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!

keeping strong

"Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, for because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me."

--2 Corinthians 12:6-8

For Paul it may have been a vision problem, which Galatians would seem to suggest; as my friend Kyle pointed out, for me it may be this very girl whose image will not leave my mind, and whose voice will not stop ringing in my ears. It may be a temptation that will not allow me a moment's rest.

Something I realized: even though last night I decided that I would seek alone time until finals were over, the second I saw her, everything changed. My gut dropped and I forgot why I even decided that. There is no way, no how, that this makes sense that she has become so close to me that I cannot now rid my mind of her. Be that as it may, I have decided to remain strong and stick out my "break" until finals are over, or until Thursday morning.

post-dtr "pest" pestilence

Recently I did an exercise. Realizing how emotionally attached I have allowed myself to become to my good friend, I decided to take an objective step back. I figured I would try to understand her as best as possible (and reject my emotional bias), and put myself in her shoes.

So here's what I did: I replayed events, and tried to remake her decisions, not changing any of her words, not changing anything. In reverse, she said she liked me, I said we should talk about it later;then I said I like her too, but I'm not sure about a relationship. After I say I just want to be friends, and she says she understands, but it bothers her a lot. She brings it up to me several times, that is, the prospect that we date.

She would be a nuisance were I to reverse our roles. In my mind the relationship was already put on halt; and every time she brought it up again, it would sound like nails on a chalkboard. I know, because I have been in this situation before! I have thought about the prospect of a relationship before, expressed interest (not as a confession, but as a potentiality), and changed my mind as it were.

So in my mind I must have patience, endurance, etc. I must look past my prejudices in order to remain friends, because that is not a status that is easy to regain (once I've reached "nuisance"). And I have to deal radically with my feelings. It's been written off. I may never have a second chance again. If I keep my heart wound open, I will spend perhaps years in pain, and all for naught.

Tact

What I've learned: don't tell a girl that you like her in a way that makes her feel obligatated to verbally reciprocate--here's the catch--before you have a developed open relationship. Seriously, ask her on a date. Take all unneeded pressure off the relationship. It is not necessary at first! And don't allow yourself to get emotionally involved. Ask her on a date, and reject the enamored, strong first feelings of liking.

I did; I did all these things I am now telling you not to do because in these ways I became emotionally involved. I unintentionally demanded reciprocation (just by telling her how I felt in an open dialogue) and now it feels like I lost her (just how it feels). I scared her away! Like a rabbit appoaching a field of carrots only to see a hawk, staking the territory. "Flee!!!" she must have thought, "Retreat to the hills!!!"

I feel very silly--so, though the blog entry is less related to purity that the other posts, my advice: use tact. Tact may also help guard your own heart not to plunge head first into intimate expression of "feelings." <--hate that word.

hard realization

I did it. I have been praying and I have talked to many people about this, young and old. I have come to the conclusion that we should just be friends. What kind of friends? Not best friends, perhaps just friends.

I was so at peace with this up until today, when we had a talk. She brought the subject up and she suggested this very thing: that we just be friends. I was fine with it until I realized that she it was her idea, too. Now I suppose I am just disappointed that it was true, that we should just be friends.

What is even more disappointing is the realization that I came to. Is it possible for us to just be friends? For us to keep opening up ourselves to one another in (somewhat mutually exclusive) friendship, until figuratively we stand naked bearing our souls in plain view. Then what? We have nothing, no covenant to keep us together, except perhaps the volition of my will. I will not, and cannot force her to give anything of herself. The only thing I can at this point know is that I am willing to fight for us, whatever that may be.

Oh wait. The next strand of realization comes flooding in. People fall in love. It happens all the time. What says she may fall in love with someone else. Then what? I am left, exposed and alone, angry, dejected, in wont and fool-heartedly expectant. And what say that may happen to me... It might! And there she would be left, and I no better than my own father--She would be left without hope, broken.

"Do not arouse love until it so desires." What the heck does that mean anyway?

i call a truce

A concise response to the complementarian/egalitarian debate:


Respective of gender, a couple must complement one another. They simply must for the preservation of their marriage; a couple must learn to work together and become strong in the other’s weakness. If that is what is meant by “complementarianism” then there isn’t a Christian alive that would disagree. Biblical Complementarianism would argue that both men and women have weaknesses/strengths, which are gender specific (though there are exceptions) due to innate physiological differences. Further, a complementarian would assert that a man and woman, due to their physiological make-up, MUST be able to complement one another so long that a woman submits and a man loves (seen in arranged marriage). I would disagree, due to the varying degrees of personalities, which are not related to gender. In many senses I am egalitarian--both theologically and logically (even though it is a 20th century nuance).

I believe that men have been blessed with the anatomical advantage of strength, while only certain women possess great strength. I believe that women have been blessed with the physiological advantage of wisdom and compassion, while only certain men possess these traits. It seems unlikely that a wife exists only to submit and a husband exists to be submitted to in that particular relationship. I cannot accept that the only work God has to do in a wife is to teach her submission. A man is told to dwell with a woman with understanding--that means a husband must understand a woman’s aspirations and ultimately her heart. One of the flaws I see in the complementarian concept is the chauvinism that it brings about. I admit that the Bible has always been patriarchal and male-dominated, but I have seen at many times a woman called to a specific task and the man must come along side of her as a “helper” in order to assist her in the task she has been given. And although it is true that you cannot write doctrine around the exception, I believe that the exceptions exist to show that God is a lot more kingdom-minded than to allow only men to carry out His divine purposes.


Genders exist for a reason. They are meant to do different things; a woman is meant to be a mother while a male is meant to be a father. As the church is together reconciled, a woman is in no wise lesser than a man, though one thing I have learned through logic and conversation is that a couple must learn to fight fairly. Both parties must learn how to resolve a conflict and restore balance in the relationship in a way that doesn‘t force submission, creating subservience. Therefore, submission cannot be coercive because love does not demand (also because submission is a giving act rather than a taking act, haha). There is a reason a woman can strike a man and skirt battery charges while a man that strikes a woman cannot. It is not fair that a man uses his anatomic advantage to lord over a woman; no that is simply unacceptable and punishable by law in the United States. Why, because fairness means that sometimes a party needs special attention in order to create fairness; in this example, a woman needs the protection of the law in order that equality can exist.


A man must come to accept that his wife is different than he (simply because she is a woman and she’s wired differently) and treat her fairly based on her needs. Vice versa too, a woman must not become bitter, but rather learn to work with her husband in all matters. I also believe that woman (men too, but women specifically) have to be extra careful not to use the "pathos-card" with their partners.


In resolving conflict, Paul understand that a man responds well to submission (even though everyone is encouraged to submit just two verses prior in Gal) and a woman responds well to love. I think that a couple should try to live in restorative balance with one another; this balance includes submission to one another (because a man cannot love while expecting his wife to submit). God may require things of your partner that you may not like, but you have to learn to obey God in submitting to being his or her "helper." Therefore what is purported is equality, different physiological make-up, but equality nonetheless. A woman, more complex in her emotions, desires understanding above all from her spouse; similarly, a man desires honor and respect.

I think that rocks, that God did create us with strengths and weaknesses. It take maturity in both parties to admit to weakness. I have a few more thoughts, but they do focus around the concept of learning to fight fairly. I don't think that a person should use the gifts God has given him or her to take advantage of another person (ever). Further, I think that our gifts were given that we might aid eachother. Marital relationship is just one (a very important one) example where there should not be an attitude of gender inequality. There should be determined whose strengths will work in which areas, i.e. who likes to cook, who likes to do laundry, who has the God-given gift of teaching, who has the legal and financial mind, etc. Those aren't "gender specific" roles. Those are just things a couple has to do, whether they delegate the task or not, and who does what should be understood together. If the man was the leader back in the day, that's because the culture supported male leaders. Our's does not support males as the only ones capable of leading.