you communicate not just your love, but your unwavering love to your wives, you do more to lift her up and solidify your marriage than you will ever know.
Now, Austen makes her poor heroes go through some serious fictional trials to test their steadfastness (Mr. Darcy has to wait awhile, Col. Brandon had to wait even longer and poor Captain Wentworth had to wait nearly a decade). We don't want to test you like that. But we do want to know that when life's trials come, you'll still be there.
Second, and this is a little bit harder to describe, is the inspiration of good. Mr. Darcy changes through the course of the novel, and attributes his improvement to the verbal tongue-lashing by Elizabeth, the heroine. First off, I do not recommend the tongue-lashing approach. But I think Austen has nailed one of the desires of a female heart--to inspire her man to be a better man.
Guys, we know we are not better than you. This is not a girl = angel / boy = demon-who-must-be-fixed situation. We are all sinners saved by the grace of God. But I do think that the Lord has given females a desire to bring good to the world that is unique and separate from the way a man desires to bring good. One of the ways I've experienced that desire is by contributing to an environment, a home, a relationship where my husband can flourish. I want to, as Proverbs 31 points out, "bring him good, not harm, all the days of [my] life."
Too often, this desire can go wrong. I've learned that I am not my husband's mother. Before giving in to the temptation to lecture him on his failings, I remember the descriptions of a nagging wife in Proverbs and it stops me cold. But I've discovered there are ways, following the Word, that have led not only to my husband's growth, but to mine as well.
So, guys, there's no need to take Darcy down. It's not necessarily him that we want. But do take the clue that we treasure a steadfast love and the willingness to mature. And, gals, remember. There's some good stuff in Darcy but, ultimately, he's on the page. Enjoy your book. But after you put it down, take a good look around. Mr. Biblically Right might be closer than you thought.
 As Candice was preparing to release her Get Married book, I started talking to her publisher about the possibility of writing a similar book for men. We spent a lot of time debating the need and potential market for such a book. I remain convinced that the great majority of guys hope to marry well some day but often lack a good game plan to do so. Too many have missed out on the modeling and good advice they once would have gotten from dads, coaches, pastors, mentors and others.
My hope was to fill that gap with solid Biblical advice and I thought a book might be a good delivery system. The more I thought and prayed about it, the more I sensed that the best thing to do was skip writing a book and just give the message away.
I believe that A Guy's Guide to Marrying Well -- the digital booklet we ended with instead -- is a better product and will reach more people than the book I had in mind.
I have great respect for all the writers whose wisdom appears in this guide -- Dr. Al Mohler, Josh Harris, Scott Croft, Michael Lawrence, Gary Thomas, Dr. Scott Stanley and more -- and I wish this kind of resource had been available for someone to pass along to me back when I was stumbling along my path to marriage. Check it out at www.boundless.org/guys/ and let us know what you think.
I never liked taking the Seventeen magazine "Does he have a crush on you" type quizzes. Even as a boy-crazy teenager I knew they were lame and inaccurate. So, when Motte suggested I take the Boundless DTR Assessment, I was hesitant. My reservations were twofold. First, I remembered how the Seventeen quiz answers never quite fit whatever situation I was in. Instead of my answer being a, b, or c it was often "none of the above" or "other." It usually went something like: After school lets out my crush:
a) walks me to the bus
b) rushes past me in the hall to catch up with his cronies
c) says he will Instant Message me after football practice
But because I went to school in a Southern two-horse town my answer was more like: Other) blows the dixie horn of his Chevy truck as I walk across the parking lot
Classy, right?
The second reason I didn't want to take the assessment was because my current boyfriend is great about "defining the relationship." In the short time we've been getting to know each other, I've never have to wonder where we are. Still, the boss did ask. So I took it. And to my surprise, the questions and multiple-choice answers really did describe my situation.
But I wasn't sold just yet. As I waited for the results to appear in my inbox, I leaned back in my desk chair expecting a good laugh.
Here's what I got instead: You have a level of clarity that is on pace with your level of connection. This could also show that the guy you are seeing is giving you the information you need within an appropriate timeframe, allowing your relationship to develop naturally.
The feedback was dead-on. If asked to describe my relationship, I would have said something similar.
The DTR assessment is not definitive, nor does it claim to be. It's also not a substitute for seeking God's guidance, bringing my relationship into community and inviting older, wiser people to speak into this part of my life. But it did confirm some things I was already thinking and gave me confidence going forward.
So I can understand why it's gone viral, with over 20,000 tests taken so far. It's actually helpful.
I asked my friend if I could print the rest of her list of questions to ask a potential spouse, and she agreed. Please keep in mind that this is one person's list and is not meant to be comprehensive. Also, the questions are not written to be asked directly to the man; the questions are directed at the woman for her to consider. My friend writes: If she doesn't know the answer to a question, and it's important to her, she may need to tactfully ask him some questions about that subject. Or, she may need to ask questions of his friends or parents, or make other observations. These are meant to get her thinking about things she may not have yet considered. And it may help her think of other questions.
Spiritual
- Will he be the spiritual leader of your home?
- When you share with him your deepest spiritual thoughts, does he relate?
- Do his life and conversation reveal that he is truly connected with the Savior?
- Do his goals in life show that he wants to please the Lord above all?
- Are his goals in life compatible with yours?
Emotional
- How does he handle anger?
- (Added by me) Does he demonstrate emotional stability?
Mental
- Do you respect him intellectually?
Financial
- Does he have a gambling addiction?
- Does he have a spending addiction?
- How does he handle finances (budgeting, what he spends money on, tithing)?
- Is he a diligent, dependable worker?
- Does he make enough money to support you and future children?
- Does he expect you to work outside the home, or does he expect you to stay home with the kids?
Again, these questions are not restricted to the guys. They're just good questions meant to help you exercise wisdom as you move forward with relationships. What questions would you add?
Almost 20,000 people have completed the "Define the Relationship" assessment since we launched it February 2007. That assessment was our humble attempt at giving people a chance to compare the level of connection they have in a relationship with the amount of clarity they have in order to see if the relationship needs to be further defined. We've gotten a lot of feedback from users about improvements we could make to that assessment -- and we do hope to make those tweaks once we move to a new publishing system in the not too distant future.
In the meantime, I wanted to let you know about a much more powerful assessment now available from Boundless and Focus on the Family. We have partnered with Life Innovations to provide a custom version of their popular Couple Checkup www.family.org/couplecheckup for seriously dating and engaged couples. This is a Web-based assessment that is similar to the paper-based tool used by thousands of counselors and pastors around the world to help couples better understand themselves and their relationship as they consider marriage.
For the price of a date ($29.95), couples can take this assessment and get valuable insights about the strengths and potential growth areas in their relationship. We offer an FAQ about this tool that should answer most of your questions about how it works.
It's our hope that the Couple Checkup will help marriages start stronger. If you end up taking it, we'd love to hear your feedback.
In Ted's post "Slow Descent into Fornication," one commenter, who is in a serious relationship, asked whether she should bring up the issue of pornography with her boyfriend. The answer is a resounding yes. A wise and wonderful married friend of mine compiled a list of the "hard questions" to ask a potential spouse. She created the list based on heartbreaking circumstances she witnessed in her friends' marriages. She emphasizes asking your intended very specific questions. Not just, "Have you viewed pornography?" but "When and for how long?"
This is not meant to say that if your guy doesn't measure up in one of these areas, you must dump him, my friend points out. It is meant to help you honestly consider what life will be like with this person in the long run, and figure out how to prevent future trouble.
These questions would be appropriate to ask someone you are engaged to or courting for the purpose of marriage; many of them apply to both sexes, though I'm phrasing them in the masculine here.
- Is he a virgin? How do you know?
- Does he have a sex addiction? How do you know?
- Has he ever looked at pornography? How do you know? What is he looking at, how often, for how long, and what exactly he was doing to deal with the problem?
- Has he ever used alcohol or drugs?
- If he has had sex before or has taken intravenous drugs, does he have HIV or any other STD? How do you know?
- Does he have the same opinions about birth control that you do? (Do you share the same convictions about appropriate methods?)
This list of questions may come across as a downer, but it shouldn't. Many of the comments on Ted's post made a good point that struggles with sexual sin are prevalent in our culture. I appreciated the stories that demonstrated how open communication between the man and woman uncovered sin and allowed the couple to address it, before marriage—many with successful results.
Don't think of this as a "good enough" checklist; it is a tool to address sin and strategize about purity before you enter a lifelong covenant.
Following the re-publishing of my article "Not Your Buddy," one reader asked me to address the topic of buddies after a break-up. She writes: The guy wants to continue having the benefits of the familiarity and the encouragement and cheerleading that the girl provided him with during the relationship, but also wants to "be free" and "move on." Is he crazy?
When you have been in love with someone, I find it EXTREMELY hard to be "friends," even being cordial is hard at times. Especially when this guy has told you that you are the one and then flips it.
I don't believe it's appropriate for men and women to be buddies after breaking up. I have remained friends with men I've had relationships with, but the familiarity had to end.
This quote from J.R.R. Tolkien (provided by another Boundless reader) emphasizes the reason the broken up cannot be buddies: How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point — and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his wagon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with the titillation of sex — all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from 'seduction'.
....Don't be misled by the fact [women] are more 'sentimental' in words — freer with 'darling', and all that. They don't want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don't really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it.
—From a letter to his son, Michael Tolkien 6-8 March 1941, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Clearly men and women view close companionship differently. In my experience, if — after a man has told me that he is not interested in pursuing me — he continues to seek out personal time with me, I assign his actions more weight than his words. This is the danger of remaining buddies with someone after an explicit verbal severing of the romantic relationship has taken place.
Speaking in the terms of Tolkien's quote, I believe it is best for the woman to remove herself from the position of "guiding star" unless, or until, the man is prepared to make her the star in his life. Likewise, the man should resist the temptation to make a woman his "divinity" unless he's prepared to pursue her with integrity.
This approach may seem foreign in a culture that uses "let's stay friends," as a salve for the pain of breaking up. Sometimes the friendship shouldn't be salvaged. Sometimes a woman must say, "I'm worthy of being someone's bright star," and a man must say, "I'm going to resist the urge to hitch myself to a star that is not mine."
Cordiality after a break-up is one thing; continued intimacy is another. The latter should not exist.
Continuing on with my recent theme of commenting on the commenters, I can't help but notice the way many Boundless Line readers respond to posts related to finding a mate. Perhaps the topic is the lack of single Christian men in a particular church, town or even geographic area. Maybe the post deals with indecisiveness among singles, an unwillingness to "settle" or the pros and cons of enlisting a matchmaker. Yet no matter what advice or opinion is expressed, the comments that follow usually include one or more that go something like: "Yeah, it might be easier to get a date if I wasn't the only one under age 65 in my singles group, but I'm trusting that God will bring along the right person in His timing."
Call it another variation of the "Yeah, but ..." syndrome.
This sentiment does have some basis in truth. Yes, it's true that God is in control of your destiny. Yes, it's true that God can cause that special someone to happen across your path. Yes, it's even true that God can have Mr. Right parachute into the remote jungle village in Borneo where you've been serving as the only English-speaking missionary for the last 10 years. Yes, it's true that God can do anything He wants.
That said, how likely is it that He will make sure every Christian who wants to get married will experience an unscripted meeting with just the right spousal candidate at just the right time?
Judging from the comments on this blog, such meetings are not unheard of, but nonetheless extremely rare.
I'm reminded of my (slightly) younger days, back when I dreamed of success as a rock musician. The bands I played in were for the most part filled with talented musicians, singers and songwriters, but we never experienced the success that leads to lucrative record contracts or nationwide tours. At least one reason for this is obvious: We didn't make ourselves available to the right people. Sure, we played at a few local clubs and recorded a decent-sounding demo, but we never performed our songs for well-connected promoters or music industry executives.
To be honest, we were a little too content simply rehearsing; and the last time I checked, very few talent scouts tend to wander through suburban neighborhoods at night in the hope that they'll overhear the next U2 practicing in someone's basement. While it's true that the occasional "unknown" artist gets signed merely on the basis of an extraordinary demo, the vast majority are recognized after they appear in front of as many people as possible.
The same principle holds true for unmarried Christians. You may have lots to offer as a spouse, but if the only times you leave your home involve work and the grocery store, then your odds of meeting a potential mate are greatly reduced. If you've never been willing to be "set up" by friends and family, then perhaps it's time to make yourself available. If you live in a rural community where the only single man at church is a World War II veteran, then you might want to reassess whether it's the right place to be if marriage is important to you.
Still, many Christian singles cling to the hope that God has a "one and only" in mind for each of us, and that we need only wait for that day when the Lord delivers that person to our doorstep. Yet as Focus founder Dr. James Dobson once wrote: "I do not believe that God performs a routine match-making service for everyone who worships Him. He has given us judgment, common sense, and discretionary powers, and He expects us to exercise these abilities in manners matrimonial."
In other words, while it's critical to seeks God's wisdom regarding whom you should marry, it's not realistic to assume that He will deliver the answer to your door.
I think I've mentioned before how much I enjoy top 10 lists. And this one by Anthony Esolen from Mere Comments is no exception. (Though it's actually a top 20 list.) It's his personal observations about whom not to marry. He confesses they're a little "facetious" but you can tell he thinks they're true. Indeed, some are no-brainers, some are funny, and some are just plain ridiculous. Here's a sample of each:
The No-Brainer
4. Don't marry anybody who insists on a separate bank account, bed, bathroom, vacation, or zip code. It makes no sense to be one flesh and two wallets.
The Funny
7. Don't marry a woman who exercises so frequently that you cannot tell if she is a woman or a very strange looking 13-year-old boy. I'm going out on a line here, but the real purpose of the rule is to determine whether she will mind getting fat, as happens when you are going to have a child. In other words, don't marry a woman whom you cannot imagine having a child. Do not marry a woman who does not like children.
The Ridiculous
6. Don't marry a man who does not like dogs. Such men do not like children. Don't marry a man who does not like children. On the other hand, I have known at least one excellent man who thought he didn't like children, until he had some; seven, I think, at last count. Perhaps the rule may be rephrased: Don't marry a man whom you cannot imagine rolling on the ground in a wrestling hold, with a Labrador retriever or three children, or hollering on a ferris wheel, with a Labrador retriever or three children.
Number six is ridiculous because I love children, but not dogs. So much so, I'm adopting four from Ethiopia sometime in December, Lord willing. I just don't see the connection.
Which "rules" fit these categories for you?
A few months ago, the subtitle of an MSN article caught my attention: "Today's talented, ambitious women are staying single in droves. Are they too busy, too picky or — horrors — too awesome?"
My friend, a more-than-usually accomplished single woman, had sent me the article, which considers whether women can be "too successful for a mate." One issue discussed in the article is earning power: It's the dirty little secret of the battle for gender equality. It's not that men still don't believe women are equally capable, they just have a hard time visualizing their role in a relationship when the woman outranks them on all the measures they use to gauge their own success. It's a little sad for the men, really. It also makes it very difficult for these power chicks to find a partner.
That makes sense. After all, God has designed males and females with distinct roles. And traditionally, men have been the protectors and providers. But with the average marrying age hovering in the late 20s, women now have some gap years where they must figure out how to pay the bills. And if they happen to succeed in their chosen professions, they may be perceived by men as "power chicks."
Conversely a woman may feel pressure to choose a partner who is even more successful than herself — an expectation that may eliminate potentially great matches. The author — a successful career woman herself — explains how she overcame this urge: I abandoned the expectation of many "must-have" items in my years of dating before I met my husband. It's not that I couldn't find a man who possessed the right qualities, but it turned out they were irrelevant to a happy relationship. Was it crucial that my husband have a master's degree? No. Would it be a deal-breaker if he didn't love mountain biking as much as I do? No.
In the end, common values and goals, generosity, intelligence, respect, a warped sense of humor and a mutual attraction floated to the top of the list. Nearly everything else on that list was negotiable, including income and educational attainment.
I touched on this in "My Single Identity Baggage." I can be a little prideful when I look at my bags, and consider them too seriously when looking for a match. In the end, my spouse and I will probably have similarities, but he may not hold all the bags I think he should (and he may not be as impressed with some of my bags as I think he should).
In other words, don't let your level of success (or someone else's) dominate your approach to relationships. Success comes from the Lord, and the world's definition of it is vastly different from God's. So no, I don't believe you can be too successful for a mate. However, you may miss a potentially successful relationship if you overvalue achievement.
|
Recent Comments