 |
| Edinburgh: 1photo1day.com & Microsoft |
Dalrock December 15
I have cited Dalrock online previously on my Facebook page, in particular. A recent entry:
'Courtly love is always sexual, even when non physical.'
I am interested in commenting on the last paragraph from this entry:
Cited
'None of these things should surprise us given what we know about the nature of men and women. Women are strongly tempted to elevate themselves to a god like position, and men are strongly tempted to go along with this and worship women. This didn’t start with courtly love, but instead goes all the way back to the fall. And the specific details should also be familiar to anyone with a basic understanding of female sexual nature. Women see their own sexual motives as pure, even purifying. At the same time, while seeking the formal status conferred with marriage, they have a very strong tendency to cloak their sexual choices and motives in ambiguity.'
Online and offline I have tied, modern evangelical Christian views and approaches to romantic relationships to the fall. When 'nature' is discussed, we should attribute much of it to fallen human nature as opposed as much of it to evolutionary nature as many secularists do.
'Women are strongly tempted to elevate themselves to a god like position, and men are strongly tempted to go along with this and worship women.'
A female that is young and attractive, of child-bearing age is by Dalrock's metaphor, god-like. Logically, so goes the modern thinking, then of course within this fallen philosophical thinking, a goddess deserves a god, right? Sad to state I have heard the phrase: 'Out of your league' mentioned more than once on Focus on the Family, online radio. What does a league have to do with biblical concepts of character?
May I inject here that the entire philosophical concept of deserving someone attractive, because a person is attractive, is a philosophical misnomer. No one, 'deserves' someone that looks significantly symmetrical because they happen to look significantly symmetrical. Symmetrical for symmetrical is not illogical granted, but it is also not necessarily reasonable in each and every case. There are more important considerations.
Do I deserve someone with a PhD, because I have a PhD? No, the concept of 'deserving' is irrelevant.
If one is a Christian and is seeking biblical character based on a multitude of Scripture (1 Corinthians 7, 2 Corinthians 6, 1 Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3 and others) being of the same level of looks is not a significant biblical consideration. Instead, theologically I would deduce that significant, mutual, spiritual, intellectual and physical attraction in Jesus Christ is essential for biblical romantic relationships. Therefore, a person of the opposite sex would have to be significantly physically attractive, but not necessarily among the most significantly physically attractive. Or to use philosophy speak: One needs to at least be minimally, significantly physically attractive and not necessarily maximally, significantly physically attractive. The same philosophy goes for the spiritual and intellectual. At the same time, I am firmly against the concept of a 'settle for'. By significant mutual attraction, I mean significant.
However, when one is considered a goddess, then the social, family, and even perhaps Church pressure is for a goddess to only consider a 'god' as a potential romantic partner. A god based on one's own social level as a goddess. But this sadly typical Western evangelical approach opposes a biblical theological of primarily seeking significant mutual attraction. It is no surprise ageism exists in North American and British evangelical dating because the twenty something year old goddess supposedly 'deserves' better than a thirty-five plus year old average looking man. This regardless of the spiritual level of this man in Christ and any possible mutual attraction.
This incorrect thinking, which most certainly risks as significant sin, means a younger woman should reject an older man even if she may possibly have a significant connection with him. It is no surprise that many Western evangelicals are intellectually violently opposed to an older man seeking a younger woman of child-bearing age for friendship or perhaps more in the future. Even when the older man does not typically relate to women his own age with experience and life goals.
The biblical model would be for the younger woman to RISK a friendship leading to just a deeper friendship or more. As human beings are finite and sinful, we know just as God guides and moves us toward salvation and sanctification. God, often when we are obedient, and sometimes when we are not, guides and moves us to a different life path than expected. What Christian missionary would sign up in missions if he/she knew that the path would lead to being murdered by Islamic radicals while ministering in the Middle East? Very few. But, even so, God does call some to martyrdom. I am not comparing age gap relationships to martyrdom to make this reasonable point! It is supposed to be a biblically good thing (1 Corinthians 7). But it is a reasonable point.
'Women see their own sexual motives as pure, even purifying. At the same time, while seeking the formal status conferred with marriage, they have a very strong tendency to cloak their sexual choices and motives in ambiguity.'
A goddess is near perfect right? Therefore a young woman can be as choosy as she wants and is virtually beyond criticism in the Church for looking for that god, right? Sexual choices and motives are cloaked in ambiguity, not primarily because a woman does not want to hurt those she has rejected. No, a man rejects and is rejected and if mature in Christ, learns this is part of life, serious human error and sin, included.
Rather, this is a young woman, a goddess, often with plenty of social, family and Church support, protecting herself from the very serious and significant risk that her views are actually not very biblical and with further review and debate are possibly not theologically and philosophically sound. Lord, forbid she would actually stay in contact with a man she rejected and might find out later she needs to repent. Yet, James 3:2 from the New American Standard bible explains 'we all stumble in many ways'. Me included of course.
I have rejected women, and not once in Christ have I refused to thoroughly if needed, discuss it with them and to prayerfully be willing to repent if necessary. If I reject someone, I do not ponder on and on whether I made a mistake. If I am not sure, I should not make a hasty decision to reject. I heard a pastor online state that if a person is thinking about someone single of the opposite sex regularly and cannot forget about them, then he/she should be a romantic consideration. There are many Christian women in their thirties and older that used to only want to date men that were 'nines' and 'tens' as far as looks and now find self alone and realizing that the spiritual and intellectual needs to be more emphasized, even as physical attraction is still crucial.
