hypocrisy of purely spiritual romantic attraction

I recently posted a lengthy entry exploring my current viewpoint on the practicalities of combating lust, especially but certainly not exclusively by the unmarried. Part of my view is that unmarried Christians who encounter marriage candidates don't need to lust, because the stirrings of a normal yet resisted sex drive are enough for the purpose. Neither of them must obey or examine these promptings in order to prove their existence, and their very existence is what's relevant in selection for (potential) marriage.

A valid follow-up concern to the role played by this "carnal" component is how much emphasis to place on it. Is it "more Christian" for the unmarried to downgrade its importance? As spiritual beings linked by appreciation for each other's souls and virtue, and individuals looking for suitable lifelong partners whose inner qualities shall never diminish with age, is it irredeemably coarse to care about the degree of excitement provoked by the other's temporal form?

No.

Don't misunderstand. The condition and compatibility of the other's spirit is vital. A couple who have no respect are attempting to build their future on a rickety foundation. It's foolish to consider someone whose character is repugnant. It's quite self-destructive to pair up with a person who's controlled by sin (we all sin but the spiritually reborn person shouldn't be controlled by sin). Two who differ in their beliefs about the Lord of their lives are setting up a painful conflict. It's not enough to find merely someone who makes you laugh, and who is a good conversationalist. A marriage is to the "whole" person, with all the strengths and weaknesses.

But since a marriage is to the whole person, it's still hypocritical to pretend that the person's body isn't involved. And frankly, I doubt that people truly want their bodies to be irrelevant in this kind of relationship: "Do you like to look at me?"  "Your looks don't matter." Full attraction that affirms people and meets their needs will contain a bodily element. Scolding either of the two Christians for not being perfectly disembodied in their affections is a step too far. The hypocrisy is doubled when the self-appointed judge is a happily married person who massages a spouse's shoulder during the sermon rather than taking notes. The hypocrisy is redoubled when the premarital "tsks" suddenly shift to "Why don't you have a child yet?" six months after the marriage ceremony finishes. Demonizing actual lust or inappropriate contact before marriage is excellent. Demonizing any hint of desire in two people who display an earnest interest in holy marriage is unfair, unrealistic, and incorrect.

So a romantic attraction that's "purely spiritual" is mythical, and the myth is a hypocritical burden to place on the unmarried, although they like all Christians have the duty to flee sexual sin in thought and deed. Acknowledgment of the carnal contribution raises another question. What is the right timing of it? How soon should it be felt? If it's the first motive that someone experiences, is that an awful way to start things out?

Once again, I think that the question turns on a false dichotomy. A successful outcome depends on more than the evaluation of physique. It also depends on more than admiration of integrity of character. Thus, I don't think that, in the long-run, the "base" motivations are a worse point of departure than the "elevated" motivations. No matter which is more predominant at the outset, the rest will develop later. Someone who asks or accepts a date in response to the one factor should expect the other factor eventually, before the marriage stage. "That person is loving toward all things great and small" is a more lofty sentiment than "That person tickles my fancy", but neither is sufficient on its own. Early on, participants can't be expected to desire each other mind, body, and soul. Disdaining initial love for the body is hypocritical. It can't be the full extent of the basis for marriage. However, it's a workable root for everything that follows. "You wanted to go on a first date because of shallow skin-deep fascination?"  "Sure. How can I learn to love your soul until we've had the chance to talk some more?"

answering the obvious about holy Christian singleness

A short while ago I asked the obvious about holy Christian singleness: if sexual attraction is part of the basis for a good Christian marriage, yet all sexual attraction outside of marriage is unholy, how exactly can holy Christians ever end up married? After some research, I believe that I have an answer. It's fairly complex and nuanced, as reality often is. None of the following is a novel revelation; my aim is to lay out the ideas in a plain and forthright manner. Too frequently Christians speak in confounding half-truths and platitudes.

• "Sexual attraction", the single category I employed in the question, isn't helpful for morality. Instead there should be two categories: "lust" and "normal sex drive". Lust is the sin of a normal sex drive operating in immoral ways. So the upshot is that the holy task is to avoid lust, not normal sex drive. Actually any desire, such as craving for food, operating in an immoral way is "lust".
• Any person with normal sex drive could react biologically when presented with an exciting stimulus, just as any person with normal hunger could react biologically when presented with tasty food. This instantaneous perception and classification of an object isn't lust. It isn't even necessarily a full-fledged temptation. It's also unavoidable, because of the presence of a normal sex drive. The sole technique to avert it altogether is to withdraw every possible experience of stimuli. Christians would need to completely separate male from female! Regardless of marital status, clothing choices, and body shapes, adults in mixed groups simply must cope with this. In particular, unmarried Christians of opposite sexes can certainly get close enough to each other to have conversations and perform acts of service! It may seem strange to mention that permission, but I'm trying to walk through the topic comprehensively, step-by-step, omitting nothing.
• Lust starts to enter the situation after a normal sex drive makes its first recognition of someone other than the viewer's spouse. After that point, further thoughts might develop. These thoughts are temptations not only to carry out actions but to focus attention on mere contemplation of the actions. The initial thought is expressible in a statement like, "That person caught my eye", while the further thoughts are expressible in a statement like, "I want to do or think something". An object, for that is all that a person is at this primal level, is starting to lead to "plans". The stream of consciousness has begun to shift in an unlawful direction.
• I opine that lust is still not truly committed at this stage. I believe that lust isn't there until a decision is made. That is, the person must first realize that their mind is on a wrong track, and then intentionally not put a stop to it. Three clues of indulged lust: 1) a lingering or unbroken gaze, 2) a gaze that leaves momentarily only to return shortly thereafter for no other reason, 3) social interaction that's characterized by notable lack of eye contact. Rejection of the invitation to lust might not be as rapid as it could be. Doubtless it comes easier to some than others. Everyone can improve their skill with time and practice. The primary issue is whether or not someone does halt lust, not how soon they manage. Of course, assuming someone is serious and sincere, then a specific occurrence of lust shouldn't survive for any longer than perhaps 30 seconds.
• Unambiguous lust is the visualization of unlawful sexual action, where "action" refers to a broad range of activities: basically, whatever the lust entices the person to do to the visualized object. Unambiguous lust is the pursuit of ideas that excite a normal sex drive, outside of the lawful context of marriage. It might not be accompanied by physical acts. Pornography is one avenue. "Creative" daydreams could be a second. A third possibility doesn't receive as much comment: the nurtured desire to repeatedly see (and anticipate) someone other than one's spouse who tantalizes one's normal sex drive. To be sure, the experience could be comparatively mild; for example, it need not involve "explicit" imagining. However, it's a case of willingly-felt lust. Enjoying another person's "company" or "personality" isn't the same thing. Relatively subtle lust shows up in many little signs that aren't individually damning. Strangely deep disappointment when the object-person happens not to be in attendance. Unexplained tension during casual social interaction. An overeager tendency to exchange compliments. Excess attention at others' expense. A sensation like giddiness. If you'll allow me to illustrate... While I was a high school student, one of my teachers had a student assistant ("T.A.") for helping out with minor tasks. During that teacher's class, she was in the room, usually dressed immodestly but silently doing what the teacher assigned to her. We never talked. I don't recall a time when we had eye contact, in fact. Nevertheless, for a long time I grew accustomed to glancing at her many times during that class hour, almost automatically. I never invented sordid mental encounters. Was this lust? Well, I definitely wasn't looking at her for the sake of my education.
• All the preceding comments apply to unmarried Christians who are intrigued in gauging each other's suitability for forming a marriage. Meaning, Christians aren't temporarily allowed to lust in order to seek or evaluate candidate "mates". Lust isn't required. The rather unmistakable psychological "vote" of a normal sex drive establishes whether the other could fill that role in the marriage; no need to ponder or dwell on that. I've read that some Christians advocate a "friendship" phase - people must call each other "friends" for a while before one of them is permitted to raise the prospect of anything else. I'm not convinced. It's better for everyone to say their current intentions and then start out "slow", than to be "friends" and allow misinterpretation to slowly creep in to the growing emotions of one or both.
• Assuming reciprocal interest, the couple then spends time together to continue to learn and consider each other. Throughout this period between first attraction and marriage, they remain officially uncommitted and therefore unavailable for lust (or the actions that lust would motivate). This is a peculiar midway in which two people have appetites and cannot act out their impulses, despite being in close proximity. It's inherently unstable. The two either break apart or join in marriage. In the meantime, the suppression of lust isn't any different. Don't encourage it, kill it when it's there, don't fixate on it, and so forth. If the two aren't in total agreement, then one could accidentally or purposely tempt the other. Suggested guidelines aren't complicated, because the sex drive itself isn't complicated. A couple whose hypothetical end is marriage will already be partially driven by each other's nearness. Provocative clothing, private time as a pair, etc. increase the difficulty of preventing simple biology from taking over. 

In short, unmarried Christians who feel a mutual sexual attraction can surely result in a vibrant marriage, without committing the sin of lust along the way. But they must have the resolve and wisdom to see it through.

What I won't do to appeal to unbelievers...

...is mock other Christians. It'd be too dishonest for me to try to say, "Look, unbelievers, I too think the Body and Bride of Christ is ridiculous!" Do I criticize and critique the Christianity practiced by many? Clearly yes. Do I hate Christians who are mistaken or who don't comply with arbitrary social fashions ("Horrors! They don't watch a lot of cable TV or independent movies!"). I pray that I never do. Telling uncomfortable truths, constructively, is an action that I can advocate. I won't rhetorically cast out fellow brothers and sisters in order to better integrate with cliques that exalt sarcasm (of all things) as the ultimate intellectual technique.

love and marriage

Usual up-front warning: my opinions are my own, I don't speak for all Christians, and so on.

I've been surprised by how frequently I hear or read the assumption that love either is or should be synonymous with marriage. And that assumption comes with a second: love can never be a sin. I think both assumptions are mistakes, as judged by a Christian perspective.

To be clear, throughout this message, by "love" I'm referring to the common societal concept of people feeling and/or acting on "romantic" attraction. Its intensity and other qualities vary greatly. According to the conventional interpretation of the Bible, its existence is never an automatic moral justification. Sin is sin, at least for some actions, regardless of the (ig)noble motivation. Quite frankly, people are never permitted to sin whether or not they deeply want to. Or whether or not they can invent persuasive rationalizations.

Again according to the conventional interpretation of the Bible, marriage is the appropriate and correct context for the expression of love. By "marriage" I'm referring to the formal, public, (semi)permanent, exclusive joining of a couple through the exchange of vows and obligations. Readers may object to this singularly unromantic definition of marriage, but that very objection strikes at the crux. Love and marriage are not synonymous!

If the two were, then the Christian laws that restrict romantic love to marriage would be totally unnecessary. It's worth remembering that, in many cultures presently and in history, love isn't a requirement for marriage. Marriages happened for many reasons and were set up by people other than the couple. Culturally, the idea of marriage as purely an outpouring of love is not self-evident.

In a curious sense, marriage is for the sake of everybody else. It establishes that the two people are a unit to be treated differently by society. For instance, they're not available for love with anyone else. They're to be caretakers of each other, each other's property, and of course their resulting children. These purposes are distinct from love but certainly not in conflict with it. This is why informal/private/temporary/open "marriages" are contradictions in term.

Officially unmarried lovers are sinning. Not because the "scrap of paper of missing", but because they're partaking outside of the stringent commitment it's intended for. The contrivance of effective contraception has caused some people to forget how eminently practical this law is. Without it, lovers could produce offspring, then abandon each other. Promiscuity before the era of contraception is messy. Promiscuity before or during the era of contraception is sinful. Marriage is for preventing selfish people from fleeing the grave physical, emotional, and spiritual responsibilities of love.

However! It seems to me that the Christian perspective on love and marriage need not be exactly equivalent to the definition of marriage in a society of plural cultures. Societies that aren't explicitly based upon Christian doctrine, or populated only by Christians, can't be expected to maintain a marriage definition that "works" only for Christians. Put another way, people in subgroups in the society could be "married" without being "married" in the societal records, and people might be "married" by societal procedure without being "married" by the standards and procedures of particular subgroups. Call it "civil marriage" versus "religious marriage".

People united in civil marriage don't require others to pronounce them "married", but they do require others to treat them as married in the ways that civil law prescribes. Their civil marriage doesn't force others to change their minds or beliefs. Free societies will contain couples of all types. Some promiscuous. Some monogamous but eschewing commitment. Some in civil marriages. Some in religious marriages. Some in both. None of them affect the Christian viewpoint which selectively condemns or blesses each relationship.

Christians hate sin. We follow the godly example in doing so. But we don't have the right to outlaw all sin or to harass and hamper the lives of people whose sin is more visible. Through government we have the right to maintain order and peace; the rest is left up to the free choices of each individual to honor God or not.

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.