Our first thoughts centred on the question: “What has this got to do with marriage?” But, as we have written in the book “Where are all the Men?” these few notes are about the underlying question in the title: where are the men (in fact not just men but women also) in understanding their position with God? We are integrated beings: body, soul/mind and spirit. And these three are so interlinked that each affects the other. The mind has a particularly powerful effect on the spirit and the body. It is through thoughts that Satan finds an entry into our being.

 Try this experiment for yourself: Look to spend some time becoming aware of what you are thinking, and observe how it affects (most especially) your behaviour. Psychologists say that 30,000 words go through our minds every minute, day and night. That could be an awful lot of out-of-control thoughts!

 Without monitoring what is going on in our minds we are likely to be building attitudes from unworthy thoughts. As Pvbs 23 v 7 says “As a man’s thoughts are so he is…” (KJV).

1 “Where (God’s Holy) Spirit leaves off and man’s begins is difficult to determine; man is utterly dependent on God and yet at the same time this dependence does not take away from his own individuality.” Wm Dryness Themes of Old Testament Theology, p205. “The more intimate the relationship (between God’s Spirit and man’s spirit) the more natural persons become, the more they become “themselves.” One could put it very well in New Testament terms by saying the more persons lose themselves to God, the more they will discover who they are”. Ibid p209. 

2 “(The prophet’s) fundamental objective was to reconcile man to God. Why do the two need reconciliation? Perhaps it is due to man’s false sense of sovereignty, to his abuse of freedom, to his aggressive, sprawling pride, resenting God’s involvement in history.” Abraham J Heschel.

(How much we need prophets for this age!) 

 The “sprawling pride” is in the belief that we do not need God. If we acknowledge our dependence on Him we are NOT proud. Dying to self (humility) is dying to the FALSE self – that which we have created for ourselves and is used by Satan. It is in recognising that we are made in His image that is something to take joy in – we are children of God, and as such have the inheritance of heirs. It is paramount that we grow towards knowing the God-made-self, the giftedness, the individuality, the very being that He wants us to be, and made us to be, rather than the one we have made for ourselves or adopted the one that the world persuades us that we should be.

We won’t know who we are until we know whose we are.

 3 In Gen 2 v 7 we read that God breathed (His) Spirit into man: but, note, not into the animals that He has already created in Gen 1 v 24. This makes the life of man different from that of the animals; that difference is surely in the realisation of man’s “image and likeness” to God. The inference here is that man is so essentially different from animals in that they do not possess this extra quality which sets him aside from them. We should be careful in attributing to animals (by cathexis, etc), “rights” and attributes that are uniquely those of man (anthropomorphising). But rights automatically produce responsibilities.  Our responsibility to animals is that of stewardship; it is not achieved by attributing to them “legal rights” which they do not have.

When they enjoy all of the privileges formally accorded to marriage, why do they want to redefine marriage: they want to remove any express mention of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but allow the definition to be so loose as to remove any mention of it requiring the consenting parties to be of opposite gender.

But this opens the possibility for two further steps of destruction:

First, since there is no requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman (ie one of each), then it would not only allow two men or two women to be “married”, but it could lead to include any number of men/women to “marry”; worse still hitherto banned relationships (eg a person could marry his horse!) would be encompassed.

The second step is that “marriage under God” (and therefore affirmed by church as God’s holy people) would inevitably be challenged as “not being in accordance with law”. There is the first glimmer of this is in the Coalition Government pressing for church buildings to be allowed for civil partnerships ceremonies.

We are obliged to the author of the following quote, which we have found on website, http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com.

This adequately encompasses our feelings and fears.  

“TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Is traditional marriage unfair to all of these other groups who want to dismantle it?  A group of social liberal activists ran a full-page statement in the New York Times in 2006 titled “Beyond Gay Marriage.”  Part of that statement said this: “Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal–for some, also a deeply spiritual–choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationships, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.”  The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer merely the freedom to live their lives as they want. Rather, it is to force you, your family, and the state to recognize and respect their myriad choices. The result of meeting these demands will be a culture, a legal system, and a government that considers a monogamous, exclusive, permanent sexual relationship of child-bearing and child-rearing nothing more than one among many lifestyle choices. It leaves the claim that marriage is normative for the flourishing of spouses, children, and society–not to mention any attempt to enshrine in law this unique human good–would be considered bigotry. In other words, marriage as a social institution would be destroyed. “

You may find it instructive to visit James’ Hub (see BlogRoll in RH column) to discover more about the various “poly-aberrations” that exist in the minds and lives of others!

How many of you women out there would agree with that statement? Even if you just know it in your heart but are nervous to express it through fear of rejection by the man in your life – or by all men in general?

Do you believe that women feel differently to men about sex? Does the man in your life realise this? Or does he expect you to evince the same desire as he?

It is generally true for a man that a continual high dose of testosterone keeps his interest in intercourse, and his quest to find it, on the boil. That’s why, when it comes to it, he’s always ready. On the other hand a woman doesn’t have such high levels of testosterone but the female hormone oestrogen. This doesn’t “drive” her towards the sex act to the same extent. In fact what it drives her to is love.

Why don’t women tell the truth when it comes to discussing sex with men? They always revert to pretending they are as “up for it” to the same degree and frequency as men, when the reality is far from it. One woman shared with us that she “drops into bed, exhausted, at the end of the day, then out comes the hand…” But that’s only the beginning of the problem…!

The very words used to describe sex make this clear: the woman “gives” herself to the man and he “takes”. She is submitting to him – after all, he is the initiator (is supposed to be) while she is a responder. Deep within her psyche, whether she is consciously aware of it or not,  is a drive to please. So she is therefore vulnerable in this whole exchange between the sexes.   It is this fact that men prey on – they manipulate it for their satisfaction, and in this quest to please, she fails to speak her truth for fear of rejection or abandonment.   But he hasn’t understood where she is emotionally, or physically. He needs to be sensitive to these needs rather than only intent on satisfying his craving for orgasm, in the mistaken belief that this is all she needs as well. It would appear in certain cases that he doesn’t approach her as a person, but as a sex object (see our post “Objectifying”). Man cannot be the verdict on woman.

Men want sex: women want love.

But how many women get their “want” acknowledged let alone satisfied?

We feel there is a conspiracy of silence about this topic. It would appear that women are reluctant to be open and honest on this very sensitive issue, and can consequently suffer enormous amounts of emotional distress.

What do you think? Should women be more honest and admit to their needs? Or is it right in this day and age to remain silent, lie back and “think of England”?

Or have a headache?

For a full understanding of the contents of this book and Fr Ron’s responses you will need to visit Fr Ron’s website, (www.ronrolheiser.com), but here is a brief summary of what was said:

In Bell’s view “Sex inside its proper containers, unconditional commitment, respect, love, is designed to counter the brokenness of our lives and the fragmentation of the world”. Fr Ron’s view is that “Sex outside of its proper containers… isn’t bringing more joy into our lives but is leaving us more fragmented and lonely”.

But neither commentator mentions that in God’s view sex is solely to be experienced within a marriage between one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment made before God. In His view any other sexual encounter is either fornication or adultery, both of which are anathema to Him, and roundly condemned throughout scripture.

We have felt led to send the following reply to Fr Ron.

Let us first say that we have not read Rob Bell’s book, so we cannot comment on that author’s writing, but we are replying to the inferences in Fr Ronald’s column drawn from the quotes that he includes. A glaring example of our concern about Bell’s understanding, as it would appear from the article, is that he neglects to include marriage in his “containers of unconditional commitment, respect, love”. Surely, as a Christian writer this should be his priority in writing about sexual encounters?

Bell writes: “Our world thinks it understands sex. It doesn’t”. As we have clearly said in our book “Where are all the Men?” the world equates sex with coitus: but the reality is that “sex” is a 24/7 relationship, not just a passing encounter. And if we read the rest of Fr Ronald’s article with this in mind, it might begin to make sense.

However, this is our perspective: “Because of our relationship with God we believe there is a far deeper intimacy than simply that of the joining of two bodies. The physical aspect of marriage is generally misunderstood, taken to mean only the sex act. But more realistically it is a 24/7 involvement with each other. Sadly, nowadays intimacy just means “sex” since these terms are mostly considered synonymous; sex is only understood in terms of copulation. Intimacy is not an act, but a state of being in which a couple gradually share more and more of themselves. It is about growing together in knowledge, trust and respect, and love whereby we can disclose our innermost thoughts, feelings, and aspirations. So long as we are in a relationship with God, this sharing will be in an atmosphere of safety, but not if we are under any form of Adamic influence. Our relationship with God should also be one of intimacy and on a 24/7 basis. In this there is a maturity for both the husband and wife. Intimacy means a joining of two human souls and that joining involves two spiritual beings, since we are essentially spiritual; we are spiritual beings on a human journey. This growing together is one of increased understanding of self and other, which ultimately should bring us into closer relationship with God”.

We are disturbed by the inference in the article (and we presume in Bell’s book) that sex “is designed to counter the brokenness of our lives and the fragmentation of our world”. We believe that only Christ can heal this brokenness, not finite humans in their limitations.

We have written elsewhere that we believe a man (or woman, for that matter) in isolation cannot write a book about sex, since it involves both a man and a woman. It appears to us that this may be the reason for the shortcomings of understanding revealed here.

We found an article in our local newspaper by a columnist whose opening gambit was “Opposition to gay marriage is just intolerance.” He goes on to say “Does anyone really care if Danny and Dave or Felicity or Fiona tie the knot in church?” Well, yes, there are people who do care!

Before we get into that let us look at some muddled thinking in the above statements.

First, homosexual people already have the right to “marry” – in that they can enter into civil partnerships which provide them with most, if not all, the legal and societal recognition that married couples have. So one would say there is no “intolerance” associated with the relationship. The relationship is recognised under the law of the country, but there is a difference when one starts talking about marriage. The relationship in marriage is under God’s law as well as civil law, especially those marriages which have been solemnised in a religious ceremony, such as in church.

And here is where there are people who do care. Those people are the ones who care about God’s law as well as the civil law that springs from it.

Let us explain:

My wife and I are committed Roman Catholic Christians and have been married for 48 years. In our calling to live by God’s precepts we believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman for life. We therefore understand that, in God’s plan, the essential meaning of marriage is to participate with Him in His covenant with His people. Marriage is a covenantal commitment between God, husband and wife. A man chooses a woman to be his wife and the woman accepts the man to be her husband “above all other.” To be married in church (God’s visible sign on earth of His relationship with His people) is to accede to this truth.

So why should anyone who does not believe in God and His truth want to get married in His church? To do so without total commitment to Him is a lie and we see it as hypocrisy. It is like living in a country and ignoring the laws that govern that land.

All Christians – bishops, priests, pastors, spiritual leaders as well as the faithful laity – are the ones who care.

In this columnist’s own words “Tell me, dear reader, should I be worried?”

(This post is also appears on our other blogsite http://garryduguid.stblogs.com)

In this consumerist mentality men are encouraged to see women as objects of desire, to be had, owned, shown off. We believe this denies the essence of woman as a person, a child of God, made in His image. More recently women seem to objectify themselves, in the mistaken belief that they are in control, that they make the running in the relationship. But in this scenario there is no relationship only a “buying and selling” marketplace. (We are even getting to the stage of objectifying children with fashions resembling those of their parents, endowing them with sexual attributes they don’t possess).

So what are the natural consequences of “objectivising” and being “objectivised”? A brief glance at the media – films and television, books, magazines, even newspapers – loudly proclaims the result! Our “relationships” are diminished to the basic lowest denominator. We recently saw a newspaper article that boldly stated “The only reason we need to go out is for sex!”

Less modesty, less chivalry.

We recently listened to a programme between two women discussing the merits of the respective pro-life and pro-choice lobbies. We could not but fail to ask the question where did pro-choice begin? Or should we say, if pro-choice began outside the bedroom door, would there be a pro-life question at all?

 Josephine Butler, a Victorian campaigner for women’s rights, believed in the equality of women, not in the sense that they were the same as men, but of equal competence and value in the eyes of God. We hold that same view: that all people are equal in the eyes of God, whether male or female.

“Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord…” Eph 5 v 22 NIV. It is unfortunate that many readers (both male and female) overlook v 21, where St Paul writes “be subject to one another…” and skip straight to the bit about submitting in v 22. Paul echoes v 21 with v 25 “…just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up…” In these two verses, the attitude of submissiveness is broadly generalised, an attitude by which the whole assembly (the church) is called to live, by carrying it into all forms of society, thus revealing the mystery of God in the whole world. If it merely focuses on women the broader truth is denied.

Although in this Pauline passage the wife is told “to submit” to the husband, the strongest admonition is to the husband. He is called to leave all other ties and to love wife as Christ loves His church, and give himself up for her to death, if need be, death to self, certainly.

Paul’s language must be taken seriously here: he does not say husband is to love his wife only in the sense of having erotic or purely affectionate feelings for her – he is to love her with agape – the self-emptying disposition that God Himself revealed in Jesus. Husbands must get that right first. All this must be seen in the context of the whole letter, the moral exhortations closely tied to its theological exposition of redemption, the victory over the cosmic forces of evil. We must never lose sight, however, that we are all eternal and essentially spiritual beings, and therefore destined for glory with God. To obey, or submit has much deeper implications than is sometimes understood, or over-emphasised to the exclusion of the more enduring truths.

Any command given to husband must be for the benefit of wife, not in any way for her subjugation, or any idea of ruling or controlling her and so on. The dignity of her womanhood/personhood must not be impugned. She, like man, is a child of God with her true identity in Christ. Effectively Paul is saying that love is incumbent on the husband first.

Paul concludes this passage on marriage with this remarkable statement: “This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and to the church.” The mystery elsewhere outlined is that Jews and Greeks are reconciled and made one in the church. The relationship between husband and wife therefore symbolises the mystery of unity in plurality and makes it present within the community. This completes Paul’s conception of “neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female…” Man and woman submit first and foremost in respect and love and service, finding unity so that God’s purpose might be fulfilled to “…bind them all together in perfect unity.” Col 3 v 14. One flesh!

After all the Bible is not about a word (eg submission), but about a person, Jesus the Word who is God. It is all about Him with whom we all enjoy a personal relationship.

Two old-fashioned attributes with no place in modern Western society? We declare from the outset (as does Alan Bloom quoted below), that we place no overt religious spin on these attributes: they are requirements for the betterment of society at all levels and at all times.

It seems to us they are contingent upon honour and respect – two of the building blocks of relationship. While chivalry and modesty were associated in times past as being requirements of proper upbringing, it seems that there was a fairly sharp separation between them: Chivalry was traditionally associated with the man, while modesty typically applied to woman. They marked out attitudes which society considered appropriate to good, ordered relationships between people and, more specifically, between the sexes.

Chivalry

If we check the dictionary we find that chivalry conveyed the notions of honourable behaviour, gallantry, devotion to the service of women, gentlemanly courtesy, an inclination to defend the weaker party. In former times women were considered the weaker party, so the man’s chivalrous attitude was for the protection and security of women.  It also included the element of disinterested-ness. (Note that this is not UN-interested, which means having NO interest at all, but rather it is not looking for personal gain, but being aware nonetheless of the other person’s best interest). We could perhaps describe this behaviour and attitude as honouring others. If we were to look at our definitions of “love” we would find this sense present there.[1]

Modesty

Turning to the dictionary again we find modesty variously described as being scrupulously chaste, bashful, retiring, decorous in manner, being humble about one’s merits. These seem to us to be the very attitudes which should invite respect. Perhaps all these attributes can be summarised as being aware of the respect due to oneself.

Changing Times?

In times past it was a man’s duty to look after their womenfolk. It was considered unacceptable for a woman to appear in public unaccompanied, either by a male family member, or by a female chaperone. This still holds true in parts of the world that have been less influenced by our Western culture. While the cry of “female subjugation” can be heard protesting against these patterns of behaviour, one has to ask if women are better off in our society today than they were in the past. Certainly they have achieved a measure of independence from men, but they are increasingly exposed to other, formerly unheard of, forms of subjugation.

For example we read the following passage. We have deliberately altered the original wording – where the author used chastity we have inserted modesty, in order to widen the point: “The argument for modesty is generally seen as naïve, impractical, narrow, religious, old-fashioned and even dangerous…modesty is given little place and little respect. At best it is seen as an impractical ideal, at worst as something to be pitied or ridiculed… [2] Alan Bloom, famed educator, speaking purely as a secular observer without any religious angle whatsoever, affirmed twenty years ago that a lack of modesty in our culture, particularly among the young, is perhaps the deepest cause of unhappiness and flatness in our lives. We have, he asserts, experienced too much, too soon, robbed us of passion and rendered erotically lame…the result is that we have stripped life, love and sex of the capacity to enchant us.

An extreme of this destruction can be seen in the mindset behind the following item in a newspaper: “If it wasn’t for sex we’d never meet up” Is that a very male-centred statement for a start? What on earth is going on here? The first paragraph stated that whoever invented sex was actually very clever. Well, from our point of view this is an understatement! Not only was He very clever, but He is and remains so forever. Obviously, this  item was not written by a person who believes in and understands God and His principles. The item went on to explain that from the viewpoint of a single man living alone he only related to others through “a bubble of internet and texting and Facebook.”

So how can anyone believe that the “bubble of internet…” can be a substitute for real relationships? It is one of the great lies of this age that life is complete when huddled over a keyboard in the semi-darkness of our unfulfilled souls. People NEED people as much as they need God. Yes, He is clever, and He is a relational Being. So, too, are we relational. That’s how He made us: He made us to be in relationship with Himself and others so that we might grow in love and understanding of others, that we might grow in love and understanding of HIM.

But the author of the article we read doesn’t understand this. He goes on to say that without the need for sex we probably would never meet up. But this shows a patent lack of understanding of our need for proper relationships.

 Sex might ultimately be the result of a proper relationship between a man and a woman in a married relationship, but it is NOT relationship.

Values diminished and then forgotten

Even in our lifetime we have seen the erosion of both chivalry and modesty. It was commonplace in our early lives to see a man holding open the door for a woman, to offer a seat in public transport, to walk on the outside of the pavement, and to raise his hat in greeting a woman.

In her turn, a woman would never appear in public dressed in a provocative manner. Nor would she be seen in a public house unaccompanied – any woman that did was categorised being of dubious character. Today women’s fashions vie in trying to expose as much of the female form as can be, without the wearer being arrested! We recently heard a quote from a young Muslim man that “White girls have no morals.”

The Fashions of the day and man’s response?

There was (is?) an expression:  It’s a man’s world. We believe that there is a deal of truth in that saying. Because the truth as we see it is that men are initiators and women responders. If men fail to show that they appreciate modesty, the woman in her quest for approval and a sense of belonging and acceptance, will dress immodestly when the culture around her seems to require it. The root cause of the woman’s response is fear of abandonment: she will seek to be acknowledged in the wrong way when what she really needs is to be loved. But her search is deflected into looking for attention, albeit the wrong sort. By exposing her sexual attributes she gets that attention but not for the right reasons. Has any woman been complimented for being modest? Yet she gets heads turned and words of flattery just for being the very opposite. She finds herself in competition with other females who are similarly chasing attention, who maybe much more inclined to greater excesses (or exposure). The spiral therefore continues into further excesses. Since men are the initiators then they must ultimately be the originators of this spiral

Perhaps she feels she has to follow the latest fashion. However, these trends are mainly governed by celebrities whose currency is in causing a stir so they might garner some form of publicity. These motives are not very pure.

We are made in God’s image but the culture of our times tries its utmost to shape us into ITS image. We could even say that women are fashioned in the image that men want them to be. In the process women lose their ability, the option even, to choose. “The church is called to proclaim the Christian faith afresh in each generation. To fulfil this task Christians need to understand the culture of their day, or they can neither answer its questions nor answer its idolatries. Equally necessary is a biblically based understanding of the application of the Gospel to each major sphere of life.” [3]

Without a Godly influence on the interaction between men and women, women in particular are lost and led astray. Women appear not to know who they are (in God) and who or what they are meant to portray. And fashion colludes with this lack in women, and purporting to show them what they should be and how they should behave. Of course, it feeds from this collusion and benefits from the lack of understanding in the women. And, ultimately, men don’t give it a second thought, since fashion is a “woman’s” thing. However, at its root is the man’s desire to feed off the women they see, either in the media or in their vicinity.

Women don’t realise they are in a competition. What is going on inside them? Their true identity is lost and they blindly fashion themselves into what they would run a mile from, if only they realised to what and to whom they are bowing down. (In the ultimate, this is why women cry “rape” the morning after. If they had been fully aware that they were being duped into having sex, rather than being loved, they would have run a mile in most cases!)

“In a society where identity is reduced to style (or “how you look” – Ellen) fashion reveals the nature of our contemporary dilemma and the shallowness of our convictions.”[4] This screams out to us, or rather it should, about our lack of knowledge of our true identity.

[2] Fr Ronald Rolheiser, The Catholic Herald, June 2008

[3] “Fashion and style” by Mike Starkey, p11

[4] Ibid p 11