The Trouble with Biblical Marriage

Many Christians set out to defend what they call “biblical marriage”, and this term has become a lightning rod for discussion. Authors such as this one have pushed back, saying that various types of marriage are actually condoned in the Bible –many of them being abusive to the women involved. Advocates of gay marriage are quick to ask why Christians insist on preserving a particular marriage ideal when the Bible describes many different kinds of marriage.

So, does the Bible really support a wide range of marriage types? Are Christians arbitrarily choosing a concept of marriage from the many displayed in the Bible? How should Christians really go about understanding the Bible and determining what God desires for marriage to look like? Certainly, many different types of marriage are described in the Bible, but is it also true that Christians have no basis for advocating a particular type of marriage? These questions are all important.

There is a difference between a description of something and a prescription for behavior. Christians do not believe that every Bible passage carries the same weight in terms of practical application today. Every passage must be understood in its context – both cultural and literary. Taking Scripture out of context is dangerous, and will ultimately lead us to the wrong conclusion. Not all biblical examples deserve our imitation, nor were all intended to evoke it. Here I will discuss three principles I believe will help us understand God’s heart and purpose in marriage. Then I will wrap up by reflecting on the words we use about marriage.

1.      Narrative descriptions of marriage practices should not be taken as prescriptive.

The storyline of Scripture of contains many examples of dysfunctional marriage practices, and often these “marriage” stories give evidence of their own destructive results. We may think of Judges 19:22-29. In this scenario when a man is personally threatened with sexual assault by a mob he offers his concubine to the men attacking him in an attempt to save his own skin. After the concubine is raped and abused she evidently dies. Her owner then cuts her up in pieces and sends these pieces to the corners of Israel. Is this a God honoring example of marriage? No, in fact this story gives evidence of a lawless period in time of Israel’s history where “…Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25).  This story illustrates the depth of depravity God’s people had sunk to, and in no way validates the behavior it describes.

We may also think of King Solomon’s many marriages. He possessed 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). In this situation Solomon’s practice of marriage went directly against the commands of God. In Deuteronomy kings of Israel are specifically told to not take many wives because doing so would result in their hearts being led away from God  (Deuteronomy 17:17). This is exactly what happened to Solomon in his old age (1 Kings 11:4). This too is an example of marriage we are not called to emulate.

We could look at the lives of the patriarchs for other examples of marriage practices that didn’t work out so well. Abraham’s decision to take his wife’s servant in an attempt to have a son was a symptom of his shallow faith and produced very negative consequences in his family. Jacob was tricked into marrying the sister of the woman he loved, and his resulting plural marriage was thereafter fraught with favoritism and conflict. These men loved God to be sure, but we must not assume their marriage practices were condoned by God.

2.      Old Testament marriage guidelines are not necessarily prescriptive for Christians.

The fact that something is commanded in the Old Testament doesn’t imply that it is binding for Christians today. This is very clear in the New Testament in reference to dietary laws (Mark 7:19, Acts 10). Christians are not called to disregard the Old Testament, but we should allow the New Testament to help explain the Old Testament to us.[i] The Old Testament Law was good, and was given for a specific purpose during a specific time.

This New Testament priority is not arbitrary, and we don’t listen to the New Testament simply because we are more comfortable with what it says. This New Testament priority is reflected in Scripture and has been historically practiced by the Christian church. All Scripture is important and useful, but not all Scripture is applied in the same way. New Testament teaching on marriage is the final word and helps clarify what God intends for marriage to look like for believers today.

Still, many of the biblical marriage practices are troubling to us. The Old Testament includes instructions about marrying a captive woman (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), marrying the wife of a dead brother – called levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), and even the marriage of a man to a woman he raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Each of these situations deserves a great deal of discussion, but a few comments should be made now. Firstly we must understand these situations in their cultural context.  The Old Testament was written during a period of time where women were afforded few rights. Did the Old Testament Law seek to completely overturn society and instantly create equality? No, but even in the midst of a culture with poor attitudes toward famales we see a biblical pattern of concern for women who found themselves in these horrible situations.  It is right to respond with disgust to the cultural norms of this time, but it is not fair to say that Scripture was seeking to establish abusive practices when the actual intent of these commands was to provide some protection to women suffering under an abusive cultural norm. Hebrew women were given greater protection than in other societies of the time, and Scripture, when taken as a whole, unequivocally speaks to the worth and value of women.

Many Old Testament marriage practices are not worth repeating. We must see these practices in their cultural context and look elsewhere in Scripture for further clarity on God’s plan for marriage. If we merely studied Deuteronomy to establish our marriage paradigm we might be left scratching our heads, but God never intended to leave us there. The regulations of the Old Testament were merely a shadow preceding a better and fuller reality. The Old Testament Law was an imperfect guide for a deeply flawed people. The imperfect covenant (Hebrews 7:18), put forth in the Law, would soon be replaced with a better, though more demanding covenant. This brings us to our third principal.

3.      The New Testament reaffirms and builds on God’s original intent for marriage.

While many Christians are aware of the wide ranging discussion of marriage and singleness found in First Corinthians seven, fewer are aware of another important marriage passage. Perhaps the most significant New Testament discussion of marriage occurs after Jesus is asked a troubling question about divorce. “Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Matthew 19:3)

The question was a landmine; the Pharisees wanted to see if Jesus would concur with marriage tradition or reject it. Jesus’ reply caught everyone off guard:

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Many would have expected Jesus to reference the Law of Moses to substantiate his perspective on marriage, but Jesus chose to go even farther back, citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to describe his marriage paradigm. He argues that Genesis, not Deuteronomy was intended by God to serve as the primary prescriptive passage for marriage relationships. In the Garden of Eden, before sin had entered the world, God established a pattern of marriage that involved a man and a woman uniting together. This unity was sexual and spiritual. These individuals were now considered to be one. Unlike under the Mosaic Law, this union was intended to last until death. A man could not abandon his wife.[ii] This declaration of Jesus elicited immediate protests from those listening. They asked: Why  did Moses allow divorce if it was wrong?

Jesus then spoke about a truth that helps us understand why God allowed non-ideal marriage practices in the Old Testament. “Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”” – Matthew 19:8. This shows us that at least in this instance, God allowed a marriage pattern that did not reflect his original intent. He did this because of the hard hearts of his people, not because it was best.

Old Testament marriage practice undoubtedly fell short of God’s best, but God’s original plan was still in place. This plan involved a man and a woman in lifelong commitment to each other. Jesus said that any past exceptions to this policy were now invalid. No longer would diversions from the original plan be ok for followers of God. While some like to claim that Jesus was relatively liberal on sexual issues, this passage points to the opposite conclusion. Jesus was raising the sexual and relational standard. He was calling people back to God’s original plan for marriage.

This was the pattern for Jesus. At numerous junctures when addressing questions of the Law Jesus goes deeper and asks more of people. Merely following the letter of the law would no longer suffice.  Jesus seeks to illuminate heart conditions, not just control behavior. He declares that the sin of adultery is one that starts in the heart as lust, and that the sin of murder is first experienced through hatred (Matthew 5). The new law given by Christ offered greater freedom, and greater responsibility.

In fact the entire tone of the New Testament is one of increased commitment to God. No longer must followers of God restrict their diet arbitrarily, but they must now consider the impact their eating choices have on those around them (1 Corinthians 8). No longer must God’s people offer an endless stream of animal sacrifices.  They are instead called to offer their entire selves as living sacrifices out of love for their Savior (Romans 12:1). No longer were husbands merely commanded to physically provide for their wives, they were now required to love them sacrificially – even to the point of being willing to die for them (Ephesians 5:25-28). The standard was raised and the commitment was deepened as God called his people back to his original plan.

We could continue by looking at other passages in the New Testament that further outline God’s incredible plan for marriage, but we will leave that for another time. The important point here is that while culture and hard human hearts distorted God’s plan for marriage through the years, God’s intent for marriage has always been the same. I am not sure I could sum up this point any better than Trillia Newbell does:

“For Jesus and Paul and for the Church, sexual and marriage ethics (and biblical womanhood) are not based on the historical sins against women that are recorded in the Old Testament, but from the pre-fall monogamous union of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2.”

At this point we have seen that God’s plan for marriage has been consistent through time. From the beginning marriage was intended to be an enduring physical and spiritual union between a man and woman. While some would have us believe that the Bible’s perspective on marriage is confusing or contradictory, we have clearly seen that God’s Word points toward one prescription for marriage.  I do not expect non-Christians to share my convictions about the authority of the Bible, and I certainly don’t expect them to willingly submit to its moral teachings. But I do hope the intellectually honest will acknowledge that Christians have internally consistent, biblically grounded reasons for advocating and practicing a particular form of marriage.

The Words we Use about Marriage Matter

So what then are we to say then about “Biblical Marriage”? I believe when most Christians say biblical marriage they are referring to God’s intended practice of marriage. The term is unfortunately somewhat inexact. It can be misunderstood by those hear it and misrepresented by those who desire to do so. Certainly, many different types of marriage are described in the Bible – even if they are not intended to serve as examples for us. Perhaps our language needs to be more precise.  Not all biblical marriages were honoring to God. Christian marriage, however, is the unique practice of God’s people.[iii]

Christian marriage should not be confused with Old Testament aberrations or modern day distortions. It is the unique, divinely ordained practice of God’s people – laid out compellingly in Scripture. It is radical when compared to Ancient Near East practices, and it is radical when compared to the modern American understanding of marriage. It is more demanding, more serious, and more profitable than any other expression of marriage. Christian marriage is a gift from God to his people, and those who seek to practice it will be blessed.

The words we use are so important.  This fact has been incredibly clear in the recently public debate over gay marriage. It sounds much more compelling to say that you are for marriage equality than it does to say that you support legally changing the definition of marriage. Let’s publically talk about marriage, but let’s also commit ourselves to using words that accurately communicate our meaning. This is why when I talk about God’s intent for marriage I seek to use the term Christian marriage – because I believe it better reflects the truth I advocate.

---

[i] For more helpful information on the question of the Old Testament authority in the life of a Christian please read Tim Keller’s helpful thoughts. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/09/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency/

[ii] A couple situations are given where divorce is allowed for a Christian. These two cases are marital infidelity (Matt 19:9), and abandonment by a non-believing spouse (1 Cor 7:14). In all cases, divorce should be evaluated soberly. There are doubtlessly other situations, such as abuse, where one spouse would need to separate for their safety or the safety of their children.

[iii] I am indebted to Bryan Kammerzelt for suggesting this shift in terminology. http://www.critiquebycreating.com/2011/04/the-most-eligible-christian-bachelor/

Why Gay Marriage Makes Sense to My Generation

In November 2012 three states narrowly voted to affirm same-sex marriage, breaking with a long trend of ballot box losses for the gay community. While recent polls suggest that America is still divided on this issue, the same cannot be said for the young adult population. Nearly every survey shows that those under thirty overwhelmingly support the legalization of gay marriage (around 80% in some surveys). This fact alone indicates that our country will continue to move in the direction of approving same-sex marriage.

While our reaction to this reality will certainly differ based on our worldview and convictions about sexuality, it is helpful for all of us to understand the underlying dynamics that push young adults in this direction. As a 27 year old Christian man I want to know why my generation is leading the way toward legalizing gay marriage. Consequently, I have spent a good deal of time reading and thinking about this question. This is my attempt to address some of the reasons why gay marriage makes sense to my generation.

Reasons Why:

1.       The State of “Traditional Marriage” is Not Healthy

Perhaps more than any other, my generation acutely feels the consequences of marital brokenness. Half of my peers grew up in shattered homes, and even the ones who didn’t saw enough relational dysfunction to make them gun-shy of marital commitment. It doesn’t even help us to look back farther for a healthy marriage model. The idyllic 1950s, often painted as a time when marriages were strong, lose their luster when stories of alcoholism, hidden abuse, and loveless relationships are uncovered. The traditional ideal has faded into a failed promise.

My generation has responded to this by putting off marriage, and in some cases, deciding against marriage entirely. Even the economic and legal benefits of marriage are not enough to induce many of my peers to walk down the aisle.

In 2004 Stanley Kurtz published an article arguing that the legalization of gay marriage in some European countries has led to an increase in cohabitation and out of wedlock births.  Others have disputed his claims, arguing that these relational trends predated or are disconnected from the legalization of gay marriage, but what cannot be disputed is that the legalization of gay marriage is taking place during an era where hetrosexual relationships are suffering.

Perhaps there would be a case for defending traditional marriage if we were surrounded by numerous examples of healthy marriages. But for most of us, thriving heterosexual marriages are the exception not the rule. My generation can’t truthfully say “if it aint broke don’t fix it”, so many have begun saying “It’s not working, so why does it matter?”

2.       Marriage and Sexuality Have Increasingly Become Disconnected from Procreation

Early feminists saw birth control as their ticket to freedom and equality. They could now pursue their careers fully and advance in their workplace, even while being sexually active. Now women could enjoy the same level of sexual expression men could without having to worry about pregnancy. Opportunities have certainly expanded for women because of birth control, and doors once closed to women are opening. But along with these benefits, birth control brought with it something else.

Children are now an option, not an assumption. The natural and obvious connection between pregnancy and sexuality is no longer at the front of our minds. Even within marriage childbearing can be postponed indefinitely. People may now get married and choose not to have children at all – and many do. When birth control was introduced gay marriage would have seemed absurd, but as others have noted, the pill ultimately helped pave the way for gay marriage.

Add to this the modern realities of artificial insemination, surrogate parenthood, egg donation, test tube babies, and cloning. Not only is marriage unnecessary for the creation of a baby, intercourse itself is now an optional path toward parenthood. While some previous generations have downplayed or ignored the pleasure dimension of sexuality by emphasizing the reproductive, some in this generation have adopted an opposite, although similarly one-dimensional view that sees sex as exclusively about physical pleasure.

Natural law arguments about marriage that appeal to the nature of human reproduction have much less sway in a generation that sees no essential connection between sexual function and parenthood. People once believed that since children can only come through heterosexual union, they are best raised by parents in a heterosexual union. That belief is now passé in an age where sexuality has been divorced from reproduction.

3.       Unique Gender Contributions Have been Minimized or Denied

Over the past fifty years there has been a push to deny or deemphasize the differences between men and women. The primary belief driving this movement seems to be that acknowledging differences inevitably leads to discrimination. As with birth control, this has been a double edged sword in our culture. Opportunities are now open to both men and women that would have once been reserved for the opposite sex. People are now freer to pursue their passions even if these passions don’t fit into their culturally defined gender category.

On the negative side, denying differences has at times made it very hard to celebrate and honor the strengths concentrated in one sex. Many are now convinced that there is no real difference between men and women aside from their reproductive plumbing. If men and women are really the same, they really don’t need each other that much. This way of thinking has direct implications for how we think about the marital relationship.

The fact that a boy raised by a lesbian couple is denied the chance to have a father at home doesn’t bother us if we doubt a father actually has something distinctive to offer a son. If a woman can give a child everything a man can give, why insist on having both present in a marriage?

4.       We Ignore God’s Sexual Standards in Our Own Lives

It goes without saying that premarital sex is the norm in this generation. A recent study showed that 88% of unmarried young adults are having sex before marriage. Self identified Evangelicals reported only a marginal difference with 80% admitting to sexual activity. While we may question the accuracy of such results, it is undeniable that most young adults today choose to reject historic Christian teachings about sexuality.

If my generation (and the previous one) now views the Christian position on premarital sex to be outmoded and prudish, it naturally follows that other Biblically grounded sexual ethics are also up for questioning. If premarital sex isn’t really wrong, is homosexual sex also ok? If I am unwilling to make the difficult choice to put my sexual behavior under the Lordship of Christ as a heterosexual adult, how can I insist that my gay friend do what I am unwilling to do?

This rationalization doesn’t always occur as a logical thought pattern, but when we consistently make choices to put our sexual desires above God’s truth we train ourselves to see sexual and relational satisfaction as primary instead of seeing God’s will as primary. This value judgment necessarily affects how we view other expressions of sexuality.

I recently came across another interesting study showing a connection between pornography consumption and approval of gay marriage. Specifically this study found that heterosexual men who watch pornography are more likely to begin supporting same sex marriage. While much could be said here, this is just another piece of evidence that disregarding God’s plan for sexuality in one area of our lives directly influences how we view sexuality in other areas.

5.       Marriage Has Become About Personal Fulfillment

While marriage was once viewed as a formative institution whereby the participants would grow through their experiences together, many now see marriage as a crowning achievement on the path to self actualization. Instead of a path to growth marriage has become an exercise in personal fulfillment. We are taught by society to pursue marriage primarily for our happiness and social enhancement. It is also easier than ever to get out of an unhappy marriage –however significant or trivial the reason for this unhappiness. One can rightly dispute this concept of marriage, but it can’t be denied that this is the dominant marriage paradigm in our country today.

So how does this understanding of marriage inform our perspective on gay marriage? If marriage is only about people being happy, then why should we withhold from anyone the opportunity for happiness? If the only or even the primary purpose of marriage is personal fulfillment, should not everyone have that opportunity regardless of their sexual orientation? Long ago we adopted a cultural model of marriage that emphasizes personal fulfillment above all else, and gay marriage is the logical outworking of that model.

6.       What We Were Told about Gay People Wasn’t True

It is easy to maintain negative beliefs about a group who you don’t associate with, but many young adults have close friendships with people who identify as gay or lesbian. Through these friendships we have discovered that LGBT identifying individuals are profoundly human. While previous generations may have opposed homosexuality because of irrational prejudice or false assumptions, this is not an option for us. We have not found our gay friends to be any dirtier or more dangerous than we are. In fact, they can be nicer and more compassionate than many other people we know. The scary caricatures we have been fed are now thoroughly unconvincing. There is a real sense among my peers that many of the things we were told about gays and lesbians are just plain wrong. While there may be compelling reasons to favor heterosexual marriage, many of the reasons shared with my generation have become increasingly unpersuasive as we get to know the gay and lesbian individuals around us.

7.       We Highly Value Relationships

Relationships are indeed a prized commodity in this generation, and many people are reluctant to embrace a belief that could negatively influence their friendships. My generation is also disinterested in moral absolutes, so this relational priority often determines ethical convictions. David Kinnaman notes that for many, fairness has become more important than rightness. “There’s a real sense in which their institutional loyalty and their loyalty to theoretical morals and ethical choices are trumped by their peer relationships.”

8.       We Care about Those Who are Suffering

It would be unfair to paint the approval of same sex marriage as merely a position taken by a generation without a moral compass. For many, advocating gay rights is a result of the desire for social justice. The same compassion that pushes us to serve the homeless and fight sex trafficking also pushes us to defend others who are suffering and being oppressed. My generation recognizes that the gay community has suffered under more than moral disapproval. LGBT individuals have been treated in ways that are disrespectful and dehumanizing by society, the state, and often by the church. This mistreatment, often occurring under the banner of moral preservation, has been anything but moral.

What We Can Learn

So how should the Christian church respond to my generation in the midst of the current social upheaval surrounding gay marriage? While this point deserves much greater development, I will offer a few suggestions here. Firstly, the church must passionately articulate and model a distinctly Christian concept of marriage to Her people. We must not continue to adopt our culture’s idea of marriage while slapping a Christian label on it. The church is in desperate need of a theologically grounded, comprehensive rearticulation of God’s design for marriage. This picture of marriage will differ in many ways from our cultural marriage paradigm. The defining characteristic of Christian marriage is not self-actualization but self-sacrifice. We must offer a compelling description of God’s design for sexuality, recognizing it as a multifaceted gift intended to provide physical pleasure, promote emotional bonding, and produce children. We must also paint a picture of a God big enough, worthy enough, and loving enough to deserve our complete submission in sexual matters. We must preach a Jesus who is worth following no matter what we are called to give up.

Even if we disagree with this generation’s conclusion about gay marriage, we must not ignore the mistreatment of other human beings or dismiss the many voices decrying these abuses. The church needs to be better informed about the difficulties facing individuals with same sex attraction. Every believer in Christ should firmly stand against the abuse and mistreatment of fellow human beings who are created in the Image of God.

My prayer is that the societal acceptance of gay marriage will cause Christians to reevaluate their understanding of this divinely ordained institution. Too long have we adopted cultural values about marriage that contradict God’s intent. In the past it was easy to think of cultural marriage as an expression of God’s design, but this new, obvious departure from our Creator’s relational blueprint should help highlight many areas where our understanding of marriage has already been distorted. While our nation continues to move toward approval of gay marriage, I believe the Church can also head in a new direction – toward a truer and better understanding of Christian Marriage. I pray that God allows me to help in this process.

A Response to Matthew Vines

I recently had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by Matthew Vines concerning the subject of Homosexuality in the Bible. Matthew is an intelligent, articulate, gay man who has obviously spent a great deal of time wrestling with this issue. He is also a professing Christian who understands that the question of sexual morality is central, not peripheral to this discussion. Matthew, a student at Harvard University, recently took two years off of school in order to research this topic. Vines passionately argues that each of the six passages in the Bible often cited to prove that homosexual behavior is sinful are either inapplicable or taken out of context. He presents an emotionally compelling talk that is designed to dismantle “every Bible based argument against homosexuality”.

It is certainly worth discussing his textual arguments, and others have certianly done so. here here here I have instead chosen to address two underlying beliefs that seem to drive him to reinterpret the passages on homosexuality. These beliefs are: 1. People are being damaged by the traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality. 2. It is unreasonable to ask someone who identifies as gay or lesbian to remain celibate and single. I would like to briefly address each of these claims.

Are people being damaged by the traditional Christian teaching about homosexuality?

Early on in his talk Vines lays out what seems to be his controlling principal of Biblical interpretation. He references Jesus words in Matthew 7:

“Jesus warns against false teachers, and he offers a principle that can be used to test good teaching from bad teaching… Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. That doesn’t mean that following Christian teaching will or should be easy, and in fact, many of Jesus’s commands are not easy at all… Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering.”

It is for this reason that the speaker calls us to question the historic Christian teaching on homosexuality – because this teaching is “destructive to human dignity”. He believes it to be an emotionally and spiritually devastating position that promotes the “loss of self-esteem and self-worth”. Many individuals who identify as gay or lesbian do experience profound inner turmoil because of their attractions. This is particularly true of those who have grown up in the conservative Christian subculture. Statistics are often cited giving evidence of increased rates of depression and suicide among those who experience same sex attraction.

It is true that many heterosexually inclined Christians have been woefully ignorant of the suffering their homosexually inclined brothers and sisters experience. This remains a serious problem in the Christian church and must be addressed.

Good teaching does produce good results when it is acted upon, and Christians, above all people, should be active in doing what they can to eliminate suffering. But is his larger point – that suffering gives evidence of poor teaching – an accurate one? Does the presence of emotional turmoil always indicate that poor teaching is at work within the life of a believer?

The speaker admits that some of the teachings of Jesus are not easy, and on that we certainly agree. But at some point he seems to draw a line and say certain types of mental and physical suffering are just too extreme to be in line with what God wants for his people. I do not believe that God ever promises us that we will be spared from any specific types of suffering.

In fact, if we look at the Bible we see that followers of God living within His will for them experienced sufferings of many differing types and durations. Abraham was called to leave his extended family and home country. Jacob was given a life altering injury. Joseph spent years in prison because of a false rape accusation. The prophets were called to do extreme things involving great personal discomfort. Jesus himself was emotionally devastated in the garden as he thought about the great suffering he was about to experience. The apostle Paul gives us a large list of his sufferings in Second Corinthians eleven; discussing hunger, thirst, shipwrecks, and beatings. Paul also describes an unnamed source of suffering which he called “a thorn in my flesh” (2 Cor 12:7). Though he pleaded with God repeatedly to take it away, God saw fit to allow Paul to continue to experience this pain.

Clearly suffering, whether physical, mental, or emotional can occur in the life of someone who is living within the bounds of God’s will for their life. This suffering can be overwhelming and feel crushing as Paul describes:

“For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself.  Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. – 2 Cor 1:8-9a

The hope Christians have is not that living life God’s way will result in an easier life; in fact, living this way will often make life more difficult. The promise Christians cling to is that even in the midst of suffering God provides comfort and purpose. “But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead.” (2 Cor 1:9b)

The Christian life cannot be lived with the ideal of immediate gratification. It must be evaluated in the light of eternity, and in light of a loving God who has the power to raise the dead.

We often experience suffering when we try to live within God’s will, and this does not always mean we have misunderstood his will for us. Suffering may actually prove the opposite. If our understanding of homosexuality is wrong, this must be proved through the biblical text, and not by the discomfort the teaching may cause.

Does the traditional Christian position on homosexuality condemn gay people to a life of being alone?

A large portion of Vine’s argument seems to rest of the belief that it is unreasonable to insist that someone remain unmarried and celibate for their entire life. He cites Genesis 2:18 of evidence for this: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” The speaker believes that while for most men a woman is the most suitable partner, for some men a man is the most suitable partner.

He also discusses Paul’s encouragement in 1 Corinthians 7 for believers to marry if they are overwhelmed with sexual desire, saying “And so if the remedy against sexual sin for straight Christians is marriage, why should the remedy for gay Christians not be the same?” The speaker clearly believes that not offering marriage to gay individuals is an inconsistency in the Christian message on sexuality. If marriage is not offered as an option to Christians who experience same sex attraction how are they to deal with their romantic and sexual longings? This is a very important and very difficult question.

Unfulfilled longing can feel overpowering and debilitating. This effect is often compounded as the years go by.  For many people, singleness can be an incredibly difficult state. We must also remember that this state is occupied by many people who do not experience same sex attraction. Many Christians in other situations also fail to experience romantic and sexual fulfillment.  The undesired and rejected have this experience; the physically and mentally disabled have this experience; the divorced and abandoned also experience non-desired singleness. Many people who don’t want to be single remain single. There are certainly unique hardships that must be faced by those who deal with same sex attraction (such as the possibility of always remaining single,) but we must remember that God intends for many people in many different situations to remain single long term.

Following God’s will can also cause someone who is heterosexually oriented will remain single in spite of their desire for marriage. For instance, a Christian woman may be in a context where she does not have contact with eligible Christian men. Although she desires marriage and is fully capable of marriage, her circumstances make it impossible for her to enter into marriage. Getting romantically involved with a non-believer is not an option because it goes against God’s loving plan for his people (1 Cor 7:39, 2 Cor 6:14).

God’s will for us and our desires are not always as aligned we would wish. I do not believe that everyone who is called to singleness is immediately aware of this; many of them may not even want to be single. A call to singleness (permanent or temporary) does not imply asexuality or a lack of desire for companionship. In fact. in my many conversations on the subject, I have never had one person in a state of singleness, of any orientation, tell me that have ceased to desire either sex or companionship. The presence of a sex drive does not necessarily mean that marriage in the direction of that drive is what God wants for us.

So, is remaining unmarried really a lifelong sentence to being alone? The words of God in Genesis two echo deeply in our hearts, it is not good for man to be alone. Most of us know this on a core level. God designed us for relationship. So what hope can be offered to individuals who experience long term singleness either because of their choices or the because of the will of God?

Adam’s loneliness was not just a romantic or sexual loneliness; it was complete human isolation. He was the only human being in the garden. Although he had fellowship and communication with his Creator, he didn’t have a human community.  Eve certainly provided Adam with a romantic and sexual partner, but this was not all she was to him. She was a friend, she was a comrade, and she was another person Adam could share his humanness with. While Scripture holds up marriage as the only appropriate context for sexual fulfillment, marriage was never intended to be the absolute or even the primary means of relational fulfillment.

For Christians, the Church is to be our primary source of support and community.  A family is a beautiful thing, but Christ, during his time on this earth repeatedly emphasized Spiritual family over biological family (Luke 8:19-21, Mark 10:28-30). While marriage is only for this earth (Matthew 22:28), the Body of Christ will exist eternally. Experiencing Christian community as a single adult is not just a poor substitute for marriage. Singleness is not something to run past as quickly as possible; it will be the eternal reality for all who follow Christ.*

The biblical truth about singleness goes against the grain in many of our churches today. But we must reclaim this truth if we ever hope to make our churches a welcoming place for those who do not share in marriage. I deeply resonate with what Christopher Yuan says on this issue: “If we don’t get singleness right, I don’t even think we are ready to minister on the issue of sexuality.”  While God may ask many of us to live in long-term singleness, he does not condemn any of us to a life completely alone.

God is neither unaware nor unconcerned about the heartache that unmarried individuals often face.  In Isaiah 56:4-5, we find a comforting promise given to a group of people who would never have their own families or children:

For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.

Conclusion:

I believe that in these two areas of suffering and singleness Matthew Vines misunderstands the will of God. God does call believers to suffer, and sometimes to suffer intensely for long periods of time. He also calls some believers to be single, even when they strongly desire a marital relationship. There is no doubt that the message about homosexuality in Scripture is a hard message. All believers are called to lose their lives in order to find life in Christ (Matthew 16:25), and for a Christian with same-sex attraction this can be particularly hard.

In Matthew 13:44-46 Jesus shares two short stories about the Kingdom of God. In these parables the people involved sell all they have to gain a beautiful pearl and a buried treasure. Scripture proclaims that everything we give up to gain Christ is infinitely worth the exchange, and this is true regardless of our sexual orientation. As Sam Alberry says “Jesus is always worth it.” (How Can the Gospel be Good News to Gays?)

May God give each of us strength to choose Christ above all else.

All Scripture Quotations taken from the English Standard Version of the Bible.

*I would also encourage you to check out Brian Kammerzelt’s The Most Eligible Christian Bachelor for some great insights on singleness and Christian community.

The Komen Foundation’s Severed Relationship with Planned Parenthood

**** Update: 4:22 PM It now appears that the Susan G. Komen Foundation has decided to reinstate the funding to Planned Parenthood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/03/susan-g-komen-uturn-planned-parenthood .****

 

As you may have heard, the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure recently decided to reallocate the $700,000 it had been giving to Planned Parenthood for the purpose of fighting breast cancer. This relationship had been previously questioned on the basis that Planned Parenthood does not even perform mammograms but merely refers women to get them.

While the Komen Foundation maintains that the decision was a result of an internal policy prohibiting them from supporting organizations under federal investigation, few have accepted this explanation. The move set off a firestorm of protest. Planned Parenthood supporters took to the streets and took to their pens to criticize the Komen Foundation’s decision. Pro-life advocates, who have long decried the association, conversely applauded the move. Donations have poured into both the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood.

I recently read at New York Times editorial on the subject entitled “A Painful Betrayal” and, quite frankly, it made me mad. The article is littered with angry, judgmental, and provocative language, and also contains patently deceptive information.

Before I offer a few comments critiquing the article, two relevant points must be made. First, Planned Parenthood supporters are quick to point out that the organization is much more than an abortion provider. This is true. Not all of PP’s services (and not even a majority) are abortion specific and even strongly pro-life individuals would see value in many of the things they do.

Secondly, prior to its disassociation with PP, Komen required that any financial support be used specifically for cancer related services and not go to providing abortions. Although this might sound like an effective prohibition, it falls short. Planned Parenthood is then free to reallocate non-restricted funds to provide abortions. If the goal is to prohibit donated money from enabling more abortions, then the only way to accomplish this is to withhold money from Planned Parenthood.

One need look no farther than the title alone to determine the position the author takes on this issue. Komen is accused of “undermin(ing) women’s health and freedom.” and “tarnish(ing) its brand”. The author also calls the move a “sharp departure from political neutrality”. Seriously? Since when did financially supporting the nation’s largest abortion provider come to define political neutrality? The Komen Foundation’s move to disassociate itself from a prominent pro-abortion provider should be viewed as a move toward neutrality and away from taking a stand on divisive moral issues.

The author also cites a deceptive statistic, circulated by Planned Parenthood, which states that only three percent of the services PP provides are abortions. This may be technically true since most women who visit Planned Parenthood receive more than one “service”. For instance, a woman visiting a clinic might get a pregnancy test or participate in a counseling visit in addition to getting an abortion. NPR clarified this statistic by explaining that PP sees three million patients per year and provides 300,000 abortions. This means that at least ten percent of the women visiting Planned Parenthood during a calendar year receive abortions.

Whatever the actual reason for the Komen Foundation’s decision, it was the right choice to make.

My Thoughts on Al Mohler, Sex, and the Avoidance of Parenthood

The Controversy:

I recently stumbled across a couple articles that Dr. Albert Mohler published a few years ago on the subject of married couples who choose to forgo having children. In the first of these articles provocatively titled Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face, Mohler argues that “Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God’s design.” To back up his point the author refers to Psalms 127:3-5, a passage that says children are blessings, rewards, and gifts. Mohler believes that the sexual revolution has devalued the very thing it praised by seeking to “liberate sex from marriage [and even from gender], but also from procreation.” At the height of his argument the author makes the declaration that “Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation.”

As you can imagine, this article caused a significant stir, so much so that Dr. Mohler wrote another article two years later entitled Deliberate Childlessness Revisited where he responded to some of his critics. While the second article was more cautiously worded, Mohler continued to stand strongly by his point that for a married couple, completely refusing to have children was a moral problem. He also states his disagreement with the common objection that “a rejection of parenthood is simply a deeply personal and sensitive question that is beyond moral consideration on the part of the Christian community”

Dr. Mohler insists that since the Scripture praises families and children, and since God designed the sex to be the method of procreation, married couples should be open to the idea of having children. In this second article the author revisits the issue of sexuality, declaring that “The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age–and one of the most ominous.” While stopping short of the Roman Catholic teaching that each and every sexual act must theoretically have the possibility of conception, Mohler does maintain that completely separating sex from procreation distorts the gift of God that is sexuality.

My Thoughts:

This post comes as a result of reading both of these articles, reflecting on Scripture, and conversing with some of my friends about this volatile issue. You may now be asking the question: What business does an unmarried twenty-six year old man have commenting on this topic?  Well, I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on any of the issues involved in this discussion, but I do accept that reflecting on these things is helpful for those who are unmarried. I believe that young adults should spend significant time wrestling with these issues in effort to better prepare themselves for marriage. I can’t help but think that many marriages would be much healthier if those in them had started thinking about these things before they tied the knot. Particularly, I am bothered by the fact that many young men are incredibly unthoughtful on the subjects of birth control, and children – likely because they never have to take the medication or deliver the babies. So think about these things is what I have done. Here are my humble and imperfect reflections on the issue at hand: Deliberate, Sustained Childlessness.

In my perspective Al Mohler makes two strong points. The first being that we live in a culture where children, as a whole, are not valued as God values them. What Dr. Mohler refers to as the “contraception culture” has trained us to think of pregnancy and children as threats rather than blessings. Many people today view children as burdens, annoyances, and hindrances to achievement. This is exactly the opposite of what Scripture says. From the book of Psalms to the ministry of Jesus, we see children valued and family encouraged.

Mohler is clear that he is not against all birth control. He states: “I have consistently argued that Christian couples can make responsible decisions about the timing and number of children, so long as the marriage is genuinely open to the gift of children and the responsibilities of parenthood.” Al Mohler is not telling every couple to try and immediately get pregnant. He is encouraging all married couples to evaluate their hearts and attitudes about having children in light of what Scripture says. For some that might mean having more children, for others it will not. He isn’t offering a one size fits all family plan, what he is doing is encouraging more Scriptural reflection about this issue considering the fact that so many of our cultural attitudes about marriage, sexuality, and children are distorted.

What Al Mohler condemns is a culture where having children is avoided because people are pursuing selfish ends. I would contend that what motivates many couples to avoid having children is a desire to avoid the commitment, responsibility, and self-sacrifice that children require. Raising children is hard, and a lot of couples today just don’t want to bother with them. This doesn’t mean that every couple who does not have children is operating primarily out of selfishness, but this may be more a factor than we would care to admit.

Many are quick to point out that there are several legitimate reasons why a couple might want to avoid having a child. Living situation, ongoing education, financial limitations, and health concerns are often cited. Mohler himself agrees that there are situations (such as unusual Christian service) where having children might rightly be avoided. I myself don’t doubt that there are legitimate situations where each of these reasons are valid, but for many couples not having children may be more of an issue of priority than of implausibility. Is it possible that a couple might value a certain standard of living or a certain level of flexibility more highly than the raising of Godly offspring? Let me be clear, I believe there are good reasons for avoiding pregnancy; I am just not sure the reasons we usually hear are as compelling as we think they are.

I will also add this to Mohler’s comments: I see at least two passages in Scripture where God seems to indicate that having children has a protective and redemptive influence in the lives of parents, (1 Tim 2:15, 5:11-15 in these verses, particularly mothers). In the second of these passages, young widows are actually encouraged to remarry and have children because of these sanctifying benefits that come from raising a family. Caring for a child requires both mother and father to lay their own lives down for the sake of their children. When a parent gives up his or her freedom and autonomy and instead chooses to invest their time loving and raising her children there is an undeniable spiritual benefit. When we sacrifice our own interests to serve others, we are changed by our service. Many men and women do not want that influence in their lives, and for some, not having children is an easy way to avoid self-sacrifice. I must also note here that there are multiple, childless, married couples I know who use their time, energy, and flexibility to invest in other people in amazing ways. They have my complete respect. They view their lack of biological children not as an excuse for self-indulgence but as an opportunity to serve others in an amazing way.

Coincidentally, I believe that the same cultural attitudes that are contributing to intentional childlessness are also pushing young adults to avoid the commitment of marriage all together. This related development is also troubling.

The second way in which I resonate with Mohler’s comments is in his discussion of the nature of sex. I am convinced that it is not a coincidence that God created the act of sex to provide pleasure, facilitate emotional bonding, and result in procreation.  Mohler’s concern, and I share it, is that willfully and permanently separating these elements from each other has unintended consequences and may, in fact, distort the gift of sexuality given to us by our Creator. In some situations, intentionally remaining childless may not only be a rejection of God’s design but also an assault on our own wholeness as human beings.

Having grown up in conservative Christian culture, I have, at times, seen sex distorted in a different way. Although I never heard someone say it, at points I got the picture that pleasure was an inadequate reason to have sex (this has massively shifted in Christian culture today).  Scripture certainly seems to view sex as more than merely a utilitarian baby-making function.  Just read through the Song of Solomon. The isolation of pleasure from sex is also an ominous and non-biblical development. In some circles it is still important to remember this fact.

I am concerned that in the same way that casual sex distorts the relational aspect of sexuality (by short-circuiting emotional bonding) deliberate childlessness could distort the procreative aspect of sexuality. This certainly isn’t to say that the two things are morality on par, just that they could each represent a distortion.

While Al Mohler may come across as sounding rather harsh, I believe he brings up important points in his two articles. The strength of his writing is that it urges us to think more deeply and more Biblically about cultural paradigms we have too quickly accepted. Our perspectives on marriage, sexuality, and children have all been shaped by a culture that rejects God and his revealed Word. It is time to reevaluate our perspectives on these important issues in light of God’s truth.

Each of us should humbly seek God and ask him to point out areas where our views on marriage, sexuality, and children are not his views. May God help each of us develop a posture toward viewing children as blessings, and a may he grant us a willingness to welcome these blessings in his time.

Understanding Religion Rightly

Recently a YouTube video titled “Why I Love Jesus but Hate Religion” has blown up on the social media scene.  I am not as excited about this video as everyone else seems to be. This campaign against “religion” has been going on within the church for several years, and I believe it stems from a misunderstanding of the term. This man lumps everything he doesn’t like about Christianity (republican politics, religious wars, etc.) under the title of religion and tosses it out.  Defining religion as “all the bad things” doesn’t seem to match what Scripture says about the subject. God inspired James to say the following: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1:27) Here we clearly see that there is a certain type of religious expression that is indeed approved of by God. It is fascinating to me that the very thing this man accuses religion of not doing, caring for the poor, is the definition of pure religion given in this passage. Religion is neither good nor bad in itself, and this author truthfully points out that many religious people have done wrong things. The key question for us should be what, or more correctly, who is the object of our religious affections. Are we pursuing religious rituals and moral conformity because we want to maintain a public persona, or are we engaging in religious rituals and living within God’s protective moral boundaries because we are driven to do so by our love for Jesus Christ? I am concerned that when we attempt to score points with skeptics by ripping on religion we are actually misrepresenting something that can be honoring to God.

I believe that getting our terminology right is important, and in my judgement, this is where the man in this video goes wrong. This guy is passionate about his Savior, and think I would enjoy talking to him sometime, I just hope he develops a fuller understanding of true religion.

Talking Of Tim

Today in the office I had a conversation with a friend about Tim Tebow. This short conversation provoked further thought and led to the following post.

After a seeing an endless stream of public figures talk about Christ and then proceed to live immoral and inconsistent lives, I have a hard time trusting the sincerity of anyone who speaks publically about their faith. That is why I was skeptical when I first heard about a Florida quarterback who painted Bible verses under his eyes. To be honest, it all seemed too good to be true, his life story was too incredible, his public persona too perfect, his Christian behavior too consistent. The guy was a starting college quarterback, and a virgin for crying out loud! Over the past couple of years I have lived in a state of wincing – preparing myself for the inevitable blow of yet another high profile Christian moral failure. As of today, that blow has yet to fall, and Tim has remained vocally Christian and seemingly scandal free.

After experiencing tremendous success in high school and college Tim Tebow was drafted by the Denver Broncos in 2010. Despite his previous accomplishments, most football analysts questioned the quarterback’s ability to succeed in the NFL, primarily because of his faulty throwing motion. In spite of these dim predictions, however, Tebow has continued to win by using his legs. Aside from a rather lopsided loss to Detroit, Tebow has won every game he started this year. After this improbable (some would say inexplicable) winning streak, the spotlight is brighter than ever on the nation’s most outspoken Christian athlete. Fame has not thus far dimmed the light of Tim Tebow. He remains committed to using his professional stage as a means of proclaiming Christ. In nearly every interview he mentions his commitment to God, and his postgame prayerful pose has become an internet sensation. (search Tebowing)

Everyone has an opinion about this unique and surprisingly successful quarterback. The Tebow discussion has dominated the football landscape, and one sports commentator has even ridiculously declared that “Tebow already has taken over the world” Now, the magnifying glass is bigger than ever, and those who find Tebow’s devotion to Christ annoying would like nothing better than to see him fail. Truth be told, this twenty-four year old athlete walks daily on a dangerous road. Money and fame provide him at any moment with numerous opportunities to fall into sin. Moral failure is never a foregone conclusion, however, when God resides in a person, and I pray that Tim will keep his Christian character intact.

While I celebrate the consistency in Tim Tebow’s witness, and I rejoice in his personal success, new concerns have risen in my mind. As I see it, right now Tim Tebow lives between two minefields. On one side is the field of success. Tebow is a winner by all definitions, and he has proved himself capable at every level of his sport. This continuing success carries with it great danger. Prosperity can blind the best of us to the darkness in our own hearts. Pride so easily overtakes us when we reside in positions of prosperity and security. This is what caused Jesus to say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matt 19:24 NIV

While success will certainly test the faith Tim Tebow, there is at least an equal danger for him in the minefield of failure. While he has certainly lost games in his career, he has yet to live through sustained professional failure. It may be that failure in football will be the real test of Tim Tebow’s faith. While we may want to believe that those who serve God faithfully will be prosperous, God’s favor does not equal worldly success. In fact, some of the most outstanding saints through history have been abject failures in the eyes of the world.

Those close to the quarterback speak of him as a relentless competitor who wants badly to win. Knowing that fact, I wonder how he will respond when he consistently fails to win. Tebow eagerly gives praised to God for his victories, but I long to see him give praise to God in his losses as well. Although I hope he continues to win (except in games against the Lions), part of me wants to see him exemplify devotion to Christ in the midst of failure. I recently was reminded of something Phil Vischer said after his once thriving Christian company failed: “Why would God want us to let go of our dreams? Because anything I am unwilling to let go of is an idol, and I am in sin.” The one concern I have about Tim Tebow is that through his vocal Christian witness, he has somehow tied in God’s reputation with his personal success in football. I don’t believe that this is his intent, but I think it remains a danger none the less. I pray Tim and every other believer would be able to say as Job did: “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him” Job 15:13 NIV Whether in success or in failure, our hope should be based on the unfaltering character of God.

Before I end this post I offer one final caution. Basing ones faith on the reputation of a sinful man is dangerous, and ultimately it is idolatry. People, some of them parents desperate to give their children someone to look up to, have driven Tebow’s jersey sales to astronomical levels. In fact it has been reported that Tim Tebow has had the best selling jersey in the entire NFL every month since he became a pro. Idolatry is a big a problem in the Christian Church, and we need to be very careful here. Having an idol who is a believer is just as wrong in God’s sight as having an idol who is not a believer.

I conclude with an open letter to Tim:

I am thankful for you Tim, and I am so proud of the way you publically give praise to our God and Savior. I hear in your words a love for God that I envy. I thank God for giving you a platform to proclaim his truth, and I pray that many would listen. I pray specifically that many of your teammates would come to know Christ because of your example. I am also afraid for you. I am afraid that the incredible pressure you are under will weaken your devotion to Christ. I am afraid for you because of the temptation you face every day. I am afraid that success will cause pride in your life. I pray that God will preserve you as you work in an environment that is not conducive to a Christian lifestyle. Above all, may you continue to bow your knee in humble submission to God, whether He gives you success or failure.

Sweden: A Woman’s Dream Country?

A recent article published in Marie Claire Magazine listed Sweden as the country friendliest to women. Among several reasons mentioned for this designation were long maternity leave times, anti-sexism training in kindergarten “where male toddlers are encouraged to play with dolls, and females with toy tractors”, free education for everyone, and wide employment opportunities for women (including priesthood in the Swedish Lutheran Church). We are also told that over 60 percent of college students in Sweden are female and that in many educational realms women outperform men. Political representation is also very close, with women composing almost half of the Swedish Parliament. This country, long one of Europe’s most progressive, is hailed by many as a Utopia where gender is neither an advantage nor disadvantage to anyone.

Although the article noted some economic problems such as high taxation, high prices, and a troubling male-female wage gap, the part of the article that most fascinated me was the reportedly sad state of Swedish men. One Swedish woman interviewed discussed the discomfort she feels when a man pays for her dinner on a date. The article notes, however, that:

“Fortunately she almost never finds herself in that predicament, since Swedish men rarely offer to pay, nor do they perform any other conventional courtesies, such as holding a door open or helping a woman visibly struggling under the load of a heavy bag.”

While I am sure there are many Swedish men who would indeed pay for a date’s meal or open the door for a woman, I for one consider it sad that many men in this country would not show such basic kindness. While it is said that some women find such things demeaning, I have yet to ever meet one. Furthermore, I would suggest that when done for the right reasons, these acts are appropriate indications of human concern, not residual signs of female repression.

Gender equality in Sweden has also apparently resulted in a somewhat awkward dating culture.

“By American standards, Swedish men are painfully slow to make the first romantic move. ‘Men treat women like friends,’ Anna-Maria says. ‘They rarely chat you up, unless they’re drunk.’ Instead, Anna-Maria often does the asking herself. ‘Sure, I’d like to be chased, but men have grown lazy in Sweden. So I take the initiative. Though I have to say, it detracts from the sexual intrigue.’

I wonder if some American women, already frustrated by the unrelenting passivity of men in their lives, would be excited to live in a country where men show even less kindness or romantic initiative. What a sad commentary it is to say that these men will only take the simple step of talking to a woman when under the influence of alcohol!

Many women in this country, as well as in Sweden, have out of frustration and loneliness, resigned themselves to being romantic initiators. True, many people today do not see this as particularly problematic. It can be reasonably argued, however, that such behavior only exacerbates the problem of male passivity. The result of female initiation may be actual relationships, but the core cultural problem of male passivity goes unaddressed. No man has ever been cured of fear and laziness simply by being asked out by a woman. If she is doing all the heavy lifting on the front end, she can’t expect him to take on any more of the relational load later on. Interestingly, even the enlightened Swedish woman interviewed in the article wishes that men would pursue her.

While women have certainly been marginalized under some patriarchal systems, we must ask if intentionally subverting gender distinctions is really the best antidote to this unfair treatment. I fear that, in an attempt to recognize the true value of women in modern society we have unintentionally destroyed a healthy conception of masculinity. While some in Sweden may argue that a gender neutral society is preferable to discrimination and abuse, I don’t see a legitimate conflict between a healthy concept of masculinity and the respectful treatment of women.

I contend that what is needed, both in Sweden and American, is a revitalization of healthy masculinity. Many of the societal ills of our day can be traced to the lack of real men. The truth is that real masculinity, which protects, provides, and initiates, has been on the decline in the USA for years, and we are paying the price for its absence. It would be better for both men and women in our country if we rediscovered it.