Note: Rather than typing up new post after new post, I'll be editing this post over time, adding different sources. So this post will be gradually growing, as I find more people speaking on the topic. If you check back once in a while, you may find something new here.
Also, note that this post has been split into two posts, roughly corresponding to the topics of attraction and commitment. The post on attraction also has the introductory explanation of these posts.
Just Friends
In part one, I had discussed the problem of commitment which is ubiquitous in modern society. Men and women alike fear commitment, which becomes manifest in many different outlets. But men often have the bigger problem when it comes to marriage commitments, which is especially problematic for an relationship whose foundation is covenantal commitment.
In addition to men not 'stepping up to the plate' and entering into relationships that lead to the covenant of marriage, however, women act in ways that allow this passivity to happen, if not encourage it: they allow men to experience the intimate feminine companionship they crave before any commitment exists.
Scott Croft, an elder at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in DC has written a number of posts on relationships, including one entitled Just Friends. When I first read his article, I was incredulous. In fact, I'm fairly certain my jaw literally hit the floor on at least a couple occasions. He was saying so much of the same things I had been saying. Below are a few choice passages, but I highly recommend the entire article as a perfect supplement to my original post.
Scott Croft first lays out his case:
I believe it is extremely difficult and rare — as a practical matter — to honor these principles [to love others and work for their souls' good] in the context of a close, intimate friendship between two single Christians of the opposite sex. . . . Intimate friendships between men and women almost always produce confusion and frustration for at least one of the parties involved. Close friendships by their very nature tend to involve extensive time talking and hanging out one-on-one. They tend to involve a deep knowledge of the other person's hopes, desires and personality. They tend to involve the sharing of many aspects of each other's daily lives and routines. In other words, they tend to involve much of the type of intimacy and companionship involved in — and meant for — marriage. . . . To the extent that one person's romantic feelings have been clearly articulated to the other (and were met with an unfavorable response), to continue in some no-man's land of "good friends," is arguably to take selfish advantage of the vulnerable party. Yes, I know, the other person is an adult who is free and responsible to walk away if he or she is so unsatisfied, but like it or not, it tends not to work that way. Hope springs eternal, whether it should or not.
He additionally addresses the community impact of such relationships, noting that even if both the man and the woman are nominally ok with the way things are, that relationship does not exist in a vacuum.
Finally, there's one more type of confusion to consider. How do others view your "friendship"? Ladies, might there be men who would have initiated with you but for their uncertainty about or discomfort with your intimate friendship with another man? Guys, has a woman perhaps turned you down over questions about a woman friend you spend lots of time with? Would you want to date someone knowing that he or she had a significant, pre-existing, and ongoing emotional bond with another single member of the opposite sex? If I were a single person desiring marriage, the answers to these questions would matter to me.
Croft also discuses the long-term problem that these non-committed relationships create.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that your intimate friendship is one of those rare jewels that is devoid of the potential for hurt or confusion. There's another drawback to such friendships. They discourage marriage. . . . In the past, when both sexual immorality and intimate male-female friendships were much less accepted and less common in society, men and women moved more deliberately toward marriage earlier in life. By offering a taste of the companionship and interactions that make marriage so satisfying, with none of the accompanying commitments or responsibilities entailed in marriage, intimate friendships discourage the pursuit of the grown-up, God-intended outlet for marital desires — marriage. This is especially so in a culture — and a church — that struggles with the widespread sociological trend in its young adults known as "perpetual adolescence."
Croft, too, sees women as sharing some fault for the situation, as it is.
I would especially encourage women who desire marriage to give this argument some thought. If you are one of the many women to complain with great frustration that "Christian men don't initiate," consider this: Are you and your sisters satisfying the intermediate needs of your guy friends such that they feel no particular compulsion to pursue marriage?
One great advantage of Croft's article, however, is that he gives guidance as to how single Christian men and women might instead interact, a topic which I chose not to immediately address (but which may prove ripe for a future essay...)
Single men and women can and should serve in ministry together, study the word together, and hang out together socially. They should go out together, gather around meals, watch movies. In my view, however, these activities should be done, for the most part, in groups rather than one-on-one. . . . Is there a precise formula for whether a friendship or series of interactions is too intimate? If there is, I don't know it. Hang out in groups; serve together. By all means, chat and be friendly with your brothers and sisters in Christ. . . . Just be aware that "friendship" is no more a forum to play married than a dating relationship is. If you find that you are consistently showing one of your opposite-sex Christian friends more one-on-one attention than all the others, whether in conversation or through invitations out, it's probably time for (1) some clarification of intentions and (most likely) a change in the status of the relationship to something more overtly committed, or (2) a change in the way you interact with that person. Beyond that, godly single adults will have to work this out on a case-by-case basis.
Just Do Something
The second selection comes from Kevin DeYoung's book, Just Do Something. The book's basic message is, 'God does have a specific plan for our lives, but it is not one that He expects us to figure out before we make a decision.' We should ask for direction and pray over all things, but we ultimately need to do something, rather than hemming and hawing over every intersection in life.
It is in that context that DeYoung takes a chapter to apply that to pursuing marriage.
Gentlemen, there are wonderful Christian girls waiting for you to act, well, like a man. Stop waiting for romantic lightning to strike. Stop waiting for the umpteenth green light. Stop "hanging out" every night without ever making your intentions clear. Go ask a girl on a date, or ask her "to court," or whatever you think is the appropriate language. But do something. If you want to be single, that's great. Jesus was single. I hear it can be a pretty good gig. But if you want to get married, do something about it. Take a chance. Risk rejection. Be the relational and spiritual leader God has called you to be.
There are always plenty of exceptions, but as a general rule, Christians are waiting too long to get married. There are too many great Christians out there who should be married to one of the other great Christians out there. I remember Elisabeth Eliot saying one time that while speaking at a large Christian singles ministry, she desperately wanted to line up all the men on one wall, all the women on the other, count off (1, 1; 2, 2; 3, 3) and pair up those singles, and get them married.
Let me say it one more time: There is nothing wrong with being single. It can be a gift from the Lord and a gift to the church. But when there is an overabundance of Christian singles who want to be married, this is a problem. And it's a problem I put squarely at the feet of young men whose immaturity, passivity, and indecision are pushing their hormones to the limits of self-control, delaying the growing-up process, and forcing countless numbers of young women to spend lots of time and money pursuing a career (which is not necessarily wrong) when they would rather be getting married and having children. Men, if you want to be married, find a godly gal, treat her right, talk to her parents, pop the question, tie the knot, and start making babies.
DeYoung then goes on to address the perceived problem of 'compatibility':
And while I'm jumping on toes, let me explode the myth of "the one." Yes, in God's secret providence, He has just the right person picked out for you. And yes, once you meet the guy of your dreams, you won't want to be with anyone else. He'll be the only one for you. I know this will sound very unromantic (especially to some of the ladies), but don't think that there is only one person on the whole planet to whom you could be happily married. You're not looking for that one puzzle piece that will interlock with yours. "You complete me" may sound magically romantic, but it's not true. . . . The problem with the myth of "the one" is that it assumes that affection is the glue that holds the marriage together, when really it is your commitment to marriage that safeguards the affection. So ditch the myth and get hitched.
The Friends with Benefits Epidemic
In this article in Relevant magazine, Lauren Lankford discusses the problems that develop when increased intimacy is not matched with increased commitment. Throughout the article, Lankford emphasizes how relationships and sex are yet another way in which God communicates to us analogical truths.
Your desire for sex is proof that God loves you. Your physical draw to another human being is proof that God created you to want to experience unparalleled intimacy in a way that reflects His desire for intimacy with us. God designed sex and the acts and attitudes preceding it to access aspects of your heart, soul, body and mind that could not be accessed any other way.
. . .
Your entire life is the story of God's plan to show you His definition of crazy, unconditional love. Those who marry will find marriage is one of God's primary tools for this. God knew it was not good for man to be alone. God knew we needed a physical way to experience the heartbeat of Himself. So He gave us each other—another human being to commit to and love no matter what. An image of God's passion for His children, an expression of Jesus' love for His bride.
While Lankford's main focus is on the sexual and the physiological reasons why casual physical relationships can become problematic for our emotional well-being, she does not restrict her discussion to that.
Our bodies are created to start bonding within 20 seconds. Your body can't tell the difference between cuddling with your boyfriend and cuddling with a friend while watching a movie. Your heart can't tell the difference between sharing intimate secrets with the sexy new friend or your spouse. Trust, attachment and intimacy build with or without our permission. This is why it's so incredibly important to set physical and emotional boundaries before we get into something it hurts to get out of.
. . .
You were created for hot, passionate sex. You were created to be connected to one person, without ever going through withdrawal. You were created for whole, healthy friendships—unscarred by broken or inappropriate intimacy.
But more than that, you were created to experience unconditional, committed love. When we compromise emotional and physical intimacy before commitment (whether or not we intend to), we sabotage ourselves. And it hurts. Badly. Either now, later or both.
Who's on First?
J. Budziszewski (boo-juh-SHEF-ski) is professor of government at Texas and also a prolific writer on Christian apologetics and ethics. He's written a pair of articles (here and here) on the same topic of non-commitment. They are a fictitious dialogue between himself and a young man whose close female friend has confronted him over his non-commitment. For men, it presents a real challenge to follow the dialogue and compare one's own thoughts and priorities to Mark's. Women, take full advantage of this rare glimpse into the way that the male psyche operates at times!
It's trickier to pull out quotes from a dialogue such as this, so there are only a couple. The first is on why women don't characterize an intimate relationship with a man 'dating'.
"Often girls these days don't call dates dates because guys these days are so afraid of commitment. You won't say that one doesn't apply to you." Mark shifted uncomfortably in his chair. "You see, the girl may feel that the only way the guy will ever court her is if he doesn't have to admit that it's courtship."
On why men don't characterize an intimate relationship with a woman 'dating':
"[G]uys these days are afraid of commitment. It's part of their fear of growing up. And there's another reason. Fear of failure."
"Fear of failure?"
"If you're 'just friends' and she says no to pizza, it's no big deal. But if you ask her on a pizza date and she says no, it's humiliating. To relieve the pressure, guys don't call dates dates."
0 comments:
Post a Comment