double taking

Something I've been thinking a lot about today is the gift of friendship. I spent most of my today with  someone very dear, realizing how much more she means to me than what we are doing and why we're doing it. (Although sometimes I do wonder about the why.)
It is astonishing to me and I think that it stands to reason that our friendship is reciprocated. It literally astonishes me that while I am so content (though that word doesn't do it justice, really) with her, just being with her, she's also so content. It's a strange feeling.

And there it is. There's the double take. I ask her again in a slightly different way but she'll repeat that she is happy just being with me. And she is. I can't even describe the feeling - but how lucky I feel, and how lucky should everyone feel when content with friends. I certainly feel like I don't deserve it.

why rules and boundaries can never and will never define my relationships--any of them!

 "Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law" (Gal 5:3, NIV).

I see life as organic, and precious, and undeniably messy. God became man, bearing a flesh marked by sweat and body odor, one that ambulates through the dust, one that hungers and thirsts, and yet He entered a humanity that God has called "good." God embraced the dirtiest and lowliest with open arms, but to do what? He did it to fulfill the law.

I will not make social rules that are binding, because I wish that through relationships and the people God places in my life to be made one with the "big C" Church and thus one with Christ. I wish to be forgiving and to overlook trespasses. I want to be messy and find the people that one whose hands are clean would never look. I want to explore this vast and beautiful world that God has made with respect, but also with a daring spirit.

I think this is why I don't like rules. I think that there are many legitimate times when a guy and girl can be alone before marriage. I think there are many legitimate expressions of love that are not romantic, which I want to be challenged to explore. I want to be stretched in ways that are neither traditionally safe nor properly epistic. Why? Because I want love to remain at my core. I want God to use my heart to melt away social boundaries that are, frankly, destructive. No, life is not all games. . . But God delights in artistic expression. I say, maybe it is good to check and evaluate which laws (like circumcision) are destroying our spirits of expression.

an egalitarian understanding of non-rights

Quickly, to define what I think of as a non-right: e.g. If you have the right to private property, then my non-right in relationship to you is your private property. My non-right begins where your right places a stake. See, rights are individually protected, as non-rights are guarded against. I am going to examine an egalitarian model of relationship (because rights and non-rights always exist in a relationship) as far as rights are concerned.


One thing to note is that in a patriarchal society, rights were kept by the man, as his societal function was protector/image bearer of the family. Woman had no rights. However, there are many stakes that are placed in our society which protect the [natural] rights of women that did not exist at the time key NT passages were written. 


As I study hermeneutics, it becomes more and more clear that one ought to read the Bible exegetically for principles (whether in who God is, or whether in how we should response, or practical, and so on). Principles, which are heavily influenced by society, cannot contain societal or cultural normalities. They just can't! 


In this I believe a reassessed pragmatic approach to gender studies (in light of my espoused equal gender competency / potential) is in hand. Pragmatics, which always reflect another angle of cultural truth, should  bring pause to understood ontological presuppositions (non-biological, non anatomical).  This is where non-rights come into play. More later...

guarding my own heart?

While guarding one’s heart is probably not in the Bible as dating advice, I sometimes wonder: why, even though some do read it as dating advice, they leave it as just that—advice—and then act how they would like anyways, sometimes following their “heart.” It is something that I was forced to think about a lot over break. God wrestled with my bowels and liver and set my heart on a new path.

[Just using *correct* O.T. metaphorical language: bowels/liver/soul = seat of emotion (similar to modern term ‘heart’); heart = center of one’s conscious being (similar to modern term ‘mind’).

Yes, that does mean that we often misread this passage! However, while language difference (in metaphors) may be the culprit behind the misappropriation of that classic Hebrew proverb (4:23), hence distorting the actual meaning, etc., this point is only foundational to my thought.

If my heart is being guarded, I wouldn’t want to trust myself with the task. Seriously, if I would sell my birthright for the right pot of stew, then who knows what I would do with my heart (entire person) if my heart (animal-like, love instinct) told me to! If guarding means merely doing less of something (i.e. less alone time, less physical contact, less thinking about someone), then, firstly, I’ve got that nailed on the head and should have nothing to worry about—with my zero real girlfriends I’ve had; and secondly, with no estimable timeframe placed on this command to guard your own heart, I may be doomed to girl-less peril for eternity. Is it actually possible/wise to guard your heart as we may commonly define it?

I’ll answer that one next time.

a new perspective

I guess I wonder why I didn't realize this before: "guarding your heart" isn't really dating advice. It isn't placed in the Bible in order to help a person find "the one." No, that's silly! It's about something much more than that, and actually, so is dating/marriage/whatever.

A pure heart is not something that you keep only until your marriage day to "give to your wife." Virginity and a pure heart are very different things. Virginity is the word used to describe the status of one who has never had sex. Sex (in its proper context) does not corrupt a pure heart in the way that it corrupts one's virgin status!

One gives his/her virginity to his/her spouse; however, a pure heart is something one reserves as Corban (a gift) to God. A pure heart has to do with one's righteousness and character and I tend to see as a lot more important than one's virgin status.

The call to guard your heart is a call to protect your entire person. Intimacy is not the only pollution nor the only possible corruption to one's person. Egoism can corrupt. Materialism can corrupt. Hedonism can corrupt. Excessive anger can, too. You get my point; any sin can corrupt one's heart. (This is because one's heart is not the center of emotion so much as it is the center of a person.) What's a sin? Anything action may or may not be a sin, so let's not get caught up in definitions! There is no dating rule book, outside of the Bible and your personal relationship with God--and those should already be your directing beacons.

Can't believe it took so long for that to click.

force = too much, effort = too little, equality = enough

What if the rumors are true, what if love is never a guarantee? What if love is like wrestling: even the strongest opponent is not guaranteed a win. Get the picture: a large fifth-grade bully goes to push (with all his might) a nimble third grader, who spins to the side, dodging the forceful blow. What happens to the inertia of the fifth grader’s push? He falls over, essentially bringing himself to his knees. If he pushes too hard, a weak opponent can counterbalance really easily. Love is not a wrestling match, but one thing stands true: Force equals too much.

Think about love for a second. It is a two way street, is it not? Two must walk it together. No matter how hard one may push (force) or how much he can try to prove himself without force (effort), it is never a guarantee that the other will reciprocate. Love is a gamble at times, yes, but learn well the lesson. Force equals too much. Effort equals too little. (I think about all of the roses I have bought, thinking there was something there was not.)

Equality is enough. But even then, the road is precarious, and there must at times be both effort and force.

a word on agreements

I listened to my pastor speak on Sunday when he said something interesting, which I can’t get out of my mind. Speaking of marriage he said, “If I willingly submit myself to the terms of her covenant, I will become her treasure. If she willingly submits herself to my terms, in the same vein, she will become my treasure.” It’s not an exact quote, but it’s close enough.
As soon as he had said it, questions flooded my mind. Who creates this agreement? Is it spoken, and when is it made? How high should my standards be? What should my covenant look like? Blah, blah, stinkin blah.
Of course, I was getting caught up on the details when I realized something about the Israelite community and God. Their agreement (covenant) was unique and it was based on their relationship, which preceded the rules themselves. This was, coincidentally Erik’s next point. Relationship lays the foundation for rules.
How was God’s covenant with Israel set up? Like this: “I am a jealous God; it will be me and no other. This is our marriage, and I will not share my bride!” This covenant is absolutely binding and it is one made for life. But it’s not the covenant that is important! It is a great way to show someone that you are “all in,” and seal the deal, but the relationship is what matters, not the words on the page. I think the secret is submission, and there is nothing in an agreement that can force someone into action against his or her will (Trust me, I just brought my nephew to the doctor today. If someone doesn’t want to do something, you cannot force submission). Just hear their terms, search for them and submit yourself to them. See what happens!