asking the obvious about holy Christian singleness

1) Sexual attraction is part of Christian marriage. 2) Sexual attraction outside a marriage relationship is a sin. #1 and #2 are widely held to be true.

BUT where does that leave people who are Christian and unmarried? According to #2, he or she is forbidden to experience sexual attraction. According to #1, he or she probably shouldn't marry if the component of sexual attraction is absent. So how could an unmarried Christian pursue holiness and marriage simultaneously? It's a serious question. Some say, "Single man, keep your mind entirely pure, flee from the experience of sexual attraction, treat all women as kindred souls." Some say, "Single man, keep on the lookout for a woman who excites you, and after finding her you should embrace your sexual attraction by wooing her with amorous aggressiveness yet with total chasteness." Some say, "Crucify the flesh and devote your whole soul to the thought of eternal matters." Some say, "Follow your natural inclination to go forth, devote your body to a spouse, and produce offspring before you die."

Constantly instructing unmarried Christians of sexual maturity to see everyone they meet as non-sexual beings, and then acting surprised when they fail to act like sexual beings (by dating and eventually forming marriages), is extremely absurd, don't you think? Think of it this way. If looking at a particular person leads to sinful thoughts, why wouldn't an unmarried Christian cope by immediately averting eyes and thoughts? And when he or she takes the holy course of action by urgently running away from such carnal temptation, how exactly can that person also go on dates? How is someone to reconcile the two pieces of advice, "Don't even think of someone as a potential sexual partner" and "Go find someone in the church and start a family"? How can it possibly work?

This is not in any way a hypothetical concern. It's a deeply practical matter that deserves due consideration and very specific answers. Concrete answers that are likely uncomfortable to discuss. Where's the dividing line? Because some forms of sexual attraction between the unmarried are quite necessary for reproductive marriages to be the result, what distinguishes those forms from sinful sexual attraction? Conflicting directions aren't helpful! Generalizations aren't doable!

I am Christian. I am human. I am unmarried. How should someone in all three categories act? The reply, "Be less conscientious about holiness until you're married", is ludicrous, but so is the reply, "Be vigilant in guarding your mind and therefore never marry."

the subtle danger of WWJD

I'm genuinely surprised that I haven't ever mentioned the years-old concept WWJD, "What Would Jesus Do?". In accordance with my monotonous blog litany that Christianity should be something done in addition to something said, I approve of WWJD to the degree that it reminds people to constantly contemplate the effect of Christianity on their actions. WWJD is better than asking, "What can I do for me, right here and now?"

However, the simple formula of WWJD presents a subtle danger. It could mislead the questioner. The essential problem is that it encourages people to replace divine judgment with their own moral intuitions. In the worst case, WWJD is interpreted as WSG, "What Seems Good?"

And that consideration is too important and tricky to be taken lightly. WWJD shouldn't mean creating a flawed mental image of Christ to model one's decisions. It should mean the determined attempt to uncover and apply the stated values of the true God. Like they have for centuries, Christians study and meditate on the Word, consult with their present and ancestral fellow Christians, and use reason as well as the noblest inner part, the Spirit. WWJD doesn't involve remaking Jesus into your image of Him. A slogan isn't a shortcut to right decisions.

the living God

This comment is appropriate for Easter, but I'm too late. Fortunately, it's not specific to holidays. It's specific to every day.

The Trinitarian God lives. The Son intercedes to reunite us to the Father, and the Spirit dwells. All these acts are ongoing. The Spirit changes the Christian by overpowering sin and enabling new motivations. And those acts are ongoing. The Spirit's direction is a "live broadcast". Talk about what someone must do to be "saved" is a debate about the starting line of the race. Or about how to plug the engine into a power outlet. You're saved, surely, but then you must go on to live!  We aren't saved in order to transform into beautiful statues. We are saved in order to be actors who find the passion of our performance by capturing the mind behind the play. "Mission" and "purpose" aren't addendums to the Good News, but are what happens when live people reconnect with a living God. Rituals that reorient the person to the God are life-giving, not "dead rote". A God-inspired Word is more than historical documentation. It's a path for the living God to stroll inside the willing scholar. Perhaps the most instructive dividing line between Christians is not the numerous theological distinctions. It's the difference between those who live as if in tribute to a dead God and those who live as if in communion with a live God.