The Marriage Idol, Part 3

Reorienting Objectification

So what is “The Marriage Idol”?

In Part 1, I reframe the question with language of identity, with another question: What defines you? In Part 2, I define words like love, marriage, and idolatry, all which can help us understand the framework. The challenge of this, as with any complex subject, is to avoid oversimplification. Considering the diversity of the world, it is unavoidable to some extent. Nonetheless, I have invested time and space to unpack each major word and idea because each person frames them differently, even if only subtly so. Such is the frailty of identity; for each of us carries assumptions based on our personal history.

Subjectivity should not be feared, but rather recognized as a normal aspect of interacting as free-thinking human beings. While communicating from our various frameworks can be confounding, it can also be inspiring in the introduction to new ways of seeing. Without some awareness of our limitations, however, there is little room left in public discourse for compassion, peace, and unity—for an atmosphere of learning. By unity, I do not necessarily mean agreement, but rather a desire to understand before being understood, allowing each other space for our differences without filling that space with defensive barriers.

When focusing on the subject of marriage, therefore, each of our visions for marriage will vary based on the facets of our individual identities. Yet I have come to wonder if marriage is even the real subject here. Perhaps it is merely the façade of a deeper need (and potentially idol).

How is Marriage Advertised?

I suspect that the idea of marriage is idolized more than the actuality of marriage.

In 1759, the essayist Samuel Johnson said, “Promise, large promise, is the soul of an advertisement.”[1] So what does marriage promise? What images and/or ideas come to mind?

Think about it for a moment.

(Look away from this screen and draft your own initial conclusion.)

How one defines the promise of something reveals much of his or her identity. Communications professor Dr. Greg Spencer writes that “Advertising is successful because it links products with our identity. It defines the self in the context of a particular car or phone or style of vacation.” It can be quite subtle. For example, “the message is ‘Buy Extra gum,’ but the metamessage is ‘Extra gum is the way to romance.’” In other words, we are essentially “told two metamessages in almost every ad: ‘We are happy when we buy’ and ‘We are inadequate.’ . . . Advertising often convinces us that some nonmaterial good thing (love, success, happiness, etc.) can be acquired through material means (cars, beauty products, toilet paper). Coke means happiness. Dentyne gum promotes romance. Lingerie leads to sexual intimacy. Laundry soap leads to sexual intimacy. Computers, coffee, everything leads to sexual intimacy!”

Simply put, a marriage partner can be made into the “material means” for attaining a “nonmaterial good” like happiness, fulfillment, love, intimacy. While marriage can (and the healthy ones do) navigate and interconnect such needs, the danger is when marriage—or more to the point, a partner—is viewed as the direct means (i.e. object) to attaining them.[2]

Affirmation

What do these needs suggest about one’s identity? In conversations about romance, there can be a subtext about yearning for marriage or wanting it for someone else as way to resolve some form of loneliness and/or insecurity. Married and non-married people alike can talk this way. Yet promoting marriage as the answer to fundamental human needs not only places unhealthy expectations on a partner—and a tendency to idolize him or her, or even the relationship—but also risks perpetuating conflict due to a tendency to project one’s personal framework (e.g. language, expectations) onto the other’s identity.

Why does this happen? For one, it is unavoidable because each person’s framework is limited. But it is also because of an essential human need: affirmation. Affirmation is about giving “a heightened sense of value”, support, and/or validity to someone.[3] Without affirmation, one can feel barraged by a sense of isolation and loneliness: “Sadness because one has no friends or company; the quality of being unfrequented and remote.”[4]

Ultimately, without affirmation, one is vulnerable to fear, which can slowly distort a person’s view of possibilities: “What if life is always this way? What if this feeling never goes away?” Fear breeds insecurity, which can fracture identity and lead to faltering. Fear tempts one to rely too heavily on another person affirming one’s identity, or even to demanding that one’s identity be bestowed by that person. This is not just limited to a romantic partner, for co-dependency or emotional dependency can be witnessed in any kind of relationship, whether between lovers, friends, or family members.[5]

Granted, people do need to affirm one another. But when it is sought as the sole definer of self worth, the framework of identity can collapse further: “If I am not affirmed for who I am, does that I also mean I am not accepted? Will I ever be accepted? Will I ever be loved? If I am not loved, is something wrong with me? What do I do now?”

While there are various good responses to these difficult questions, my concern is that the “affirmation” of marriage is too often clung to as a primary solution—if not from one’s partner then perhaps from one’s children. It can become destructive, while on the surface first appearing constructive, to concentrate entirely on loving someone else, whether partner or child, in hopes of forgetting one’s loneliness. For this again can lead to emotional dependency.

FOMO

Our relationship with technology offers another window through which to understand the need for affirmation. Now, more than ever, influenced by advertising, our frameworks are dominated by comparison. Spencer writes, “We love to see what’s happening with our friends, but the comparison can drive any of us to the despair of not measuring up to others’ beauty, vacations, weddings, or picnic lunches in the backyard.”

With marriages crumbling into ruin as often as they are being reinforced and built up, with intimacy feeling more elusive than ever, technology is now sometimes sought as a new source of affirmation. In the context of marriage, are people turning increasingly to technology for affirmation as a result of disappointment with their spouses, turning from one false god to another?[6] Wu Song writes, “Even when we try to rest, we are restless, and we reach for our phones or tablets because our bodies and our imaginations have forgotten what else there is to reach for. . . . As Dalton Conley described, life is constantly ‘being lived elsewhere’ as our bodies are in one place, but our minds and consciousness are focused on the stuff of our screens. . . . flattening out and editing away our discomforts.”[7] Pointing back to our propensity for co-dependency, only now infused in our relationships with technology, Wu Song asks, “What types of desires do our compulsive digital practices encourage?” For example, do such practices ironically encourage greater isolation, i.e. time physically alone to focus on the emotional “togetherness” provided by technology?

Even if the idea of marriage to another person continues to churn one’s imagination, does the fear of missing out (FOMO) remain a form of motivation; this newly heightened by the comparison inherent to social media? Missing out on what those other people are enjoying—at least as it appears or is promoted with pictures and posts. Thus we return to my initial question: What does marriage promise?

As most can attest, technology usually proves to be a poor substitute for human connection. Most people realize this in their soul. Wu Song concludes, “Part of the trouble with our growing dependence on our socio-technological practices of friendship and community is the modern disregard for the fact that we are embodied persons who bring both physical presence and voice and are impinged upon by the human voice and physical presence of others.” In other words, while interacting with or through technology may be simpler—arguably less demanding; more a mirror to our identity than an autonomous, contrasting identity such as we find in relationship with other people—human relationships, while certainly more complicated, do remind us of our shared temporality: our living in the present, not alone but in community, all the while connected to the past (history) and future (hopes).

In Closing

The reality is that each of us will always be “missing out” on something. But what that is, and whether one cares about it, is subjectively defined. Though organizing and acting upon individual priorities is not a static experience, but rather ongoing, dynamic, evolving, and though the process can feel overwhelming at times, it is not to be feared. For there is someone who offers to save us from our frailty, who knows and values each of us for our true selves (Isaiah 43:1).

We need not fear loneliness. An antonym of loneliness is belonging, and belonging is fundamentally about true friendship. Loneliness begins to be fulfilled through belief in the message of Jesus Christ; that we are beloved children of God, a value shared with all humanity. Jesus heralds the fact that we are not alone; that God is with us and that His Spirit unites all who follow him. This perfect love “casts out all fear” (1 John 4:18) and has both individual and communal significance. Jesus said, “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15). Jesus connects our past, present, and futures with the only promise worth worshipping; that “[God] will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged” (Deuteronomy 31:8). “He is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer” (Psalm 18:2).

The marriage idol is not a new idea.[8] Therefore, I set out to process this subject not with a desire to provide concrete answers—if only I could—but rather cautions. More so, I aim to elevate awareness, to foster thoughtful discussion toward compassion, which begins with acknowledging the beauty and limits of identity.

So, whether you are single or married, I encourage you to be mindful of how you talk about marriage because how you talk about it reveals more about you than anything else. Consider the implications of your language.[9] For better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, the language we use matters.

* * *

I will conclude with two questions. For those who know me, they are characteristically amorphous, a spectrum full of possible colors and tones. In a way they frame this entire series. In a way, they defy barriers.

1. Is marriage about two people adjusting to an idea or is it about adjusting that idea to themselves?
2. Is intimacy about completing one’s identity or sacrificing it?

What do you think?

---

[1] Spencer, G. (2018) Reframing the Soul: How Words Transform Our Faith. Leafwood Publishers: Abilene, TX.

[2] Needs that only God can define and fulfill.

[3] Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/affirm (Accessed 30 April, 2019).

[4] Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/loneliness (Accessed 9 October, 2018). See also Hengtee Lim’s “Love, Sex, and Loneliness.”

[5] See “When to Marry Someone” and Kris Gage’s “How Much to Give and Take in Relationships”

[6] See “Study: Americans are Having Less Sex than Ever.”

[7] Wu Song, F. (2018) “Recovering Presence and Place in the Digital Age: Sociological and Theological Reflections on Technology,” in The Westmont College Magazine, Spring 2018, pp.17-21. See also Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.

[8] See “Have Christians Turned Marriage into an Idol?” by Tyler Daswick, “The Idol of Marriage” by Tyler Braun, and Breaking the Marriage Idol by Kutter Callaway (though I have not yet read the book).

[9] For example, Google “What not to say to singles.”

The Marriage Idol, Part 2

Reexamining some Ideas

In Part 1, I introduce the beautiful complexity of identity, suggesting its influence not only on self-image, but how an individual perceives others and how others in turn perceive that individual. As I began to write this second post[1], I realized that before I can present the heart of the matter, I should reexamine some ideas to further develop the context from which I am writing. These ideas are love, marriage, and idolatry.

What is Love?

Marriage at its healthiest and most inspiring cannot be understood detached from love. In fact, a meaningful human existence cannot exist without love. But what is love? Its most powerful manifestation is God (YHWH), in history made most tangible through Jesus of Nazareth, called Christ, who lived, died, and resurrected on earth as a particular man in a particular time in history (this concept summarized succinctly in Philippians 2:1-11). In short, God is love: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (I John 4:7-8).

God’s love is ultimately a call to an intimate relationship with our Creator. In this, one is welcomed to a life of belonging—not only as a child of God, but an heir of His goodness. In this, one joins a global community called the Church, which echoes God’s Kingdom on earth through participating in His “Great Campaign.” This call offers an individual and communal purpose characterized by hope and meaning. I expound upon this in “What is Love?”, relate it more directly to my personal identity in “A Confession,” and consider its effectiveness in “Hunger vs.Ambition.”

Or as the apostle Paul of Tarsus writes, “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends” (I Corinthians 13:4-8a).

Overall, it is important to remember that God chooses to love us, despite our frailty—our propensity for fear, selfishness, hurting ourselves and others. Choice. God’s love is a gift of immense grace. For those who choose to follow and emulate the sacrificial servant leadership of Jesus Christ, there is a call to love others in the same way.

What is Marriage?

As one writer expresses it so simply and profoundly: “You don’t fall in love. You discover it. Then it’s built” (see “No One Really Falls in Love”). Writer Benjamin Sledge adds his own honest perspective in “The Single Greatest Lesson We Should Know about Love (But Forgot).” Or Tim Keller might add, “You Never Marry the Right Person.”

Marriage does not just happen to someone, in other words. It is another example of choice.

I explore the idea of marriage extensively in my three-part series, “Why Marry Someone?” so will avoid restating it all here. In short, marriage is a consolidation of love’s many forms, such as compassion, friendship, and perhaps most uniquely, physical intimacy. Marriage represents a mysterious, intense expression of a particularly kind of relationship between two people. But it is not the only expression.

What is Idolatry?

The conceptual spark for my writing about “The Marriage Idol” was Josh Fox’s analysis of the Old Testament narrative of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32; 1 Corinthians 10:1-8).[2] It led me to reconsider certain experiences and conversations about marriage. From golden calf to romance—a strange progression, I know.

It is important to consider what an idol is. The Oxford English Dictionary begins to define idol as an “image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.” God is defined as “1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; [or] 3.1. A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.” The last definition is the broadest, but may be most helpful in this discussion. Furthermore, note that the verb, worship, means to “Show reverence and adoration for (a deity).”

In the orthodox Christian faith[3], God is to be directly worshipped as opposed to our worshipping some representation of Him. While there are icons and images portraying Jesus Christ or the narratives of the Bible, and while a Bible may be placed at the center of a church’s place of worship, all usually serve to remind and teach; they are not to be confused with idols. There are nuances that could be discussed about iconography, church architecture, and liturgy, but that exceeds the scope of this current writing.

In short, for the Christ-follower at least, to worship anything other than God as preeminent is to slip into idolatry. In a broader sense, it is about considering what my identity is grounded on.

For example, in the story of the Golden Calf, a majority of the Israelites invest in a shifty lie that lingers today—that God is holding out on me or us. As happened to the Israelites—in this story impatient and uncertain about Moses’ return from Mt. Sinai—this can lead to rushing God’s timing and/or to settling for less than His best, substituting Him with something else, which concurrently attempts to rob God of His glory. Granted, it can be difficult to accept a delay to personal hopes and expectations. Instead of trusting God, it is tempting to turn to something more tangible or that seems controllable. It can be hard to trust God, especially when it is difficult to understand His will. It is nice to be in control.

So in a way, idolatry is about control. In the tension between faith and fear, there is a struggle for control. Granted, some idols develop from things God intended to be good. Some common ones may be romantic love when distorted by the lie that it completes me, money when masquerading as a means to attain personal security, and success when it comes to define my worth. Perhaps even identity itself can be idolized. For how many people obsess over their image, physical or digital when provided the means to change, curate, customize and/or edit how they are each presented (e.g. on social media)?

To avoid the snare of idolatry, we are called to remember what God is like—namely, that He is not one to hold out on us. After all, the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ is that God gave all of himself to free and protect us from our own limitations, corrupting excuses, frailty (see John 3:16-21).

God’s love proposes the truest of marriages: intimacy with our Creator. To reject this love is to choose something other than God for meaning. As God is the origin of all that is good, to reject Him is, therefore, perhaps to settle for an imitation of good. It is to choose an idol.

But that is not exactly what I mean by “The Marriage Idol.” While it could be a start to understanding why so many marriages crumble, including in the Church, I have something subtler in mind, and more related to being single or how people engage with those who are. While to reject God is the most self-destructive choice a person can make, for his or her past, present, and future; there may be a social trend that is proving almost as damaging to individual identity.

Read the Final Part

---

[1] Originally, I only intended for there to be one post for this whole idea.

[2] “The Call” (Part 12). Sermon at WestGate Church on 22 July, 2018. Available at: http://www.westgatechurch.org/westgate-teaching/thecall-week12.

[3] Orthodox = “Following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice” (Oxford English Dictionary).

The Marriage Idol, Part 1

Re-Introducing Identity

What defines you?

Before reading on, I encourage you to actually think about this question—to look away from your laptop or put down your smart phone. Try to detach from your surroundings for at least sixty seconds and bask in a moment of silent, contemplative solitude. Time yourself. An actual minute can feel long, even intimidating. But try. Truly think about the question.

(Nope, do not read ahead yet.)

What ideas came to the forefront of your thoughts?

Did your self-image begin with your external features—face, eyes, hair, body type, and whether you are satisfied with them? Did you think of your gender, race, or social class? What about your job, family, relational status, religion, or dreams for the future? Did you consider your place in time and space?

The nature of the original question is about identity, about the characteristics that make each of us unique. It is not only about self-image, but self worth. It is ultimately about being aware of how we present ourselves and are received. It is about confidence and choice.

In a common conversation, the subject of identity would probably not be broached in this way. Furthermore, to get to know someone, the leading question(s) will usually vary depending on the other’s life stage. For example: “What is your name?” and “How old are you?” might begin an interaction with a child. Later as a high school student, that child may be asked about her favorite subject or extracurricular endeavor; while specifically as a senior being pressed about what she wishes to study, and at what university. “Where are you from?” and “What’s your major?” might begin the conversation among her first-year college peers; and then “What are you going to do next?” can burden the approach to graduation.

Do you notice a thematic shift in these questions?

Granted, this example presumes a society where gender equality is fundamentally honored, both in educational and vocational opportunities. Moreover, note that though gender, race, and social class are important aspects of identity, I want to steer away from delving too deeply into their nuanced implications. In other words, while I appreciate their influence, my focus in this writing aims to be broader, as I began to do five years ago with my post, “What is Identity?”

So, consider further with me my example of questions posed to a maturing young woman: Immersed in “post-theoretical” life, or what some misleadingly call “the real world”—either way, referring to no longer being a student in a formal academic institution—our imagined heroine might be met with questions about what she does, which almost always implies profession. Yet among family, and particularly Christian church environments, another question often accompanies or is the subtext to such questions. Expressed in a variety of ways, they essentially drive at relational status (e.g. Are you married? Do you have a boyfriend? Are you seeing/pursuing/interested in anyone?). If the answer is “No,” then for the bolder or brasher inquisitor, the next question may be “Why not?”

It is on this last theme of questioning that I wish to linger.

Of course, there are a myriad of ways that a person can navigate these questions; and the tone of such—friendly or defensive, honest or evasive—will be framed by the context of trust between the people involved in conversation. In the family and church contexts, being married and having children, at least by a certain age, seem to be received as the more acceptable or understandable response. That can be true for certain vocational pursuits as well, but that is another theme.

In this writing, I aim to drawn our focus on how relational status influences self-image and “social-image” (i.e. how others perceive and receive oneself). It is interesting how being single or unmarried raises a distinct line of questioning, voiced or not, that differ from those related to being married. For the most part, this is normal and to be expected.

But as we prepare to investigate this theme of identity further, it is important not to lose track of the initial question: What defines me? But from that, I also want to ask: How do I define other people? These are the underlying questions. For how one answers the first influences how one answers the second.

Are any of the aforementioned questions inherently wrong? No, not necessarily. I am not really interested in making moral judgments. Rather, I am interested in building awareness; that we not only understand ourselves better (i.e. individual identity), but also the influence of identity on human interaction. That there seems to be a thematic shift in approaching identity as someone ages, particularly as it concerns relational status.

The layers of identity not only thicken with life experience, but perhaps subtly direct our attention from intrinsic to extrinsic markers. Put more simply: as we age, identity seems to transition from being centered on origin (e.g. I am a child of this family), personal strengths and interests (e.g. personality) to vocational, marital, and parental statuses. So for those who are married, identity returns to a kind of original framework: family. Not that one can ever fully dissociate from a biological family identity. As one’s parents get older, for example, the reality of being a son or daughter takes on additional meaning. Still, unlike being a child whose life is mainly orchestrated by her parents; as a more independent adult, the biological family identity can experience some tension with the additional layers, especially those related to vocation. This may be because a career offers its own definitions of security, purpose, and even family (in the broader sense). Many people struggle to resolve this tension between family and career. However, I would challenge views that define the struggle as being a simple choice between one or the other. The sources and reasons for tensions in identity are difficult to summarize. Each life has a myriad of variables, and rarely do they allow nicely compartmentalized moral conclusions.

Yet there is still another facet to consider. If there is or can be a return to an “original” sense of self (i.e. that of a child), it seems the most common bridge—a means for connection, even balance—is the search for God, for a transcendent meaning, security, and purpose. I consider this further in “What is Identity?”

Overall, the layers of identity can perhaps be organized under three main themes: family, vocation, and spirituality. None can be dissociated from the others, however; like the relationship between past, present, and future.

Do you begin to grasp the beautiful complexity of all this?

Understanding identity—not to mention the idea of communal identity—becomes more complicated when we realize how we project ourselves onto others, consciously or not. After all, we are limited beings. Therefore, it is natural to interpret the world through our personal or subjective frame of vision. This is not only about how we see and interprets the world (physically and cognitively: knowledge)—what could be called a relationship between present and past—but how we perceive reality and maintain (accept), improve (build upon), or alter (rebel against, reconstruct) that reality, both at an individual and societal scale. In these last opportunities, there is creation: an adopted view of the future united with present and past. Identity is, therefore, also influenced by our relationship with time (temporality): what we know, believe, and hope for. In this, time can be thought of as a thread that unites our three themes of identity: family, vocation, and spirituality.

But enough abstraction. What does this have to do with the marriage? And what is “The Marriage Idol”?

This re-introduction of the broader notions of identity is intended to provide a conceptual context for interpreting the influence of marriage on one’s self-image and self worth.

Read Part 2

But before I proceed, I would value your feedback (please select one of the following):

1. A Question for those who are single.
2. A Question for those who are married or in a relationship.

Hunger vs. Ambition

Our mission as disciples of Jesus Christ is not faithfulness—the method is faithfulness—but to be fruitful. In Jesus’ parable about the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), it is fruitfulness that garners affirmation from the Master. For even the servant who buried his talent was faithful in protecting the investment. It is just that he did not steward its growth.

A life of faithfulness without fruitfulness is, in other words, a passive existence. Jesus calls his disciples, therefore, to a life of hunger. Hunger is “a craving or urgent need for [something]” (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). It is about being hungry for more of God, pressing further into the center of His presence. Pressing more into him, we become more fruitful.

What does it mean to be fruitful in following Jesus? To begin with, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23).

Faithfulness in the presence of God begets fruitfulness—connecting not only with Him, but with other people through His Spirit—which in turn begets more faithfulness.

Hunger is not to be confused with ambition, however. Ambition is defined as “an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power; desire to achieve a particular end; a desire for activity or exertion” (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary), which often is about circumnavigating the presence of God in an aim for acclaimed productivity. For example, when leadership only measures its church’s growth or the effectiveness of its ministry techniques quantitatively, which is also an exercise that tempts ego, there is a great risk of neglecting God as the compass—not to mention overlooking the more mysterious, subjective, and qualitative wonders of human relationship (i.e. spiritual fruit).

The journey of Jesus Christ’s disciples and Church, therefore, must principally be to press ever further into the heart of God. Hunger looks to engage in relationship, in presence, in encounter—faithfulness. But pursing the presence of God is only the first part of the story. It must lead to fruitfulness to find wholeness. Relationship with God must lead to relationship with others, ripe with all the blessings that Paul addresses in Galatians 5:22-23. For when that happens, life brightens like a sunrise with renewed purpose and beauty.

Soli deo gloria. Amen.

Inspired by Andy Robinson's sermon, “Called to Fruitfulness” (Kings Church Horsham, 9 April, 2017).

When to Marry Someone

Of course, the literal date of a marriage ceremony is usually determined by a myriad of factors subjective to the lives of the affianced couple (e.g. preferred season of the year, work responsibilities, availability of family, venue, etc.).

What I am interested in asking, however, precedes that discussion. I want to know what brought a couple to the point of proposing and saying “Yes,” to the confidence of committing to that most binding of relationships called marriage. Simply put, the question asks, “Why now?” which is meant to welcome a holistic discussion—one that presumes the presence of a very conscious choice in the matter.

The fact that not everyone can specifically answer the question is both curious and sometimes disheartening.

Granted, there can and probably should be a subconscious instinct sparking the choice. It could be called inspiration, an indescribable sense of goodness or rightness in the relationship. It could be interpreted as an affirmation of the heart, a feeling or even spiritual influence. For the Christ-follower, that inspiration could be deemed a sense of revelation or divine blessing (guidance). It could be called faith: being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1).

While this less conscious layer of choice is certainly valuable, it seems more trustworthy when grounded on firmer, deeper-rooted affirmations about the relationship—from the couple’s community and absolutely from how their love is growing in friendship and intimacy. These foundations help answer the question, Why marry someone?

However, the When still remains, and should not be ignored. Aside from the more peripheral variables included in stage of life—and without addressing here the subjects of dating or cohabitation—the title question should be approached conscious of personal wounds—whether relational, emotional, or spiritual—and their healing.

Healing
The journey of healing can be difficult and winding, and is certainly unique to each person’s story. While I will not address the nature of that journey here, it seems healthiest for one’s wounds to at least have begun to heal before marrying someone. It is not that simple, of course, but that is the ideal.

A wound left to fester, ignored or buried, is dangerous to the relationship. It is dangerous because it can infect the marriage with fear, too often driving one toward self-made and self-serving bastions founded on ego (i.e. pride). Unchecked by humility, active awareness, forgiveness, reconciliation, and unity toward win-win outcomes, fear and ego will rot love to the core of the relationship—every pillar of friendship and intimacy. Too often intimacy is the first to suffer the torturously slow or bitter relational collapse. From there, the likelihood of marital ruin tragically increases.

Whatever shape the fear takes, rooted in whatever wound—whether a feeling of abandonment, loneliness, or insecure identity, for example—it must be identified for healing to begin. Fortunately, the stirring hope and power of a relationship is how it can expose one’s wounds and fears to the light.

For example, what about the other person or about your relationship triggers a sense of anxiety in you? What triggers frustration? These kinds of triggers can help point to the need for healing.

More specifically, in communication, are there times when you or the other is deafened to truly listening? Have you found yourself filling in a conversation, assuming the outcome before it even happens or despite what the other person is actually saying? What fear or stronghold of pride does this attitude echo?

Overall, healing must begin personally—between oneself and God—before it can expand relationally with the greatest strength. Otherwise, the relationship is at risk of having one person rely too much on the other or the relationship itself for meaning, which is too large a burden for any one person to bear. Any one person, that is, except Jesus Christ. Only God can provide that kind of transformation—that kind of love.

Deal Breaker
By the gracious power of God, healing is always possible. But it is not always so with that particular person.

A trigger can take the form of a “red flag” in the relationship, a characteristic cautioning of a surmountable or insurmountable barrier on the way toward intimacy. One’s significant other could directly or indirectly influence it; or it may be entirely separate, rooted in another relationship or experience, such as with a family member. I am not referring to the obvious problems, such as a propensity to verbal or physical abuse, which should likely be immediate deal breakers, but rather to more nuanced concerns that may materialize, such as hints of insecurity, irresponsibility, or indecisiveness. Still, each of the latter “red flags” can become a “deal breaker”, a reason to end the relationship. But not always.

The essence of love is selfless sacrifice. Therefore, if one or both in the relationship are unwilling to engage his or her wounds, if one or both are unwilling to seek healing and grow, the relational foundation will not be not strong enough to support a marriage. Therefore, until that trajectory of change begins to occur, it is probably best not to marry—at least not yet.

While I understand the intent behind the saying that each of us should just be accepted for who we are, the idea is too often used to justify immaturity—for selfishness, doing things the way one wants to do them. With “red flags”, I am not talking about personality, but integrity of character.

Now, it can be dangerous to enter a relationship with the agenda to change someone, for only God can truly transform a person. The strongest love is inspired by the goal of growing together, and personal growth connotes change in the depths of each person’s being. It is both a gradual and subtle maturation, and another full subject.

How long one should wait for another to change—to heal, reframe, and/or be free from a burden—is a difficult question, and one with its own series of subjective responses. Regardless, a lack of growth will surely stagnate a relationship. Furthermore, waiting indefinitely for change while enduring an unhealthy relationship may suggest another wound that needs healing (e.g. fear of being alone).

In Conclusion
Again, it is difficult to address the subject in broad terms. My point is that an unwillingness to grow individually as well as relationally most often indicates a relationship unprepared for marriage. More so, it suggests a relationship that may not be approaching marriage seriously or with awareness. Such unwillingness and unconsciousness may even be cause for a break in the relationship, whether temporary or permanent, to reexamine motives and priorities.

There are many facets to consider in each scenario. But the truth is that the state of one’s heart and mind, one’s state of maturation and being mended, is a fundamental indicator that the timing is healthy and good for a relationship to enter marriage.

For without an awareness of our need for growth, and actions that demonstrate that understanding, how can a marriage hope to succeed? Without that kind of intentionality, the couple chooses a more trying road. Marriage is challenging enough when the couple has found or begun to find healing, when it is intentional about personal growth and sacrifice. So why plummet into marriage with extra burdens, handicaps, and risks?

This discussion is about the timing of marriage. It is about making a thoughtful holistic decision to say “I do.” Whatever relational stage each of us is in, whether married or unmarried, may we all find the healing we need. May we all grow in the awareness and capacity to love. And may we together identify the important questions to ask.

A Confession

Maybe I have been trying too hard to speak your language.

But I want you to understand something; that as your faith (or heart) is guided by your beliefs—or worldview, or whatever you wish you to name it—so is mine. My heart and mind walk hand-in-hand because only when they are together do I know wisdom: how to not only grasp and seek to understand truth, but to live consciously, proactively, and courageously by it.

My foundational and ultimate truth is that YHWH, God, the Creator of the Universe, desires an intimate relationship with me, with all Mankind. Since I was a child, I have chosen to embrace that love—to follow it. That path is mysterious, beautiful, often difficult and uncertain due to internal and external influences. But I do not walk it alone.

The Spirit of God walks with me, teaches me through God’s Word—the words of shepherds, kings, poets, prophets, and fishermen who communed with Him; with, above all, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ (savior) who was God incarnate in the land of Palestine centuries ago; with Jesus’ disciples who sought to share and understand his teaching; with the many who have followed Jesus since then. The Holy Spirit is real, powerful, inspiring, and peace-giving. God.

Such love fills the infinite well of goodness in my heart. I feel deeply, but I also think deeply. Heart and mind together, as a whole man, I thus “put myself out there” each day, seizing each opportunity as best as I can. That does not mean that I do so well, or that by being myself I am accepted by everyone I meet. Sometimes in giving myself so freely, so openly—without most reservations—I can overwhelm them. They do not know what to do with me, or what to make of me. Can I be trusted?

I am not entirely free from doubt or mistrust myself. My life is textured with many scars.

Sometimes I even feel like a shadow. In giving myself entirely to God, I wonder what is left that is truly me. But then I remember how God has equipped and is equipping me for life. I am a writer, musician, photographer—an artist. I am an athlete, outdoor adventurer, coach, and teacher. These are just a few of my points of connection with the world, presumably the most fruitful gardens of my work. I pour my life and love into them. They help shape meaning and purpose. I want to know as many people as I can, share as much of life as we can together—to affirm that love and community are real.

But even if it is not me that someone wants, I am confident in the love and intimacy I share with God. He is both within my heart and without: present everywhere. I am never alone, nor need to be afraid. I know that I am loved unconditionally by the Creator of the Universe, manifested in glimpses and caresses by His creation: people, nature, everything. I long for everyone to know such tender, inspiring love, such beauty. It is the foundational rock of my faith. My soul stands upon that kind of vigor. I pray that what I build upon it is a light to others.

One of the main lessons from Jesus is to love one another as he loved us. While we need not necessarily do so exactly as he did—i.e. suffer and die, for there can only be one ultimate savior—the principle truth is that of serving each other. Jesus symbolized this by washing his disciples’ feet, which was a humble service in his culture.

As I follow Jesus; to “put myself out there”, therefore, means to begin loving in the framework of service. This is apparently countercultural. Putting the needs of others before myself, seeking first to understand before being understood, is enigmatic to some and suspicious to others. Do I have an ulterior motive, they might ask? Too often, I likely do. Nevertheless, God’s grace gives me the capacity to forgive myself. Thus I have an infinite well of love to draw from as I seek to share that gift with others. For the nature of a gift is that it must be shared.

Many do not take it. They do not understand what I am offering. They still distrust it. Who serves others unconditionally, after all? Well, Jesus did, and he is my inspiration and guide. But most people rejected and reject Jesus, so should I be surprised if I meet the same withdrawal? The challenges are usually subtle, at times confused by my own selfishness (longing and expectations) and pride (ego). But that does not mean that I should give up.

My heart may ache, nay grieve; I may become weary with doubts, but I find resolve in the hope that I can ultimately overcome because Jesus overcame everything, including death. Death no longer has any mastery over my life. My body will die, but my spirit will live until reunited with a resurrected body. Life will be plagued with sorrow for a while, but that is not the end of the story. In Jesus, there is true triumph, peace, and love. It has already begun to permeate the world. It will be fulfilled completely, unendingly, when Jesus returns to reclaim this world from the Enemy who takes advantage of our human frailty. In the meantime, my identity is fundamentally in Jesus Christ, in faith in his promises. In God. I nurture hope and courage—confidence—in that trust, in that present relationship.

God is here with me now. Sometimes he speaks in words; more often He whispers in more mysterious languages: sight, sounds, touch, taste, the spirit. Most of these messages come through people, His people—any person, whether they realize it or not. He has certainly done so through you. I praise Him for that. I praise Him for you.

I pray for you, for all that you dream to give to people, to be, and to do. That it is good. Know that you are loved; ultimately not because of what you do, but because of who you are. I love you, and I am sure that many feel the same. Nothing will ever change that. Nothing.

I do not expect you to understand all of this. I do not expect you to respond. I just want to “be my true self” once more, offering limited words when action and presence are not available. I want you to begin to grasp that I do not live in fear or desperate need; that I am at peace, aware of both my strengths and weaknesses—seeing beauty and potential in both. As I see in you. As I see in everyone.

Therefore, may God bless you and keep you. May His face shine upon you and give you peace. Now and forevermore.

Amen.

The Problem of Good

For the disciple of Jesus Christ[1], what is the most strategic way to talk about God with one who does not believe? For example, should I aim to first convince him of God’s existence, or should I instead begin by sharing the Gospel, convincing the unbeliever of his need for God?

Limitations

In determining the framework of such a challenging and somewhat elusive subject as God[2], I suspect that the most productive discussions are built on some awareness of each other’s story. This is a root of identity. For example, the initial emphasis of the conversation should not necessarily be on what my, your, or her view of God is, but perhaps how you, she, and I have come to uphold such a view. In other words, what has influenced one’s current conclusions?

The influence of parents, friends, schooling, ethnicity, culture, religion, other religious practitioners; all of these and more contribute to one’s understanding of the world—or rejection of it. This could begin to be defined as worldview, though it is really more expansive than that. It is about accepting truth as neither fully objective nor subjective; that one’s faith or belief is inseparable from his perception of reality. In short, it a conversation built on an awareness of personal limitations.

This awareness should humble my perspective; open it to new ideas, all the while helping quell my ego. In an environment where each person nurtures such openness, there can be productive conversation. Where ego rules, however, there can be none.  

Humility opens me to not only knowing myself better, but to also knowing others—to live in relationship with the potential of community. In a way, potential is like faith. Relationship deepens awareness, furthering understanding. Moreover, understanding can motivate and be motivated by love, which flows from a well of compassion, grace, and a myriad of other mysteries.

In other words, if I dare to know love, I dare to know truth. To pursue understanding and allow it to mature into conscious action (i.e. wisdom) requires courage, but relationship ultimately bolsters courage. Courage influences action. Round and round the stories go, action transforming potential into purpose.

The point is that purpose and relationship are intertwined, which is what helps define values. At the soul of every human being is a common value. Humanity fundamentally shares the same need, or looks toward the same horizon. The language that defines such a need or horizon is what seems to differ the most—whether called love, success, happiness, peace, etc.—which too often conflicts peoples’ understanding of a gift like potential.

Nevertheless, by beginning to recognize each other’s story and limitations as well as how they relate to each other’s potential, purpose, and values—hopefully building community in that awareness—we may begin at last to approach life’s challenging questions with a readiness for healthy discourse, the process of which not only further informs value, but reveals new layers of purpose, potential, and limitations.

Mediums

Most will readily admit that other people influence individual identity. Academically, there are numerous additional ways of trying to further understand such influence, reaching beyond an awareness of one’s identity to broader spheres of the human story through the study of history, sociology, and psychology; or through an exploration of Nature—the space and natural environments we live in—employing reason (e.g. science, philosophy); or by unleashing inclination (e.g. art, athletics).

Many of these mediums are not exclusive to one another, including religion, and all can be thought of as means to furthering wisdom. Still, such realms of study and/or practice leave gaps of understanding. So what shall I do with the lingering uncertainty—the mysterious and unknown?

For the most part, each of us approaches relationships and the aforementioned mediums based on having already concluded one fundamental question: Does God exist?

Problems

Most people struggle with the existence of God because of the evil in the world. In fact, this so-called “problem of evil” also makes many Christian theologians uneasy. There are surges of heated internal debate about how to reconcile the nature of evil with God’s proclaimed goodness and omnipotence. Either way, while some people try to deny the existence of evil, which is practically and logically refutable on most accounts, most people do at least recognize its manifestation in the world—that things are not always right, or feel unbalanced and brutish at times.

Still, I wonder if a conversation about God’s existence needs to be preceded with another question: Do evil and good exist?

If such a question is answered affirmatively then another nuanced one takes form: Is Man inherently good or evil? If Man is inherently evil, but good exists, where does good come from? Or if Man is inherently good, wheredoes evil comes from?

Either way, the tension between good and evil needs to be addressed.

For example, the premise of the so-called “problem of evil” is essentially, Why does evil befall good people? Or why do good people suffer? The problem becomes almost inseparable from a question of God’s existence, particularly His nature. God either exists, but is not good due to the evil He inflicts or allows. Or if He is good, He is passive or weak against another supernatural force that can be called or that stirs evil, therefore leaving God undeserving of worship.

To reconcile God’s goodness with the presence of evil inevitably steers the conversation to discussing the specific attributes of God, especially His will. There is a belief in some Christian communities that God controls all things that happen in this world—the so-called “will of God”—which suggests His active choice to inflict pain on someone or not, for example. I discern this to be a source of most peoples’ problem with God. It is the premise of the problem of evil. This premise, however, can be shown as misleading and overly problematic. There is another way of thinking.

Regardless, the point is that God’s nature, namely his influence in the world, is one of the greatest barriers to not only belief in His existence, but faith in His purpose and the worship of Him as a result.[3]

But what if the original follow-up question focuses not on the problem of evil, but instead on what I will call “the problem of good”[4]? For example, If God exists (or does not exist), then why is there any good in the world? This stresses the framework of the conversation in a different way than the problem of evil.

Framework

Without delving into the layers of answers to the question of God’s existence, or even the problem of good, I am here rather trying to focus solely on a way to frame a conversation about God with an unbeliever.

As I wrote in the beginning, it should not be done hastily or simply. It first requires an awareness of human stories and how they shape the purpose and values of human actions, individual or communal.

Concerning the original question of where to start the conversation—Should I first discuss God’s existence or the Gospel?—I suggest that it depends not only on the guidance of the aforementioned limitations, but on the direction taken in response to the aforementioned problems, which include the question of good.

From there, there are worlds of possibilities to explore: light shining down on an ever-expanding horizon of wonder and mystery.

---

[1] A.k.a. Christ-follower, a.k.a. Christian, a.k.a. Believer.

[2] Assuming that the subject has been welcomed to the conversation as opposed to being forced upon it belligerently.

[3] The Bible offers glimpses into that purpose, though the interpretation of the text unfortunately remains a divisive rather than diversifying factor between many churches (i.e. Christian communities).

[4] While I phrased “the problem of good” on my own, it unsurprisingly turns out that the concept is not new to intellectual discourse. A simple search online yields a number of articles, most of which apparently focus on questions of morality, one fascinating one of which can be found here. I am heartened, however, to realize that my concluding framework is not lessened by its late entry into the conversation.