The new year of 2023 got off to a bit of a chaotic start for me - some challenges to overcome as the year began. But, I have also been pondering several things too, and I felt it was time to give a little bit of perspective on relationships and related issues.
I am going to deal with two specific things in this talk today, one being appearance, and the other being relationships for Christians. There is a lot of very bad information out there on both of these areas, and a common-sense approach is needed. So, let's talk about appearances.
In recent years, there has been a discussion about something called "fat-shaming," and I think it is time to really say something about that as there are some extremes on both sides of that issue. For one, the liberal/leftist "progressives" want to insert more plus-sized models into advertising. However, some who are conservatives think this is bad, as they have a fixation with Uma Thurman-type stick-models who look perfect. Both of these exclusively are very wrong attitudes to have. From the leftist/liberal side, it is wrong because it promotes oftentimes the ugliest of things, as ugliness seems to be a major thing the postmodern leftist likes. For the conservatives, it is wrong because it promotes an unrealistic image of what a woman is, and I think that is about as damaging as postmodern ugliness is. In the real world, supermodels don't naturally exist - they are manufactured. Most women have imperfections of some sort (and most men as well, including me) and the whole supermodel thing sets up an unrealistic expectation of what the "ideal woman" is supposed to be. On the other hand, the postmodern iconoclasm that seeks to destroy everything that is true, good, and beautiful is also detrimental, and it likewise creates unrealistic expectations. And, if a man has to look to a woman on a magazine cover as his "ideal," he will miss out on what God may have for him as a soulmate. So, here is my perspective on that.
When a man and woman fall in love, and if they are meant to be, there is something that takes place called chemistry. This chemistry is something exclusive to that relationship, and what it means is that the couple see in each other something that attracts them. They may not look like much on the outset - one or both may be slightly overweight, there may even be a skin blemish or something else, but for a couple in love those things don't matter. To a man, the woman he loves is the most beautiful woman in the universe, and in his eyes she is perfect. And to him, she is - she is the perfect soulmate for him. It works the same way with her too - in her eyes, her man is the perfect man. That is true love, and it transcends so many things - it transcends race, ethnicity, size, past baggage, etc. It is, believe it or not, the same type of love Jesus Christ has for us - the Church is His Bride, and let's face it, she is not perfect! Yet, He loves his Bride anyway. The only difference in that relationship is that Jesus is the perfect Groom - He is God, so He is perfect in every way. A man and woman in love do not share that same perfection with Him, but in the eyes of each of them the other is perfection. So, OK, the match is made and the man and woman are in love, so a relationship ensues. What about that? As Christians, there are lots of theories and things that bandy about, and to be honest, one has to be careful what they listen to. Let's get into that briefly.
Many years ago, there was this guy named Bill Gothard who started an organization called Institute in Basic Life Principles. I want to talk about this a little bit, because there are many aspects to this which bear discussion. Gothard was an Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian speaker who wanted to find a way to apply Biblical principles to everyday life, and he got quite wealthy holding seminars and classes at mostly Fundamentalist Baptist churches across the US. Although around 2014 or so he was forced to abdicate his position in disgrace, Gothard had a very detailed system in place for his model. In all honesty, the idea he had was not bad - I am a bit of an ideologue myself, and even models I disagree with can be inspiring because they can provide some impetus for organization. It was designed to give a structure to the family that in turn would have the objective of transforming society, so there was a classic evangelical dimension to his method too. However, it had some problems. One of the first and biggest problems was Gothard's own belief in Sola Scriptura, which in all honesty is a belief that cannot be carried out honestly, as ultimately it is the interpretation of Scripture by the proponent of this position that has the real authority, and so it was with Gothard. Others have similar models they implemented, notably Denny Keniston of Charity Christian Fellowship in Ephrata, PA, who had a similar series called "The Godly Home" that shared a lot of Gothard's ideas but was more Anabaptist in focus than it was Fundamentalist. When people take these positions, especially from a hard-line Sola Scriptura framework, some pretty bizarre things result from it. Nowhere is this more evident in Gothard's model than the courtship/dating aspect of male/female relationships. According to Gothard's model, dating (if allowed at all) is to be strictly regulated - no touching, no kissing, and always with a group or chaperone. Along with strict dress codes and a prohibition on things such as certain music or even other entertainment, it meant the "date" between a boy and a girl looked more like a formal business dinner than it did a courtship, and to be honest it is not either realistic nor is it even Biblical. It leads to soulless marriages devoid of passion and romance, and it also causes other problems too, as we saw with Gothard himself as well as one of his most dedicated disciples, Josh Duggar, a few years back. Even in dating and courtship, there has got to be a little spark and some romance - it doesn't mean that the couple jumps into bed and has sex at every opportunity either, but a simple kiss or a cuddle will not lead to fornication - it is crazy to even think that honestly. Therefore, this led me to my own idea of how courtship and dating goes.
I am in reality a self-professed and self-admitting prude - I have always been very conservative in how I present myself, and to be honest the first date I ever had I ended up married to later, and that marriage lasted 29 years. I am not into things like casual sex - sex for me, which I would agree with Gothard on, is strictly for marriage. I am also not into a lot of openly public displays of affection either - even husbands and wives need to keep some of their romantic expression private honestly. But, I would not go to the extremes that Gothard goes to either. For instance, I do not have a problem with sharing a romantic kiss, nor do I have an issue with cuddling with one's sweetheart to watch a movie or something - kick your shoes off and be comfortable with each other. And, if the couple does have strong faith convictions, they will know how to control themselves, especially if they are adults who are dating. And, you do not need to date in gaggles like a flock of geese either. It is perfectly fine to take your beau to a romantic candlelit restaurant and just enjoy each other's company holding hands, sneaking a kiss, and gazing lovingly into each other's eyes. That is romance and it is integral to the relationship. I may be conservative, but I want to show the woman I love how I feel too. That is called being a normal man. That type of romance was the subject of many wonderful songs from around the 1920s into the early 1960s - it was innocent and beautiful love, and it has been a part of our experience from time immemorial. I would argue that when a Fundamentalist (and there are some Catholic trads who are equally as strict) tries to suppress that, they are in essence trying to deny the nature God gave us, and thus it makes temptation even more intense. Look at what happened to those Duggars for instance - I remember watching their show about 15 years ago when their oldest son Josh got engaged. All they allowed that poor boy to do was shake hands with his girl! Are you serious??? Then the truth came out a few years later - Josh was hooked on porn from an early age and he also molested his own sisters, and he is now I believe in jail serving time for that. And, you see that over, and over, and over among Fundamentalist Protestants who have these puritanical mindsets. What is worse in those traditions is that when a couple does marry, it is almost as if the woman becomes a baby factory and she loses her dignity of personhood - her sole objective in life is to be a maidservant to her husband and pop out as many kids as possible. Sex, then, is diminished to merely being procreative and not a beautiful expression of love to be shared between a husband and wife. Do not get me wrong - procreation is good, and if one is blessed with children that is a gift of life. But, God designed our bodies to be more than just manufacturers of life - he made the sex act desirable and pleasurable for a reason. However, the other extreme is equally as wrong, so let's talk about that.
The secularization of society has meant several things. For one, it is a diminishing of truth, beauty, and goodness. Also, it is a breakdown of God's intended plan for mankind, including the relationship of a man and a woman. Secularism exalts self above all else, and in doing so, it does not share any compassion, empathy, or anything else of value with anyone - the self is one's own god in that mindset, and therefore serving the self is the highest virtue of the secularist, which is why the great Russian Orthodox theologian, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, defined secularism as "the absence of man as a worshipping being." Sexual ethics are perhaps one of the greatest casualties of the secular mindset and it has resulted in many bizarre and even unnatural things - the evils of abortion and euthanasia, the rise in STDs to almost pandemic levels, the blurring of sexual identity, high divorce rates, radical feminism, the whole LBGT (and everything in between) mess, and so much else. People in the US now base their sexuality on two things - either appearances by watching shows like America's Top Model or The Bachelor, or by the glorification of the bizarre and ugly (androgenous couples, "furries," and other freakish junk). True romance is all but dead in today's society, and it is not uncommon now for sex to be reduced as a recreational sport just to make one or more of the partners feel good without regarding the consequences. But, in a lot of ways, the Gothard prudishness and this secular antinomian attitude are both equally responsible for what has happened. Therefore, I propose that both of these be rejected soundly for something more common-sense.
My model for a romantic relationship is realistic, simple, and yet also within suitable boundaries. If you are going to have a relationship, first of all it needs to be with someone of the opposite sex - I do not believe "same-sex love" is true love at all, and I will probably be targeted for saying it. The true conjugal union is one man with one woman, and that is it. Anything else is counterfeit and a perversion. Secondly, the sex act is a privilege of marriage, and not a right of anyone to just have because they want to get their rocks off. The sexual union is a very special one, and it is meant to bring into union a man and a woman as something new - each completes the other. Anything that does not seek that goal is wrong. But, a relationship has to be cultivated to lead to the matrimonial state to have that conjugal union - so that is where romance comes in. Not everything romantic is sexual - for instance, as a dating couple you should spend time together getting to know each other, establishing a bond of trust, and letting love in the relationship blossom. You cannot do that with the platonic, sterile nonsense that the Gothard/Duggar model proposes. While courting and during the engagement, get to know each other - talk together, share that passionate kiss, and kick off your shoes and cuddle on the couch watching a movie with each other - it's OK. Go to the candlelit bistro and have a romantic dinner in a private booth in the back of the restaurant, and share a kiss, a glass of wine, and lovingly gaze into each other's eyes - that is OK too. Dating is not a group sport, in other words, and especially if you are adults you don't need chaperones to micromanage your evening. Proper romance during courtship and engagement will kindle a fire between you that will burn bright when you say "I do" and put rings on each other's fingers later. That is just a normal relationship, a loving relationship. And, every couple needs that too. However, the greatest thing a couple can do for each other is to put God at the center of their relationship - this too has been misunderstood as well. What it means exactly is you can pray with each other, and you can express your faith. And, it also means that if God is at the center, it will help create boundaries to not go for home plate when God wants you at second base. You will have the conviction to know each other's boundaries and to respect the integrity of each other. Now, what is not putting God at the center of one's relationship? Fundamentalists of the Gothard brand think you should essentially say grace every time you kiss your wife or husband, and even bow in prayer before having sex as a married couple. That is frankly absurd - having God first does not mean you have to turn every date into a Bible study or prayer meeting. I mean, what guy, before kissing his girl, actually says "Thanks be to God for this kiss I am about to receive..." They would lock that dude up in a funny farm, not to mention that any relationship he hoped to have with that gal is now history. What it really means by putting God at the center of the relationship is this - when one of you is upset or is facing something, pray together. Also, a couple's Bible study or Rosary, or something else devotional, is not a bad idea either, and a regimen can be set up for that too. And, attend church together - it is important that both partners be of one faith: maybe not the same denomination of church, but at least worshipping the same God. Little things like that are putting God at the center of the relationship. Also, in one's private prayers, always pray for your significant other - if you have a morning or nightly devotional regimen, pray for your beloved by name; pray for their health, their happiness, their protection, as well as asking for God's guidance in your relationship. You cannot go wrong doing that. That is just some practical dating advice I would give to a young man or lady who was in a serious relationship. Now that we talked about that, let us now turn back to the first subject.
About "fat-shaming," I want to address this. Both sides of this issue are wrong, and we said why. But, what does that mean exactly? Well, for one thing, it is important to try to keep oneself as healthy as possible, and if one feels the conviction to lose a couple of pounds, that is perfectly fine. But, they should not be bullied for being overweight either. Not everyone who is a little rotund is that way because they are lazy, gluttonous, or some other stereotype of the "fat person." In many cases, the older one gets, the more likely a "spare tire" will develop. I know it has with me, as I went from being rail-thin in my early twenties to being rotund now, and to be honest I eat less now than I did then too. As a 20-year-old, I could polish off a whole 16-inch cheese pizza by myself. Today, if I only eat two pieces of a 12-inch pie, I am full (and that is even with my favorite thin-crust pizza I love!). So, eating habits cannot explain why I have a spare tire at 53 I didn't have at 23. That all being said, to be honest, there are some very beautiful women out there who may be a little on the heavy side (that model Stephanie jmedia comes to mind on social media), and they are as attractive as the skinniest Victoria's Secret model. As a matter of fact, many men like their woman a little more filled out, as to be honest the "Twiggy" persona looks rather sickly. I am not sure why the skinny model is considered by so many to be a 'sex symbol," as there is something just so plastic about them many times - yes, they are beautiful, and in many contexts they do look good, but there is an insincerity about that image that just never really appealed to me. Therefore, if a company or magazine wants to use a beautiful full-figured gal as a model, go for it! But, don't do it to make a statement - if you are modeling her because she is a little heavy and nothing more, then that is virtue signaling and doesn't serve any purpose. But, if such a girl is being modeled because of her beauty and her talents, then by all means she should have the opportunity. It is time we get back to Martin Luther King's ideal of judging according to character and not just appearances.
And, that leads me into another discussion about this. Over the years, interracial dating has really gotten more popular, and there is even at least one dating website totally dedicated to that. I think this is a wonderful thing, as love is not judged by race or ethnicity, but rather again chemistry between said man and woman. If a Black woman falls in love with a White man (or vise versa), God bless them and give them a great relationship - as long as it is mutual attraction, true love, and strong chemistry, it is a beautiful thing. True romantic love transcends externals - if a man and woman fall in love, then they are not going to care about what each other looks like or what even their past histories are. It will not matter. Nor should it matter either - as long as it is a man and a woman, that is what counts. There are some in religious circles though - again these Fundamentalist and even legalistic Pentecostal types - who actually say that "race-mixing" is prohibited in the Bible. Is it though? In my reading of Scripture, I see two things:
1. All humans are created in the image of God
2. All human beings have a common pair of ancestors (Adam and Eve)
For those who would say that interracial romance is wrong, they often try to cite passages such as Genesis 6 - referencing the "sons of Seth" and "daughters of Cain" - to justify their positions. However, context means everything, and as I taught in my Genesis study earlier in this blog that passage has nothing to do with race-mixing - it has to do with "sons of God" (fallen angels) rather than "sons of Seth" having unnatural relations with human women, and the correct wording of that is not "daughters of Cain," but rather "daughters of men." For many Church Fathers and others, those incidents led to the creation of Nephilim, and the departed souls of those became demons. So, it has absolutely nothing to do with relationships between fellow human beings. Much of the hoo-hah surrounding this in relation to interracial marriages stems back to Darwin rather than historic Church doctrine, and this is an instance where Darwinian racism even entered the most traditional/conservative of Christian beliefs, although many holding such views would deny it. The reason I say that is that it was Darwinian evolution that proposed that different races and ethnicities were "different species," something that Darwin's disciple in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, took to the degree that it was gobbled up by Theosophic occultists in Germany and Austria who were the genesis of Hitler and the Nazis, and we know that story. More racist Fundamentalists later took this, and by theological applications relating to procreation within the same kinds of creatures, they labeled Black/White marriages as "sinful" and even as "bestiality." The Mormons even took it to a greater degree by calling Blacks the "sons of Cain" and saying Black people were cursed and that no White person should marry a Black person. It is rooted in racism, and both Blacks and Whites have been guilty of espousing these views for the same reasons. Other than that very weak premise though, I do not see any evidence in Scripture that prohibits a Black woman and a White man (or vice versa) from marrying and loving each other. The people who hold to that erroneous view of Scripture need to repent, because it is not divine revelation they have, but rather social Darwinism masquerading as a Sola Scriptura belief. I would even go as far as to call it a form of heresy that should be condemned, because it goes against every other contextual application of Scripture. My own step-grandmother espouses this crazy interpretation of Genesis 6, and one thing she always prefaces this with when she starts to enunciate her views is "Now, I am not prejudiced, but..." If someone has to do that prefacial disclamor to what they are going to say, it is probably going to be a racist rant of some sort. As my step-grandmother is in her 90s now, she would do well to rethink her life and repent of that nonsense too (she has issues too from her past, but that is not a warranted discussion here). Any rate, I say now that interracial relationships are not a problem, and they can even be beautiful. Racism against anyone is a demonic sin and should be rightly denounced as such. And that especially is true in the sacred love between a man and a woman, regardless of race or ethnicity.
I think I have pontificated enough today, but sufficive to say, we need to get past externals. This is especially true when it comes to love and romance between a man and a woman. If we can do that, I feel a restoration to Biblical order will happen in our society, for as love starts at the basic level of human relationships, so it will spread to the greater society. Thank you for allowing me to share today.
