Don't Do It Just Like the World, but Expect Different Results

I was prompted to blog today by this post over at Dalrock.

Dalrock was asked some questions by a commenter named Rachel about how to help her daughters find husbands. Her inquiries concerned her daughters' behavior with young men and whether a Christian girl should "settle" in choosing a marriage partner. This mother obviously has concerns about her daughters being at risk for spinsterhood and she wants to avoid that. 

While Rachel didn't mention her husband, Dalrock said that she does have a husband. If that is the case, why is she not following his lead on this matter of marrying off the daughters? Why did Dalrock, who blogs specifically for Christian men, not direct her to seek wisdom from her husband? To his credit, Dalrock admitted that he has no experience in this area. But one thing I have learned from knowing God is that God empowers those whom He has put in authority and gives wisdom to those who ask, without upbraiding.

Unfortunately, Dalrock went on to offer advice on the behavior of young women in general. By doing this, he is consenting to the presupposition that single women should be on the hunt for their own husbands and that they are somehow qualified by their design to do this. It is saying, if only we can explain these things to women, they will behave exactly correctly and use good judgment and make right decisions. And yet we know, and Dalrock knows from his years in the manosphere that women, by their very design, do NOT make good decisions based on reason and sense.

Women are simply unqualified to decide who they should marry. It isn't a matter of intelligence or training. It isn't even a matter of godly character.

What should Dalrock have done instead? He should have appealed to men who have already had success with their daughters. He should have appealed to men who have spent years studying the Bible to see what God has said about marriage, about sex, and about avoiding fornication. Interestingly, in the comments, such a man appeared!

Most of the comments consist of complaining about how awful women are and how hopeless it is to think a man can get a good wife or that daughters can be raised to adulthood without rebelling and fornicating and choosing the world over Christ. And when a commenter suggests that dads can have fulfilling marriages and joyful daughters who look to dad to find them a husband by following the guidance of the Word, the other men pile on with shouts of "You'll go to jail!" "It can't be done!" "It's too hard!" "No one will like you!"

Yes. Daddy is not a popular guy. So what? Do you want your daughter to be a fornicator or a spinster? Do you want her to be a shrieking feminist? If not, take heart. God is good and He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

There are a LOT of comments, so hopefully this link will take you to where the good comments start.

Dreams of Our Daughters

At some point before our daughter was married, my husband was speaking with the father of a man who could have been a potential suitor. My husband was explaining to the father that our daughter had been prepared for marriage and that she was looking forward to becoming a wife and a mother. Then, as if the father had not heard a thing that was said he responded with, "That's all fine, but what are her dreams?"

Huh? What are her dreams? Did you just hear what my husband said? She wants to be a wife. She is looking forward to fulfilling the role for which she was created. Only women can be wives. Only women can be mothers. It is the most important thing she will ever do. She will impact the lives of countless thousands by becoming a wife.

I am somewhat confused as to why men would find it an attractive trait in a potential wife that she wants to be something other than a wife.

Perhaps I have been jaded by the lies I've been told by both the world AND the church. Actually, I KNOW I'm jaded by it. I am not going to pass along those lies to my daughters. It is depressing to think that they may embrace such lies after they leave my home, but they certainly won't hear them from me. And I will actively work to prepare them to resist untruth.

So you can imagine how refreshed I was to read this post at Chalcedon by Jenni Zimmerman. I hope you will click on the link and see what she has to say about their oldest daughter.

Like EVERY author I have read in my life, I don't agree with absolutely everything Jenni says. I don't even agree with everything I've ever written. So I will just say up front, in case anyone is wondering, I do not agree with this statement that she makes, and don't believe the Bible teaches or supports this view of wives:

 She is chief counselor to her husband, knowing the word of God alongside him, giving godly counsel when needed.

Raising daughters is difficult. I appreciate what the Zimmermans are doing with their daughters and I stand with them, encouraging them to stay the course. Perhaps it won't be long until their oldest daughter is married and putting all of her good training to use. 

Douglas Wilson on The Fear of Women

I have a love/hate reaction to the writings of Douglas Wilson. Mostly love. He says things really spot on the truth, and he says them in a way that is poignant and humorous.  Occasionally I read of him doing things that seem to contradict what he has written, and that is where the hate reactions come in to play. Not so much hate as frustration.

Anyway, I think this blog post is excellent in every way. I hope you like it, too.

The Fear of Women Bringeth Two or Three Snares

All About Feelings for $500, Alex

Christians can have many opinions about the proper way to go about finding a spouse, about the proper "path to marriage," if you will. However, when a Christian begins to make claims about what the Bible says it is imperative such claims are backed with citations to Scripture. I recently read an internet posting in which a woman claimed that a certain practice needs to be repented of, and I managed to take offense at such a statement because I have engaged in that practice. Since she publicly made her objection, I shall publicly make my rebuttal. I shall respond to her objectionable statements one by one.

The Bible has a lot to say on this topic!
It teaches there is great wisdom in having *purpose* and being ready to marry before a single person begins to actively pursue a romantic relationship with another person.

She says the Bible has a lot to say on the subject of what she calls "pre-marriage relationships." As per the purpose of my blog post here I must ask, "Oh really? Where? What does the Bible have to say about pre-marriage relationships?" Is she talking about boyfriend/girlfriend relationships? Because the Bible doesn't mention them. If she is talking about those who are betrothed, the Bible likewise does not mention how such couples would interact, if at all.  Romantic relationships in Scripture are specifically restricted to those who are married. Romantic relationships outside of marriage are not mentioned at all, except within the context of extra-marital sexual contact, which is sin. The only possible exception is the Song of Solomon and the couple there are, at the very least, betrothed when speaking to each other in a romantic manner. I would refer my readers to my posts To Court or Not to Court, and Does Physical Contact Lead To Sex?  for my explanation on why romantic relationships outside of marriage are sinful.

My second objection is to her claim that the Bible talks about a single person having "*purpose* (sic) and being ready to marry" before pursuing a romantic relationship. She is clearly making a distinction between romantic relationships and marriage. Since I already covered that, I'll just deal with her claim that single people should have purpose and "be ready" to marry. What does that even mean? What makes a person ready to marry? What makes a person unready? The Bible gives no answers that I can find and if she wants to say the Bible DOES define these things, the burden is on her to show it. She doesn't even try. The entire quote above is just a lie. The Bible does not say what she claims it says, and no one is even questioning her on it! She just boldly makes the statements and gets a bunch of comments agreeing with her. It is just frightening what Christians will say and believe.

The Bible supports having the *parents* and families & more mature believers as involved as possible.

 Let's forget for a moment her use of the * in every paragraph, annoying as it is and address the content of her claim. The Bible does not support having a bunch of people involved in deciding whether a particular man and woman should marry. If it did, she could easily post her references. Instead, what do we see in the Bible? We see fathers deciding whether their son or daughter should marry and to whom they will be joined. In the case of Rebekah and Isaac, Rebekah's brother, Laban is also involved. Even in the New Testament we see Paul saying that the father of a virgin has the right to either give her in marriage or not. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)  Here is the rub for her, SHE wants to be involved in the match-making of people who are not her own children. And in order to justify her meddling, she tells us that the Bible supports her meddlesome ways. She operates a facebook page where she acts like the matchmaker, Yenta, from Fiddler on the Roof, but she works directly with young men and women, rather than with their fathers. The Bible does not "support" this practice.

God's Word commands singles to *protect physical purity*. I think it wise to have boundaries and daily accountability to a parent or more mature Christian friend.

 Again with the *s. Anyway.....  God's Word says to all people, single and married, to "flee fornication." (1 Corinthians 6:18)  Daily accountability is not the same thing as simply fleeing or avoiding situations in which fornication could occur. As Douglas Wilson says in his book Her Hand In Marriage, "Don't heat up the oven if you aren't going to bake the bread." There is no way a person can be fleeing fornication while becoming physically affectionate with a person to whom he is not married. It is inappropriate outside of marriage. It isn't an issue of setting boundaries, unless those boundaries are the same as those that would apply between a single person and married person. For example, a single man should have no more physical contact with a single woman than he should with a married woman. Any woman who is not his wife is off limits to him. The Bible no more approves of unmarried people holding hands, kissing and hugging or petting than it does of oral sex. All sexual contact, from the least to the most intimate is approved for the married, but the Bible cannot be used to justify any contact that doesn't reach sexual intercourse for the unmarried. It just isn't in there.

To go against the God designed process of *REALLY* getting to know someone before marrying them.

 This is not a complete sentence, so it is difficult to understand her point here, but I object, quite adamantly, that God has designed a process for a man and woman to really get to know each other before marriage. God has NOT designed such a process, unless he revealed it to her personally. I will refer to one example in the Bible where God has shown us just the opposite, the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. They got married before they knew each other AT ALL. They had never spoken to each other, and Isaac didn't even know who she was until she showed up at his tent. She is perfectly entitled to have the opinion that a man and woman should get to know one another before marriage, but she is NOT entitled to state that God prefers such a thing, requires such a thing or that He designed a process for such a thing. She is wrong. And it is a pretty frightening thing to be stating wrong things about God. Or it should be. 

It has also caused families to *hide* the fact that their single child is "getting to know someone" until it's certain that person is the one, for fear of shame. In addition to not being honest and open so others can learn how it *really* works, at the same time these hidden relationships perpetuate the false idea that people actually ARE marrying the first person they talk to.

 This is the part where I begin to take offense. As you may already know from reading about my daughter's arranged marriage here and here, we did not make it public that we were arranging a marriage until they were engaged. The woman who wrote the quote above is known to me, and I suspect that our daughter's arranged marriage is the only one she knows of where the matter was kept private until it was settled. She is making straw man arguments and is misrepresenting what we did and our motives for what we did (unless she knows of other people who would actually fit her description - which I highly doubt but remain open to being enlightened). What we did was to keep it private, we were not hiding anything. We had no fear of shame and I don't even understand what she could mean by that. Shame for what?  I guess she's upset that we didn't seek her input?  We were dishonest? We weren't open? What business was it of hers or anyone else? This woman takes "busy body" to new levels of height. As for letting others know how it *really* works, both my husband and I blogged about it and have made ourselves available to anyone who wants to discuss it. We have written extensively, although not exhaustively, about the dangers of public courtships and the potential for damaged reputations and the loss of perceived value in the eyes of potential suitors, but we never considered a failed marriage arrangement to be shameful. She has no basis for stating such a thing except for her own imaginations. I doubt if she has read what we have written and she has not personally asked us about our process or our reasons for how we conducted the arrangement. She did, however, provide a forum for people to bash us on her private match-making facebook page where we were unable to defend ourselves or respond to comments made about us. So much for her being honest and open.

She is also misrepresenting our process. Our daughter was not "talking to" her suitor. The fathers were talking to each other. We weren't "perpetuating" any false ideas about anything. Women who dream up ideas and then assign the origins of those ideas to others are fantasizing. We have never assigned any moral value to whether a father is able to secure a husband for his daughter on the first try, and I'm not sure why she is making an issue of it. I do believe that multiple courtships, where people are entering into romantic relationships and then ending them, is wrong. Since I believe that romantic relationships outside of marriage are little more than fornication light, obviously having multiple such relationships is repugnant to me. The authoress of the above quote may not think so, but she is not able to dictate how that sort of thing rates with potential suitors. She may believe that her daughters having been through multiple boyfriends doesn't diminish their value, but she really has no control whether men use that issue to cross those daughters off of their list. Likewise, I believe her son-in-law would not be happy to see the names of her daughter's former boyfriends/suitors being proclaimed publicly. Why would he want the whole world to know that he wasn't her first choice? How does the cause of being open and honest trump his dignity?   I believe it would be fabulous if every Christian reserved romantic relationships for within the bonds of matrimony, and therefore every Christian had only one romantic relationship. There is nothing wrong with promoting that standard within my family and within greater Christendom.

This is FALSE & a twisting of the Scriptures. Let us repent of black and white, of extra-biblical labels and ideas, of systems, rules and shame. Let's NOT confuse commands with opinions. Instead, let us stand confidently on God's Word & the certain and sure guidelines He's given for pre-marriage relationships.

 Calling others to repent is to accuse them of sin. This is probably best done in private, but she appears to have no idea what that word means. The one presenting extra-biblical ideas (such as romantic relationships outside of marriage) is this authoress. She is the one stating the "Bible says..." without citations. To close with a reference to the "sure guidelines He's given for pre-marriage relationships" is pretty ironic, when she didn't reference a single verse or passage from Scripture in her entire rant. By all means, steer us all to these "sure guidelines" as you call others to repent for violating them.

I hope she will follow this post with her biblical analysis, with citations, for the role that mothers and match-makers should play in bringing men and women together in marriage. The burden of proof is on her to justify her methods, I've already used the Scriptures to justify mine.

Finding a Spouse - WWJD?

Wouldn't it be great if we knew how God would find a bride for his Son?

Then, just to make sure we are understanding the picture correctly, and to give a hint of how we could do it, maybe God should give an example in the Bible of a godly man (maybe Abraham?) getting a bride for his son?

Naw. We should just invent stuff for ourselves. After all, if God wanted us to understand marriage better, He would have given us some direction.

Infant Baptism

Today I'm going to offer a conversational and brief explanation on why our family practices infant baptism. My husband and I both come from a background of credo or believer's baptism so infant baptism is something new for us.

It starts with the presupposition that God deals with his people by way of covenants. He is a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. Most Christians will agree that God made a covenant with Adam, a covenant with Noah and a covenant with Abraham.  Sometimes when God makes a covenant, He also makes a sign to signify the event. The rainbow serves as a sign of God's covenant with Noah and circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham. God frequently states that his covenant promises are "to you, and to your children" or "to you and to your generations." When God makes a covenant with a single person, it doesn't mean that only the one person is under the covenant. In the case of God's covenant with Abraham, God specified that all of the males born into Abraham's family were to receive the sign of the covenant in their flesh.

I don't know of any Christians who believe that everyone who received the sign of circumcision was necessarily a believer, elect, or saved. The sign isn't a proof of God's love, but it does signify who is to treated as part of the visible covenant community. God said that those men who did not have the sign of the covenant were to be cut off from their people.

Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. In Colossians 2:11-12a we read

In whom also you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism...

The sign is given to all those who profess Christ and to all in the household of a believing man, including children, servants, relatives, etc. just as circumcision was done to all males of the house under the Old Covenant.

To recap: God deals with His people through covenants. God commands us to remember these covenants by way of signs. God made a New Covenant in the blood of Christ and the sign of that covenant is baptism. The sign of the covenant is given to all professing believers and to those under their household authority.

Our duty to our children is found in the great commission. Preach the gospel, baptize them and make disciples, teaching them to obey all that Christ commands. 

The Help Meet For Him

This is a very good and simple to understand analysis of the words translated as "help meet" in the KJV.  Your elementary school grammar will be useful here.

Help Meet -- Let Them Marry

Arranging a Marriage - Part 2

If you haven't yet read Part 1 of  "Arranging a Marriage" you may want to do that before jumping in here, although it isn't absolutely necessary.

After the marriage of our first daughter, my husband (hereinafter "Dad") approached our second daughter with a very serious proposition. She was 16 years old at that time. Dad asked our daughter (Let's call her Jennifer) to trust him to find a husband for her. By this he meant that she would agree not to pursue the attraction of any man and would not dwell on or try to form any relationship with any man. He also told her that she must not attempt to steer him toward any particular man and that if she brought up the name of any man in that context that the young man would be scratched from the list of potential suitors. Much to our surprise and pleasure, she assented immediately and never wavered from her commitment.

One of the benefits of this agreement which we predicted and which we observed to have been true was that our daughter was liberated from the competitive nature of social interactions. When we attended events ranging from picnics to dances to potlucks, she never had to view them as opportunities to snag a fellow or to attempt to out-shine her young lady acquaintances.  This is not to say that she didn't feel the pressure that all young ladies feel to present herself as an attractive person and wife-material, but that she was able to rest in the promise of her father and could therefore enjoy all outings with the liberty of treating all others equally and without testing whether she could monopolize the attentions of any single person. For example, at dances, she didn't have to despair if the evening passed and one certain young man didn't ask her to dance, because if he was to be her husband, her Dad would take care of it, regardless of the young man's dancing partner choices.

From the time of the agreement's commencement, Dad began to take very seriously his promise to find a husband for Jennifer. He even left her an out. If Dad failed to find a husband for Jennifer by the age of 26, he would release her from her commitment and she would be  permitted to seek a husband in any manner that she believed would work. Naturally Dad intended to work very hard to make sure that clause of the agreement would never come into play!

As I relate my version of how Jennifer came to be married I want to emphasize, as I did in Part 1, that while facts are facts, my perceptions and therefore my descriptions of what took place may not exactly match how my husband or daughter would describe it. As Jennifer's mother I was not an outsider to the process and the events, but I was on the fringes, not in the middle, as the bulk of the negotiations, questioning and arranging took place between Dad and the father of the groom. Sometimes I knew about their discussions, sometimes I did not. My husband consulted me whenever he knew that my input would be valuable or when my knowledge of plans would further our goals of confidentiality and discretion.

On to the story! The church that we attend does not have any other families in it. Because of that, we had to travel in order to come into contact with men and to form networks of friends and acquaintances from which we could find a husband for Jennifer. Dad called this "trolling my daughter." In case you are not familiar with fishing terms, it refers to dragging a baited hook behind a boat while the boat moves through the water. Our other option was to sit at home and pray for a husband to come. While this is certainly within God's abilities, we did not feel it was an appropriate option. There is no other important thing in our life in which we sit at home and just wait, or even just wait and pray, for a great thing to occur. We don't do this with getting food or clothing, we don't do it concerning work or forming other relationships, and we don't believe the Bible teaches that it is the norm for God to just send a husband out into the boondocks to our door to obtain our daughter as his wife. So we took action.

In this case, we visited other churches where we knew there were like-minded families. This networking led to us forming friendships with families who would introduce us to other families. This sort of thing can be done on the internet, and that may work well for some families. We had really wanted to give our daughter in marriage to a family with which we had formed a friendship that included the parents as well as the potential suitor. Our first choice would be for Dad to be arranging a marriage with another father, rather than directly with the would-be husband, and therefore in-person friendships seemed a better route to that particular destination. Also, in our particular situation with this daughter, we didn't want her marrying someone who had no intention of  living near us, so arranging a marriage with a man who lived in anther country or on the other side of this one was not an option for this daughter.

After several years of trolling and of Dad making inquiries with other fathers, we received a communication from some very close friends inviting us to visit the church they had recently started attending. Our friends live in a largish city about 3 hours from our home and we had attended worship with them at their former church on several occasions without furthering the goal of finding a husband for our daughter. This new church, they informed us, was made up mostly of very large home-educating families and many of these families had adult sons who needed wives. We were intrigued by the prospect and made plans to spend a weekend with our friends.

The first thing I noticed when I walked into their church was the small children out-numbered the adults by about 2  to 1. The second thing I noticed was a large number of young adults, both men and women, which was something completely lacking in our own congregation. After worship, we were invited to the home of one of the larger families. Our friends were also invited so we all made our way to the rural home of our new friends. I walked into the living room of their home and there were 4 or 5 young men scattered around the large room. I thought to myself, "How many families did they invite over here?" In a few minutes I discovered that all of these young men were the sons of the family who lived here. In fact, they have 10 sons and 3 daughters. None of them are married. Four of the sons were wanting to be married, the four oldest ranged in age from 20 to 26. Naturally, I tried to contain my obvious interest and excitement, this was like the suitor jackpot!

Because the time-line of events will be of interest to some readers, I will state that this first meeting took place on the 14th of December, 2014. Just slightly over one year from the date of this writing.  There was no talk of marriage during this visit but it was clear that, marriage or no marriage, these people were going to be our friends for life. We had much in common, we had children close in ages, we shared philosophies about politics, government, home education, the Kingdom of God, etc.

About a month later, in mid January, we made a second visit. This visit included attending worship with them, having a meal at their home and attending an evening social event. After this visit, Dad began an email exchange with the father (Let's call him James) with the express purpose of discussing arranged marriage. James had never even given arranged marriage any thought, their family was more courtship-minded, and so the first email exchanges consisted of Dad describing what he meant by the term arranged marriage and how he thought such a thing might go. James was taking it all in and evaluating whether he liked the idea and whether any of his sons would possibly be open to an arranged marriage.

During these talks, no son was singled out as the object of interest, as the discussion involved mostly principles and not details. How would they arrange a marriage if they decided to do that? How long would it take? Who would be involved? What would be the process? Etc. Their goal was to bring the marrying couple into the process as late in the game as practically possible.

Both fathers were committed to complete discretion. And by that, I mean secrecy. Only the parents would know about the negotiations. This was for the protection of the sons and the daughter (we only had one daughter of age to marry, so it was clear that it was Jennifer). If for any reason the fathers decided that the process should not move forward, the children would be none the wiser and no one would be hurt or have their reputations damaged by a "failed"  relationship. In fact, there would be no relationship to fail.

During that time, and all the way up to the wedding itself, there was no relationship, or special romantic relationship between Jennifer and the young man she married (We will call him Robert). For most of the time she did not know about the negotiations between Dad and James, and even when she began to suspect something, she did not know which son was being discussed. The only contact she had with Robert was through church and social events involving both families, and usually other families as well. For example, we attended an event with them towards the end of January, a beach birthday party for a home-educated mutual friend. During these contacts there was no special contact between Jennifer and Robert, they did not single each other out for special treatment or spend time together. They played games and danced and sang and treated each other in the same manner as they treated everyone else.

This might be a good point to explain our policy about the "no romantic involvement". It is explained more completely in my post "To Court or Not to Court", so I will just address it briefly here. To a man, every woman in the world can be placed into two distinct categories for him. The first category is "my wife." For the sake of argument, let's just say that only one woman could fit in that category and for many young men, NO woman fits in that category. EVERY OTHER woman is in the other category, "not my wife." The women who are not his wife, are going to be, or already are the wives of other men. Since no man can lawfully be in a romantic relationship with the wife of another man, Dad cannot justify any sort of romantic involvement between Jennifer and any man until they are married. Period. There is no biblical category such as girlfriend or finance where a woman is not the wife, but is something more than other women.

We didn't see James' family at all in February, although Dad and James continued their email correspondence where they were finding out about and evaluating each other, and by proxy evaluating their children. In the beginning of March our family hosted a dance and James' family attended and spent the night with our family.  Because of the distance between our homes, we rarely, if ever, had a visit that was just for one day. Dad's parents have a large home with many guest rooms and they live next door to us, so we were able to accommodate James' large family for overnight visits without compromising the morals of our children. When we visited their family we stayed with friends or with Dad's brother, who lives only 20 minutes drive from James' family. Additionally, James has a rental home on the property adjacent to his own home which was not occupied during the time of our visitations and we sometimes stayed there. The week following our dance, James' family hosted a dance and we traveled to their town to attend the dance, attend worship and share a meal with them. In case you are keeping track, by the end of March our families had visited together 5 times.

We saw James' family one time during April and by that time the communications concerning the possible arranged marriage had been narrowed down to the son Robert, with another son as possible choice. Two sons had been eliminated. From our perspective, all four of the sons would have made acceptable husbands for our daughter, it was their father who had determined that only two would be good matches for Jennifer based upon many factors including timing, common interests, etc. At that time, Robert was finishing up his college studies and was working on a senior project and James did not want to distract him from that with marriage talk until after graduation.

We did not see James' family in May, but Robert graduated in the middle of the month and his father approached him with the idea of arranging a marriage for him with Jennifer and Robert said that, yes, he would like his father to continue pursuing that route. Jennifer was still not told anything although she was aware that Dad was talking to James, she was unaware of the particulars and she did not know that Robert was the son being discussed.

Once Robert was brought into the process Dad presented him with a questionnaire covering many aspects of life including theology, future plans, marriage, health, children, finances, etc. The purpose of the questionnaire was not to rule Robert out as a suitor, as we were pretty sure at that point there was nothing about this young man that would disqualify him. The purpose was to make sure he was aware of the many, many potential friction areas in marriage and to know ahead of the marriage which ones were going to be in question between Jennifer and himself. Also it would provide an opportunity to offer teaching or counseling if he expressed ideas that were unbiblical or if he needed further instruction in any area. After Robert answered the questions and there were follow-up questions to some of his responses, we asked him to prepare questions for Jennifer.

The questions prepared for Jennifer did not reveal that Robert was the suitor and we did not tell her because we wanted her to answer the questions as honestly as possible without attempting to tailor her answers to a certain man. After she had submitted her responses to Robert, we allowed her to see how he had answered the questionnaire and told her that Robert was the man. They were then permitted to ask each other follow-up questions through Dad. They were not permitted to email each other directly.

During the course of the questions going back and forth James' family visited with us twice as they stayed with us while going to and coming from their family vacation in California. For those keeping track, at that point we had visited together 8 times.

As soon as the two of them were satisfied that they understood each other's answers, Robert asked Dad if he could propose marriage to Jennifer.  This was merely a formality and a romantic nod to the culture. On June 20, 2015, our two families attended a dance and Robert proposed to Jennifer on the dance floor. She said, "Yes." At that point, Robert announced loudly to everyone in the room, "Jennifer and I are engaged." There was complete shock. The only people who knew a proposal was coming were Robert and both sets of parents. None of his siblings had any idea that anything was happening.

The rest of the evening was great fun for us as we answered the question, "How long have they been courting?" with "They haven't been courting at all." Dad was able to corral a bunch of other fathers into a group and extol the benefits of arranged marriage. Because we are strong supporters of short engagements, by the end of the night we had pretty much settled on August 29, 2015 for the wedding date.

The next morning, at James' church, after worship James announced the engagement to the absolute astonishment of everyone in the room. We had lunch with James' family before heading back to our own home.

Between the time of the engagement and the wedding we visited with James' family twice. The only communication between Robert and Jennifer was via group email as we made plans for the wedding. Robert and Jennifer had no sort of romantic involvement at all. When Dad presented Jennifer to Robert, as his wife, the entire crowd of witnesses literally witnessed the very beginning of their romance as Robert kissed Jennifer.

You can use the comments below to ask questions, I will do my best to answer them. My husband is still working on writing more about how we came to choose an arranged marriage and how we did it. It is turning into a small book, but when finished it will be available through my blog or directly through him. If you would like to talk with him directly, let me know in the comments and I will connect you.

Identity Abuse? Are You Serious?

There is a young woman in Texas who has rebelled against her parents and left her family against their wishes. I'm not sure exactly what her plans were, other than what she says in the video, that she wants to travel, get an education and get a job. I will let her speak for herself here, then I will provide my opinion on this issue.

This video has, not surprisingly, resulted in a bunch of other rebellious home schooled adults to jump in and shout, "Me, too! Me, too!" and "Her parents just want to control her" and "This is identity abuse!". The young woman herself barely mentions her parents except to say they refuse to help her. They have denied this. I don't know who is telling the truth. My bias is with the parents, because the girl has shown herself to be a deceiver. She conspired with her grandparents to leave her parents' home, purposefully concealing her plans from her parents. Both of her parents have dedicated their lives to raising their children in a way the parents deemed to be proper and that is their right. They have wronged no one.

Also asserted in the video is that she has no medical records and no education records. While her grandparents may have convinced her that this is terrible, I have to say that those are not the sort of records that I have ever been asked to present. Not even when I joined the Army. As a parent of home educated adults, I also know that it is possible -- and not even difficult -- to apply for college admission without a certificate of graduation from high school. Colleges know that most home schoolers don't have them and permit alternative ways to demonstrate readiness for college, such as college entrance exams. 

As to the assertion by some, such as the proprietor of Home Schoolers Annonymous, that her parents have committed the unforgivable crime of  "identity abuse" I say, stop trying to turn every thing you don't like into some sort of crime. Parents have no duty to their children to make sure that the children will be able to comply with every totalitarian government requirement.

What really bothers me about his whole scenario is that I don't hear anyone saying how ridiculous and tyrannical it is that in the "land of the free" a person can't get government permission to drive a car on a public roadway unless the person has fully registered themselves and received the proper government identification number. How is that rationally related to driving? How is the Social Security Act of 1935 related to getting in a car and making it go in an orderly and safe manner?  When did we become such sheep that obtaining employment doing the most menial of tasks is prohibited without your papers?  What interests do colleges have in knowing a person's federal tax identification number? Hint: follow the money. Note also that such identification is NOT required to run for office or to the hold the office of President of the United States.

So this young woman wants to submit herself to the tyranny and get all the proper paperwork. She now needs to provide sufficient proof to a judge as to the circumstances of her birth. He won't accept her sworn affidavit or the affidavits of her grandparents? Their sworn statements would be sufficient in a court to send a man to the electric chair in Texas, but their combined testimonies can't be trusted when they say that they would like to register her birth as having happened on a certain date, at a certain place and to certain parents, who are citizens of the United States?

I have given birth at home several times. I have registered births in two states and in both states I filled out and signed the form. I promised that I was telling the truth and that was enough. In a few weeks, I would receive a copy of the birth certificate in the mail. (After paying the fee and requesting the copy. The copy doesn't come automatically on the basis of registering the birth.) No one ever came to my house to verify if a baby had, in fact, been born. Because we didn't hire a midwife, I believe I also had to provide an affidavit of a person who had seen me pregnant and then saw the baby after its birth and was aware of the date and location of the birth. This information could just as easily be provided the day after the birth as it could 18 years later. The information is no more trustworthy or less trustworthy just because a few years went by. We aren't asking if someone remembers seeing a bear cross the road, we are talking about if they remember the birth of a person who is alive and standing there right now! In one state, there was a box I could check on the form if I wanted the State to register the birth with the Social Security Administration for me. I did NOT check the box, and yet, a few weeks later, her Social Security Card arrived in the mail. She received the mark of the beast, whether she wanted to or not.  That's why we practice paedobaptism. (Not really, that was joke, folks.)

Wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of uprising where masses of people sued their states to able to exercise their right to drive a car without possessing a federal identification number? Since when did moving around on public roads become a privilege granted only when the proper obiesence has been paid? Instead of petitioning a judge to be permitted to register her birth, she should be petitioning to be able to drive without having to a show a document which proves nothing other than her parents filed some paperwork 18 years ago.

There is identity abuse going on this country. And it is being perpetuated by the government, not parents.

Sexuality in Design vs. Churchianity

I've read a couple of strange articles on the web lately concerning Christian young women and chastity. One of them was by a woman lamenting that she had remained a (technical) virgin until marriage and the second was by a self-proclaimed Christian that had given up on chastity and decided that sex outside of marriage was not only ok, it was superior to chastity.

While both of these young women make ridiculous claims about both Christianity and sexuality, they also both are exposing something that I do believe is a genuine problem within the modern, western Church. That problem is a wrong, completely wrong view about human sexuality. And they both claim that they were taught this at church, which I believe. We are not excused from knowing and acting on the truth just because we were taught a falsehood at church, however. We, believers, have the Bible and Holy Spirit, so if we are ignorant, we are without excuse. As an older woman and as a mother, I would like to offer some counsel to younger woman about sexuality and God's design for it.

First, what is this wrong belief that is held by so many within churchianity? It is simply that sex is bad. Sex is icky. Sex is a necessary evil. Only bad girls want to have sex. Only men enjoy sex. Along with that goes the equally wrong belief that sexual desire is evidence of sin. It is time for Christians to acknowledge the obvious; all people are sexual beings. Sexuality is one of the characteristics that belongs to all people, particularly from the onset of puberty.

Why is it dangerous to ignore, or worse to deny, the sexuality of all humans? It causes us to do stupid things. It causes us to make bad decisions. It harms people. It destroys marriages. Pretty serious accusations, but I think I can defend them.

How does denying the sexuality of young men and women cause us to do stupid things? Primarily it causes us to push young women and men together while expecting them to behave as non-sexual beings. This is stupid. A better practice would be to embrace the sexuality of young people, to encourage them in it and to train them in how to use it properly while keeping men and women mostly separate. This is how most societies have dealt with sexuality throughout history and it has worked rather well. Men don't have women for friends. Men and women don't work together in offices or go on business trips together. They don't hang out together on the couches in the youth group meeting.

What we need to realize is that God actually designed women to respond in a sexual way to men. There are all sorts of hormones involved and possibly pheromones (although this has not yet been proven). There are certain frequencies of sound, certain smells, etc. that actually cause sexual arousal on varying levels in women. The same is true for men, of course, but I'm not talking about that here. The purpose is rather obvious, when a woman is given to a man to be his wife one of the first things that they are going to do is exercise their sexuality to the maximum by becoming one flesh. In order for that be pleasurable, as designed, both bodies must prepare physically for the act. These preparations are not limited to the time they spend in bed. Which is why it is stupid for men and women to be interacting closely outside of a marriage relationship. We don't WANT Susie getting all hot and bothered by Roger's arm brushing up against hers on the youth group couch. Susie may not want it and Roger may not want it, either. But we can't make it NOT happen. So the best thing to do is keep them apart.

As an American, I have always been curious about other cultures. Those people over on the other side of the world are so foreign to me, that it is sometimes impossible for me to reach any sort of understanding about what they are doing. I have made it a life-long practice to judge them for their primitive ways when the truth is, I have absolutely no context for analyzing what I was seeing. For example, I have seen photos or videos of groups of girls in other countries. I know they are not in America because of the dress of the girls. In some countries, those gals are really made up. They have jewelry or painted hair and brightly colored printed dresses, scarves or wraps of some sort. Sometimes they have their heads covered or even have veils on their faces. But what I notice is that they are not mixed with boys, and when boys pass by, or they are talking about a group of boys, the girls will giggle or laugh and blush and lift a veil across the lower face. These young women are very, very aware of their sexuality. And they seem to know that those boys in that group over there are going to become their future lovers and husbands. They are clearly excited about it, they seem to look forward to it without fear. But one thing is certain, they are kept absolutely apart from those young men until the time is right for all that sexuality to manifest itself.

In the past, I would have used my own experiences and attributed my own sort of feelings to those girls. I would have thought that they were like the group of wall flowers at a junior high dance, waiting and hoping that a boy would come ask them to dance. But the stakes for these girls is much higher than a dance. They are waiting for husbands. And they are not waiting in the sense of "I sure hope one of them picks me." They are waiting for the right time when the husband who has already been picked will be permitted to come get her. They wait with anticipation and with joy. Not with dread or fear.

How is this different from and really superior to the way we do it here? The typical church-raised girl in America will be doing very different things in her post-pubescent years. At the time when her sexuality is rising to its peak she will be thrown into mixed groups of other pubescent folk. She will be told to guard her own chastity and to suppress her sexuality. She will be told to "just be friends" with boys, the same as with girls. She will be forced to compete with her girl friends for the attentions of boys, because woe is the one who gets left behind in the marriage race. No one is making sure that she gets picked. No one is guarding her chastity for her. She will be permitted, like Jacob's daughter, Dinah, to go down to town to look around. She may or may not be warned that men will want to seduce her, but what good is a warning against the charms of a man? We are so incredibly stupid.

We will expect an American Christian young woman to carry on like this for a decade or more. From perhaps the age of 12 to the age of 20, 25 or even 30. We will expect her to date and spend time alone, in the dark, with men. But we don't want her to rush into marriage. Not when there are so many other important things she should be doing for Christ. Like getting her college education. Like getting settled in a career. Like setting up her own home. Like getting her first cat. Then when her best child-bearing years are behind her and she is losing the bloom of youth, we may permit her to entertain the idea of marriage, if there is a young man perfect enough for her.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the age of 28 she does find Mr. Perfect and he agrees to make her Mrs. Perfect. What does she have to look forward to now? Her sexuality is finally going to be let out of the bottle, but she has spent years and years beating it down. When it attempted to rise up, perhaps she gave in to fantasies or self-pleasuring, and then felt so much guilt for her in ability to contain. She shouldn't be having sexual desire outside of marriage! And she has learned to associate sexual desire with bad feelings, with guilty feelings. She is like Pavlov's dog. She thought an impure thought and WHAM! guilt. Now what happens when her husband approaches her? She recoils. It makes her feel dirty to accept, it makes her feel dirty to say, "That feels good.", so she doesn't. She let's him do what he needs to do, but she can't bring herself to enjoy it properly or to encourage him, so he feels rejected. Their marriage is not off to a good start.

Dear sisters, let us not so mistreat our own daughters. Let us not teach them to despise God's gifts. Let us not teach them to suppress their desires. Instead, let's encourage our husbands to find husbands for our daughters as soon as is practical. Don't make her wait until she has done X or Y or even Z. Don't reject suitors for being too immature. How mature was your husband at 19 or 20?

If they cannot contain, let them marry. So says Paul, and so say I.

And to any of you who do not enjoy the marriage bed to the fullest, contact me. I may be able to explain what you are doing wrong. Because you are definitely doing it wrong if it isn't fun.

Keepers At Home

If those words sound familiar, you may be one who reads the Bible in the King James Version. Here is the passage from which it comes:

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.    Titus 2:3-5

We shouldn't be confused into thinking that the admonition for women to be "keepers at home" means that women should not work. Of course women should work. Everyone should work; men, women and children. Working is part of God's design for us to be fruitful and to take dominion over the earth. The aged women don't teach the young women NOT to work, they teach them to be workers or keepers at home. Or at the homestead, or within the household, or to work within the goals and requirements of the household. 

Sometimes non-believers can explain it better. Here is a game-blogger who is concerned about the destruction of western civilization who is explaining why women working outside of the home are contributing to that decline: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/the-working-womans-new-master/

Within the church we seem to be oblivious to what creates sexual attraction in women while secular observers are not afraid to state what they see and to take note of what to avoid when trying to prevent divorce and adultery. From the above linked blog post:

What we have today is that same working-woman hypergamy now directed to powerful men who are not her husband. The modern wife leaves the world of her husband every morning to submit to sexy male rulers presiding over the parallel world she inhabits during the day. She still has a boss, but it’s no longer her husband. The temptation for her to cheat, either bodily or in mind, must be great. The male equivalent would be as if dutiful husbands were catered to on the job by a steady stream of swimsuit models. Even the firmest virtue will bend to perpetual succulent vice. 

When I was first married, I was working at a law office. My boss was a male lawyer. I only continued working to finish up some projects in which my contributions were important to the clients, then I quit. But my husband had this to say about those days when I was still working, "This is not what I felt about you working for X (name of lawyer), but another form of it was the inherent betrayal of loyalty to me.  You were required to act in the best interest of your boss, over and above your duty to act in my best interest. Which is an unavoidable reality." I was only working two mornings per week, for a total of 8 hours, but even this small amount made our entire household subject to the needs of my boss and his schedule. As my husband noted, it is an unavoidable reality of employment. An employer really needs the commitment and loyalty of his staff to his goals and responsibilities. Even Jesus commented that no one can serve two masters. 

Without second-guessing what Paul had in mind when he wrote the letter to Titus, we can identify at least two very practical reasons why women should not be working outside of the home. The first is the temptation she will feel towards a man who is exhibiting alpha qualities and the second is that the woman is subjecting herself to a master who is not her husband, and therefore her husband has to become subordinate to her boss in terms of her time and efforts. Is any amount of income a fair trade-off for these threats to the marriage? 

When we look at the virtuous woman described in Proverbs 31, we don't see a woman who doesn't work. But we also don't see a woman who is the servant of another master, a master other than her husband. Her work originates in her husband's house and all of her work is for the enrichment and benefit of her husband's house. It isn't a separate, parallel world to the work of her husband. Her husband's heart safely trusts in her and her children will rise up and call her blessed.

Gate or Bridge?

I am continually surprised and gratified when I learn something new that allows me to further refine what I believe to be the proper mode of getting couples married:  betrothal.

Much gratitude is sent the way of Vaughn Ohlman over at True Love Doesn't Wait for his description of courtships's gate versus betrothal's bridge. While there is much, much more to be gleaned from this article, this particular aspect really stood out to me.

In courtship, much ballyhooed by the conservative Christian community as THE way for Christian young people to pursue marriage, we typically see a young man setting his sights on a particular girl and then he becomes the initiator, running the gauntlet to first getting permission to court and hopefully, if none of the gates shut him out, marry the girl. What do I mean by gates? These are the numerous people who can, at any time, deem that the boy or girl is not worthy, or for some other (or no other) reason decide that the marriage is not to be and cut off the courtship. The first gates that a young man encounters are his own parents. Because his parents are gates, and not bridges, the best they can do is allow him to pass through. They can't help him and they can certainly hinder him. If they shut, the courtship is over before it begins. If they remain open, he doesn't get the girl, he has to pass through the next set of gates, IF they will open to him. Those gates are the girl's parents. Then there is the girl herself and perhaps a pastor or some elders thrown in there as well.

The reasons for a gate to close are unknowable to the young man. They will be arbitrary and perhaps even capricious. And they can be closed retroactively, too! After the young man has been granted permission to pass! Is it any wonder that young men don't want to try this? Is it any wonder that Christian young men are arriving at 30 years old still unmarried?

How does betrothal differ? Because in a betrothal, the father of the groom is dealing with the father of the bride. They are acting as a bridge so the marriage can positively move forward. They don't stand there gaping as if to say, "Pass if you dare." Once there is a betrothal, there will be a marriage. There are not multiple gates and no chance for a young man to get the gate slammed on him. There is no gamble for the young man really.

I hope you will go over and read the entire article. It was especially painful for me to read how a young man's own parents can be the ones closing gates for the most insignificant of reasons and without scriptural support for their actions. The problem with gates is that they are continually looking for reasons to close. Their job is to restrict access. Otherwise they wouldn't be gates. But we shouldn't be looking for reasons to deny marriage to our sons and daughters. Marriage is something that fathers should be actively pursuing. May we be faithful.

Sexual Desire - Evil? or Reason to Marry?

Ever the student of the biblical manner in which men and women should become husbands and wives, I sometimes speak with other parents about what they are doing in this area and why. It has come to my attention that there are fathers who will absolutely exclude as potential husbands for their daughters any young men who have viewed porn. Even once.

Being sometimes emotional, my first thought was that these men are apparently not all that concerned about whether their daughters marry at all, since they have rather off-handedly excluded a huge number of young Christian men from the pool. And what, exactly, would be the explanation for this exclusion? How is it a worse sin to lust after a woman who is clothed than to lust after one who is not clothed? I mean, don't these men realize that any young men asking to marry their daughters have likely lusted, in their hearts, after those young women? Personally, I would say that is a good reason to pursue marrying, rather than not. As Douglas Wilson so aptly describes in his book Her Hand In Marriage when a young man comes courting, what he is really asking is to have a sexual relationship with your daughter.

And I have found another blogger who agrees with me and is not afraid to use the Bible to make his point! In this 3 part series on pornography, you may be lead to think of lusting in a different way than you have been taught to previously by some worldly screeching from the pulpit. Please take the time to read these and comment here and there.

Combating Pornography I - To Avoid Fornication

Pornography II - The Married Man

Pornography III - Hear, Oh My Son, the Instruction of a Father

Is There a Right Way to Give Birth?

I'm not sure if there is a word to describe the religious philosophy whereby a person believes that some aspects of life on earth are spiritual and others are physical. In other words, some choices that we make are of no eternal significance and therefore there is no need to consult the law-word of God in making such decisions. It doesn't matter one way or the other, God doesn't care, and the Bible could give us no guidance in that area. It is a type of dualism, I suppose, crossing over into gnosticism, the belief that God just isn't concerned or involved in the physical world.

I don't hold to the gnostic worldview, although I would never try to define the proper amount of reflection and deliberation that should go into which color to paint the bathroom versus whether or not the family should make a move to another country. To me, my faith, my beliefs and my submission to God require that I not make a mockery of truth by living as if I don't really believe the things I claim.

What does this have to do with childbirth? As a creationist, one who believes that God created the universe and mankind in particular with purpose and with a specific design, I cannot look at things like childbirth as being some flawed, random process. I don't look at modern medical doctors as being experts on design or wellness, because all of their training is directed at disease and dysfunction. What causes a healthy women who becomes pregnant to immediately turn herself over to an expert on disease? How does this mesh with the belief that a woman's body and the normal physiological functions of her body are designed by God?

Obviously, because of the fall, a pregnant body can become a diseased body. The normal physiological function of giving birth can be interrupted or obstructed in some way. But those cases are abnormal. Statistically, they are rare. Like breathing, like digestions, like elimination, birth happens. We don't go to the hospital to have bowel movements unless a problem presents. We don't keep oxygen tanks and defibrillators in our homes "just in case." To make regular visits to a man (or woman) who views you as diseased and a disaster just waiting to happen is asking for trouble.  Why don't we all go down to our local imaging center and get CT scans of our entire bodies every year? First, because it is expensive and second because we know that if we look hard enough, we will find something. And nothing will be gained from that process. We know that if something is truly wrong, we will develop symptoms and seek expert advice at that point.

So trusting childbirth is trusting God. It is trusting His design. Trust is revealed in behaviors and choices. Just as faith is revealed by works. Just saying that you trust God is not trusting God. If everything you do while pregnant and giving birth is a display of not trusting God, then you probably don't trust.

Perhaps you didn't see this coming, but now I'm going to talk about patriarchy and a man who rules his house well. God has placed men in the primary position of authority and protection over his wife/wives and children, including unborn children. How much research does the average husband do before turning over the care of his family to a medical doctor during pregnancy? How does their risk of injury or death change by entrusting them to hospital care? Does he enjoy sex with his wife? Does he want his wife to continue to enjoy sex with him? Does he know how often his wife's doctor mutilates the genitals of his patients in the process of what he would call a "natural" birth? Does he know that having a c-section increases his wife's chances of dying by 10 times? Does he know that use of pitocin to induce or augment labor increases the chances of a c-section? Does he know that in some hospitals, nearly 100% of birthing women get pitocin? Does he know that epidural anesthesia increases the risk of having a c-section? Does he know that if he takes his wife to the hospital for birth that he is relinquishing their rights to make decisions about what happens? Sure, they have the so-called right to informed consent, but any disagreement with doctors or hospitals can result in a call to CPS, which can result in court-ordered surgery and/or loss of custody. Don't believe me. Do your own research.

If you buy the hospital ticket, you will get the hospital ride.

If God designed women to give birth and God says that children are a blessing and the man is happy who has his quiver full of them, then why do we have an epidemic of c-sections, hysterectomies, organ prolapse, incontinent, frigid women and families who are wiped out by medical bills? It isn't because childbirth is dangerous. It is because we don't think the decisions about where and how to give birth are faith-based decisions and we trust the medical/drug industry more than we trust the Creator. Womb to the tomb, they direct our destiny.

Feminism and the Destruction of Western Society

This post over at Alpha Game blog gives an example of how feminism and the female imperative are contributing to the destruction of Western society. Patriarchy is where we need to return.

I especially appreciate the observations of one commenter concerning the behavior of his chickens and how women engage in similar antics.

Why Feminized Societies Will Fail (at Alpha Game)