Singled out for Good

By Paige Benton
Had I any vague premonition of my present plight when I was six, I would have demanded that Stephen
Herbison (incontestably the catch of the second grade) put his marriage proposal into writing and have it
notarized. I do want this piece to be practical, so to all you first-graders: carpe diem.
Over the past several years I have perfected the artistry of escape regarding any singles functions-cookouts, conferences, Sunday school classes, and my personal favorite, putt-putt. My avoidance
mechanism is triggered not so much by a lack of patience with such activities as it is by a lack of stomach
for the pervasive attitudes. Thoreau insists that most men lead lives of quiet desperation; I insist that
many singles lead lives of loud aggravation. Being immersed in singles can be like finding yourself in the
midst of "The Whiners" of 1980s Saturday Night Live--it gives a whole new meaning to "pity party."
Much has been written in Christian circles about singleness. The objective
is usually either to chide the married population for their misunderstanding and segregationism or to
empathize with the unmarried population as they bear the cross of "Plan B" for the Christian life,
bolstered only by the consolation prizes of innumerable sermons on 1 Corinthians 7 and the fact that you
can cut your toenails in bed. Yet singles, like all believers, need scriptural critique and instruction
seasoned by sober grace, not condolences and putt-putt accompanied with pious platitudes.
John Calvin's secret to sanctification is the interaction of the knowledge of God and knowledge of self.
Singles, like all other sinners, typically dismiss the first element of the formula, and therein lies the root
of all identity crises. It is not that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but that life has no tragedy like
our God ignored. Every problem is a theological problem, and the habitual discontent of us singles is no
exception.
Can God be any less good to me on the average Tuesday morning than he was on that monumental Friday
afternoon when he hung on a cross in my place? The answer is a resounding no. God will not be less good
to me tomorrow either, because God cannot be less good to me. His goodness is not the effect of his
disposition but the essence of his person--not an attitude but an attribute.
I long to be married. My younger sister got married two months ago. She now has an adoring husband, a
beautiful home, a whirlpool bathtub, and all-new Corningware. Is God being any less good to me than he
is to her? The answer is a resounding no. God will not be less good to me because God cannot be less
good to me. It is a cosmic impossibility for God to shortchange any of his children.
God can no more live in me apart from the perfect fullness of his goodness and grace than I can live in
Nashville and not be white. If he fluctuated one quark in his goodness he would cease to be God.
Warped theology is at the heart of attempts to "explain" singleness: "As soon as you're satisfied with God
alone, he'll bring someone special into your life"--as though God's blessings are ever earned by our
contentment. "You're too picky"--as though God is frustrated by our fickle whims and needs broader
parameters in which to work. "As a single you can commit yourself wholeheartedly to the Lord's work"-as though God requires emotional martyrs to do his work, of which marriage must be no part. "Before
you can marry someone wonderful the Lord has to make you someone wonderful"--as though God grants
marriage as a second blessing to the satisfactorily sanctified.
Accepting singleness, whether temporary or permanent, does not hinge on speculation about answers
God has not given to our list of whys, but rather on celebration of the life he has given. I am not single
because I am
too spiritually unstable to possibly deserve a husband, nor because I am too spiritually mature to possibly
need one. I am single because God is so abundantly good to me, because this is his best for me. It is a

cosmic impossibility that anything could be better for me right now than being single. The psalmists
confirm that I should not want, I shall not want, because no good thing will God withhold from me.
Such knowledge of God must transform subsequent knowledge of self-theological readjustment is always
the catalyst for renewed self-awareness. This keeps identity right-side-up with nouns and modifiers in
their correct place. Am I a Christian single or am I a single Christian? The discrepancy in grammatical
construction may be somewhat subtle, but the difference in mindset is profound. Which word is
determinative and which is descriptive?
You see, we singles are chronic amnesiacs--we forget who we are, we forget whose we are. I am a single
Christian. My identity is not found in my marital status but in my redemptive status. I am one of the
"haves," not one of the "have-nots."
Have you ever wondered at what age one is officially single? Perhaps a sliding scale is in order: 38 for a
Wall Street tycoon; 21 for a Mississippi
sorority girl; 14 for a Zulu princess; and five years older than I am for me. It is a relevant question
because at some point we see ourselves as "single," and that point is a place of greater danger than
despair. Singleness can be a mere euphemism for self-absorption--now is the "you time." No wife to
support? No husband to pamper? Well, then, by all means join three different golf courses, get a weekly
pedicure, raise emus, subscribe to People.
Singleness is never carte blanche for selfishness. A spouse is not a sufficient countermeasure for self. The
gospel is the only antidote for egocentricity. Christ did not come simply to save us from our sins, he came
to save us from our selves. And he most often rescues us from us through relationships, all kinds of
relationships. "Are you seeing anyone special?" a young matron in my home church asked patronizingly.
"Sure," I smiled. "I see you and you're special." OK, my sentiment was a little less than kind, but the
message is true. To be single is not to be alone. If someone asks if you are in a relationship right now,
your immediate response should be that you are in dozens. Our range of relational options are not
limited to getting married or to living in the sound-proof, isolated booth of Miss America pageants.
Christian growth mandates relational richness.
The only time folks talk about human covenants is in premarital counseling. How anemic. If our God is a
covenantal God then all of our relationships are covenantal. The gospel is not about how much I love God
(I typically love him very little); it is about how much God loves me. My relationships are not about how
much friends should love me, they are about how much I get to love them. No single should ever expect
relational impoverishment by virtue of being single. We should covenant to love people--to initiate, to
serve, to commit.
Many of my Vanderbilt girls have been reading Lady in Waiting, a popular book for Christian women
struggling with singleness. That's all fine and dandy, but what about a subtitle: And Meanwhile, Lady,
Get Working. It is a cosmic impossibility for God to require less of me in my relationships than he does of
the mother of four whose office is next door. Obedience knows no ages or stages.
Let's face it: singleness is not an inherently inferior state of affairs. If it were, heaven would be inferior to
this world for the majority of Christians (Mom is reconciled to being unmarried in glory as long as she
can be Daddy's roommate). But I want to be married. I pray to that end day. I may meet someone and
walk down the aisle in the next couple of years because God is so good to me. I may never have another
date and die an old maid at 93 because God is so good to me. Not my will but his be done. Until then I am
claiming as my theme verse, "If any man would come after me, let him . . . "

!"!
!"!#$%&''()*+,-./$.0
#$%&'(&)*+,,./01234"/!!5#6789
0:;<=&;&>>?*!@)):@<&*@;A*B@':=C9*6
!"#$%&''&(
$
6;D)$AEFD:$;9*$!)&$*)+(*)$",$-.$/&$01$0'-&(10-&$*"-2$340--56789:8;<=$0'-&(10-&$10-".1$38$
>&-&($?7@<=$&A&1$0$B1&C$)+#01"-2B$3DE)5?786<5$F-B,$-.$/&$0$E'0*&$C)&(&$-)&$C.('G$*01$,&&$
C)0-$0$,.*"&-2$C.+'G$'..H$'"H&$"I$J)(",-$C0,$-)&$+'-"#0-&$A0'+&$(0-)&($-)01$!"#$%&'(")$%
*'+",=$.($,.#&$.-)&($"G.',5$3K$*.(E.(0-&$"G.'$",$.I-&1$*0''&G$0$BE.C&(B$"1$-)&$L!::0$M..G$
-)"1M$,)0E"1M$0$,.*"&-2$"1$0$/0G$C02$/&*0+,&$"-$)0,$/&&1$M"A&1$"G.'0-(.+,$+'-"#0-&$A0'+&5N$
F-B,$1.-$&1.+M)$-.$G",*+,,$J)(",-"01$'"A"1M$"1$-&(#,$.I$"1G"A"G+0'$&-)"*,$.1'25$$O&$0',.$0,H$
).C$0,$0$*.##+1"-2$'"A&,$.+-$-)&$BM.,E&':A0'+&,B$*.(E.(0-&'2=$*(&0-"1M$0$,.*"&-2$-)0-$(&I'&*-,$
-).,&$E(".("-"&,5$$
$
K''$,-+G"&,$,).C$-)0-$"1$C&,-&(1$*+'-+(&,$-)&$E&(*&1-0M&$.I$,"1M'&$0G+'-,$",$M(.C"1M5$F1$?PPP$
-)&$*&1,+,$,).C&G$-)0-$9QR$.I$0''$0G+'-$).+,&).'G&(,$C&(&$+1#0(("&G$3+E$I(.#$9?R$"1$
8@@P5<$J&1-&($*"-2$0(&0,$0(&$)&0A"'2$,"1M'&$01G$*)+(*)&,$'"H&$S&G&&#&($C"''$/&$'0(M&'2$
I"''&G$C"-)$,"1M'&$J)(",-"01,$C).$#+,-$I"1G$0$C02$-.$*.1G+*-$-)&"($(&'0-".1,)"E,$"1$
*.##+1"-2$,.$0,$-.$(&I'&*-$-)&$B1&C$)+#01"-2B$*(&0-&G$/2$-)&$M.,E&'5$
$
GH*7I2*.//J#200*/B*7I2*06#.32*36B2*K7L&*;$;4:A$=@D)C*$M*'@)):@<&N*
*
1@E=O>*P&:)A*Q@>>@<&*$;*>:;<=&;&>>
>0+'$,02,$-.,"%)'/%/(&0,,1"23%4'%('5%6''7%8',%0%+18"9%:/5%18%)'/%2'%&0,,)$%)'/%;0<"%('5%
!1(("2$%0(2%18%0%<1,=1(%&0,,1"!$%!;"%;0!%('5%!1(("29%:/5%5;'!"%+;'%&0,,)%+166%80>"%&0()%
5,'/?6"!%1(%5;1!%618"$%0(2%@%+0(5%5'%!*0,"%)'/%5;1!9%A;05%@%&"0(%1!%5;05%5;"%51&"%1!%!;',59-%38$
J.($T7?T:?Q<%*!)",$E0,,0M&$",$A&(2$*.1I+,"1M$.1$"-,$,+(I0*&5$$U"(,-=$-)",$A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&$
,&&#,$0-$E(.I.+1G$A0("01*&$C"-)$-)&$&V0'-&G$E"*-+(&$.I$#0(("0M&$"1$DE)&,"01,$67?8II5$O0,$
>0+'$W+,-$)0A"1M$0$/0G$G02$C)&1$)&$C(.-&$-)",X$Y&*.1G=$)",$A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&$,&&#,$-.$)0A&$
/&&1$*.1G"-".1&G$/2$0$*.1A"*-".1$-)0-$Z&,+,$C0,$*.#"1M$/0*H$012$G02$3-B;"%51&"%1!%
!;',5-C9%[.&,1B-$)",-.(2$,).C$-)0-$)&$C0,$C(.1MX$
$
OR:;<A$'*7L&$=$<CO*GQQ=:&A*D$*0:;<=&;&>>
\+-$"##&G"0-&'2$0I-&($-)",$E0,,0M&$>0+'$C("-&,7$-D,'&%('+%'($%5;'!"%+;'%;0<"%+1<"!%
!;'/62%61<"%0!%18%5;")%;02%('("9%B;'!"%+;'%&'/,(%0!%18%5;")%212%('59%B;'!"%+;'%0,"%;0**)%
0!%18%5;")%+","%('59%B;'!"%+;'%?/)%0!%18%15%+0!%('5%5;"1,!9%B;'!"%+;'%/!"%5;"%5;1(=!%'8%5;"%
+',62%0!%18%('5%"(=,'!!"2%1(%5;"&9%D',%5;1!%+',62%1(%15!%*,"!"(5%8',&%1!%*0!!1(=%0+0)9-%38$
J.(5$T7?@:]8<$$^&(&$C&$,&&$-)0-$/&)"1G$-5;"%51&"%1!%!;',5-%E)(0,&$",$0$#+*)$#.(&$
,.E)",-"*0-&G$A"&C$.I$)",-.(25$$>0+'$30,$Z&,+,<$-0+M)-$-)&$B.A&('0EB$.I$-)&$0M&,5$!)&$H"1MG.#$
.I$_.G::_.GB,$E.C&($-.$(&1&C$-)&$C).'&$.I$*(&0-".1::)0,$/(.H&1$"1-.$-)&$.'G$C.('G$3B0&.1B$
.($B0M&B<$-)(.+M)$J)(",-B,$I"(,-$*.#"1M5$!)&$H"1MG.#$",$)&(&$"1$0$,+/,-01-"0'$/+-$E0(-"0'$C02$
3S.#$8]788:89<5$`1$-)&$.1&$)01G=$"-$#&01,$-)0-$0''$-)&$,.*"0'$01G$#0-&("0'$*.1*&(1,$.I$-)",$
C.('G$,-"''$&V",-5$\+-$.1$-)&$.-)&($)01G=$-)&$M.,E&'$/("1M,$+,$01$"1-&(10'$W.2:E&0*&$01G$0$
).E&$"1$-)&$I+-+(&:.I:_.G$C)"*)$(&'0-"A"a&,$01G$-(01,I.(#,$0''$.+($&0(-)'2$(&'0-".1,)"E,$
3S.#$8978T<5$$!)&(&I.(&$C&$#+,-$1.-$b.A&(:"1A&,-b$.+(,&'A&,$01G$.+($)&0(-,$"1$012-)"1M$
/&,"G&,$-)&$H"1MG.#5$!)&$I+-+(&$.I$_.G$#&01,$(0G"*0'$I(&&G.#c$O&$0(&$1&"-)&($-..$&'0-&G$
/2$,+**&,,$1.($-..$*0,-$G.C1$/2$G",0EE."1-#&1-::/&*0+,&$.+($$-(+&$,+**&,,$",$"1$_.G$3J.'$
]78:9<5$$!).+M)$C&$)0A&$E.,,&,,".1,$C&$,).+'G$'"A&$0,$"I$-)&2$C&(&1B-$(&0''2$.+(,::I.($.+($
(&0'$C&0'-)$",$"1$_.G$3d+H&$8;78II5<$$O&$,).+'G$B,"-$'..,&B$-.$&A&(2-)"1M5$$!)&(&$",$1.-)"1M$
1.C$-)0-$C&$;0<"%-.$)0A&5$U"10''2=$>0+'$0EE'"&,$-)",$E("1*"E'&$-.$#0(("0M&$01G$,"1M'&1&,,5$

O&$0(&$1&"-)&($.A&(:&'0-&G$/2$M&--"1M$#0(("&G$1.($.A&(:G",0EE."1-&G$/2$1.-$/&"1M$,.::
/&*0+,&$J)(",-$",$-)&$.1'2$,E.+,&$-)0-$*01$-(+'2$I+'I"''$+,$01G$_.GB,$I0#"'2$-)&$.1'2$I0#"'2$
-)0-$C"''$-(+'2$&#/(0*&$01G$,0-",I2$+,$3DE)567?8II5<5$$
$
7L&*.$$A;&>>*@;A*#&F&>>:DC*$M*0:;<=&;&>>*:;*DL&*"L):>D:@;*"$''E;:DC
J)(",-"01"-2$C0,$-)&$A&(2$I"(,-$(&'"M".1$.($C.('G:A"&C$-)0-$)&'G$+E$,"1M'&$0G+'-)..G$0,$0$
A"0/'&$C02$.I$'"I&5$$Z&,+,$)"#,&'I$01G$Y-5>0+'$C&(&$,"1M'&5$$-E("F>6"0,%2188","(>"%?"5+""(%
G;,1!510(15)%0(2%H/201!&%I0(2%066%'5;",%5,02151'(06%,"61=1'(!J%1!%5;"%8',&",K!%"(5",501(&"(5%
'8%5;"%12"0%'8%!1(=6"("!!%0!%5;"%*0,021=&%+0)%'8%618"%8',%15!%8'66'+",!9-%3Y-01'&2$^0+&(C0,=$
.%G'&&/(15)%'8%G;0,0>5",$E58T9<$$L&0('2$0''$(&'"M".1,$01G$*+'-+(&,$#0G&$01$0/,.'+-&$A0'+&$
.I$-)&$I0#"'2$01G$.I$-)&$/&0("1M$.I$*)"'G(&15$!)&(&$C0,$1.$).1.($C"-).+-$I0#"'2$).1.(=$01G$
-)&(&$C0,$1.$(&0'$'0,-"1M$,"M1"I"*01*&$.($B'&M0*2B$C"-).+-$'&0A"1M$)&"(,5$$\2$*.1-(0,-=$-)&$
&0('2$*)+(*)$1.-$.1'2$G"G$1.-$E(&,,+(&$E&.E'&$-.$#0((2$30,$C&$,&&$"1$>0+'B,$'&--&(<$/+-$"-$
"1,-"-+-".10''2$,+EE.(-&G$E..($C"G.C,$,.$-)&2$G"G$1.-$)0A&$-.$(&#0((25$
$
-L;'/62%5;")%?"%+12'+"2$%G;,1!510(%+'&"(%"(M')"2%!/?!50(5106%02<0(50="!9%N0=0(%
+12'+!%80>"2%=,"05%!'>106%*,"!!/,"%5'%,"&0,,)O%./=/!5/!%"<"(%;02%+12'+!%81("2%18%5;")%
8016"2%5'%&0,,)%+15;1(%5+'%)"0,!9%@(%>'(5,0!5$%0&'(=%G;,1!510(!$%+12'+;''2%+0!%;1=;6)%
,"!*">5"2%0(2%,"&0,,10="%+0!$%18%0()5;1(=$%&1626)%21!>'/,0="29%B;"%>;/,>;%!5''2%,"02)%5'%
!/!501(%*'',%+12'+!$%066'+1(=%5;"&%0%>;'1>"%0!%5'%+;"5;",%',%('5%5'%,"&0,,)9%IL1(=6"%
+12'+!%+","%0>51<"%1(%>0,"P=1<1(=%0(2%=''2%2""2!%1(%5;"%("1=;?',;''29J%3Y-0(H=$B;"%Q1!"%
'8%G;,1!510(15)=$E58P9<5$
$
O)2X$!)&$J)(",-"01$M.,E&'$01G$).E&$.I$-)&$H"1MG.#:I+-+(&$G&:"G.'"a&G$#0(("0M&5$
-L1(=6"("!!%+0!%6"=151&05"2$%('5%?">0/!"%!"#%+0!%R/"!51'(0?6"$%?/5%?">0/!"%5;"%&1!!1'(%'8%
5;"%>;/,>;%1!%K?"5+""(%5;"%51&"!K%e-)&$.A&('0E$.I$-)&$0M&,NFA"%&/!5%,"&"&?",%5;05%5;"%
K!0>,181>"K%&02"%?)%!1(=6"!%+0!%('5%IM/!5%1(J%K=1<1(=%/*%!"#K%?/5%1(%=1<1(=%/*%;"1,!9%%B;","%
>'/62%?"%('%&',"%,021>06%0>5%5;05%5;05S%B;1!%+0!%0%>6"0,%"#*,"!!1'(%5;05%'("K!%8/5/,"%1!%('5%
=/0,0(5""2%?)%5;"%80&16)$%?/5%?)%5;"%I71(=2'&%'8%T'2%0(2%5;"J%>;/,>;F-$3$^0+&(C0,=$
E58@P<5$$bIU'+$%1(%5;"%'<",60*%'8%5;"%0="!J$%?'5;%!1(=6"("!!%0(2%&0,,10="%0,"%!)&?'61>%
1(!515/51'(!%8',%5;"%>'(!515/51'(%'8%5;"%>;/,>;K!%+15("!!%'8%5;"%71(=2'&9%U"15;",%>0(%?"%<0612%
+15;'/5%5;"%'5;",9%@8%!1(=6"("!!%1!%0%!)&?'6%'8%5;"%>;/,>;K!%>'(812"(>"%1(%T'2K!%*'+",%5'%
>'(<",5%61<"!%8',%5;"%=,'+5;%'8%5;"%>;/,>;$%&0,,10="%0(2%*,'>,"051'(%1!%5;"%!)&?'6%'8%5;"%
>;/,>;K!%;'*"%8',%5;"%+',629%D',%G;,1!510(!%2'%('5%*60>"%5;"1,%;'*"%1(%5;"1,%>;162,"($%?/5%
,05;",%5;"1,%>;162,"(%0,"%0%!1=(%'8%5;"1,%;'*"F5;05%T'2%;0!%('5%0?0(2'("2%5;1!%+',62F-%
3^0+&(C0,=$E58@8<$
$
7L&*B:)>D*7L&$=$<:F@=*1E)Q$>&*$M*!@)):@<&
[.$2.+$,&&$).C$-)&$M.,E&'$*)01M&,$.+($A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&$01G$,"1M'&1&,,X$J)(",-"01,$0(&$-.$
*)..,&$/&-C&&1$#0(("0M&$01G$,"1M'&1&,,$1.-$0<$I.($-)&$/0,"*$*.1-&#E.(0(2$#.-"A&$
3"G.'0-(2<$.I$E&(,.10'$I+'I"''#&1-$1.($/<$I.($-)&$-(0G"-".10'$#.-"A&$3"G.'0-(2<$-)0-$2.+$0(&1B-$
B012/.G2B$+1'&,,$2.+$)0A&$0$I0#"'2$01G$*)"'G(&15$S0-)&(=$C&$#0((2$3.($1.-<$.1$-)&$/0,",$.I$
C)"*)$,-0-&$#0H&,$+,$/&,-$1-2*3)-&4-+56-7*)38&'9--^0+&(C0,$,02,$-)0-$,"1M'&$J)(",-"01$
0G+'-,$C&(&$0$,-0(-'"1M$C"-1&,,$-.$-)&$*.#"1M$H"1MG.#$"1$-)0-$01*"&1-$C.('G5$$!)&2$,).C&G$
-)0-$-)&"($).E&$01G$,"M1"I"*01*&$C0,$1.-$"1$I0#"'2$.($)&"(,$/+-$"1$-)&$H"1MG.#5$\+-$/.-)$
-)&1$301G$"!*">1066)%1.C::,&&$/&'.C<$/&"1M$#0(("&G$",$0',.$0$C02$-.$/&$0$,"M1$.I$-)&$
H"1MG.#5$
$
!)",$",$0$H&2$(&0,.1$C)2$-)&$\"/'&$I.(/"G,$2.+$-.$C"--"1M'2$#0((2$,.#&.1&$C).$G.&,1B-$
,)0(&$2.+($I0"-)5$\&*0+,&$.1&$.I$-)&$#0"1$E+(E.,&$.I$#0(("0M&$",$+&-:(*;8-7*)83&'$
6<5*:*+*)3-=&''()*+,::-.$,).C$-)&$C.('G$).C$J)(",-$-(01,I.(#,$&A&(2-)"1M=$"1*'+G"1M$
#0(("0M&5$f.+$*01B-$G.$-)0-$0-$0''$"I$/.-)$,E.+,&,$0(&1B-$/&'"&A&(,5$K$J)(",-"01$C).$C"--"1M'2$
#0(("&,$0$1.1:/&'"&A&($,).C,$-)0-$)",$.($)&($#.-"A&$",$1.-$#",,".1$.($H"1MG.#:&V)"/"-".15$

`1&$.I$-)&$#0"1$C02,$301G$#02/&$5;"%#0"1$C02<$-)0-$#0(("&G$J)(",-"01,$C"-1&,,$-.$J)(",-$
",$-.$,).C$-)&$G"II&(&1*&$J)(",-$#0H&,$"1$#0(("0M&5$
$
!)",$",$C)2$#012$,"1M'&$J)(",-"01$0G+'-,$G.$1.-$#0((2$&A&1$-).+M)$-)&2$)0A&$0$A&(2$G&&E$
G&,"(&$-.$G.$,.5$$FI$.1&$1.1:1&M.-"0/'&$(&0,.1$I.($#0(("0M&$",$H"1MG.#:&V)"/"-".1=$-)&1$-)0-$
'&0A&,$.+-$0$'.-$.I$.-)&(C",&$M..G$E(.,E&*-,c$$FI$2.+$*01$.1'2$#0((2$B"1$-)&$d.(GB$2.+($BE..'$
.I$*01G"G0-&,B$,)("1H,$G(0,-"*0''25$\+-$"I$0$,"1M'&$J)(",-"01$(&#0"1,$,"1M'&$'0(M&'2$/&*0+,&$)&$
.($,)&$C"''$1.-$*.#E(.#",&$)&(&=$-)&1$C&$0(&$E02"1M$0$E("*&$I.($-)&$H"1MG.#5$O&$0(&$
E(.#",&G$-.$/&$/'&,,&G$I.($-)0-$38$>&-$978]:89=8@<$$K1G$_.G$C"''$+,&$-)&$J)(",-"01B,$
,"1M'&1&,,$-.$#"1",-&($-.$.-)&(,$"1$C02,$-)0-$#0(("&G$E&.E'&$*011.-$3*I5$8$J.($T7]?:]9<5
$
F1$,+##0(2::-)&$E+(E.,&$.I$/.-)$,"1M'&1&,,$01G$#0(("0M&$",$-.$*(&0-&$*.##+1"-"&,$C)"*)$
0(&$0$,"M1$.I$-)&$M'.(2$.I$-)&$*.#"1M$301G$E(&,&1-<$H"1MG.#$.I$_.G5$\+-$-.$G.$-)0-=$&A&(2$
*)+(*)$1&&G,$0$*.#/"10-".1$.I$/.-)$J)(",-"01$#0(("&G$*.+E'&,$01G$J)(",-"01$,"1M'&,5$$\.-)$
*.+E'&,$01G$,"1M'&,$*01$#"1",-&($-.$&0*)$.-)&($3,&&$E."1-$\5<$>0+'B,$,-0-&#&1-,$,).C$-)0-$
-)&(&$0(&$0GA01-0M&,$01G$G",0GA01-0M&,$"1$#"1",-(2$I.($/.-)$,"1M'&,$01G$#0(("&G,5$
^0+&(C0,$E."1-,$.+-$-)0-$,"1M'&,$01G$#0(("&G,$/.-)$E."1-$-.$-)&$).E&$.I$J)(",-$"1$G"II&(&1-$
C02,5$$!)&$C.('G$1&&G,$-.$,&&$/.-)5$
$
G*>?(;,-I:<L*S:&P*$M*!@)):@<&*'&@;>*@*I:<L*S:&P*$M*0:;<=&;&>>
F(.1"*0''2=$DE)$67?8II=$C"-)$"-,$B&V0'-&GB$A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&=$0',.$,+EE.(-,$-)&$"G&0$.I$-)&$
M..G1&,,$.I$,"1M'&1&,,c$$^.CX$$DE)&,"01,$6$-&'',$+,$-)0-$#0(("0M&$",$1.-$+'-"#0-&'2$0/.+-$
,&V$.($,.*"0'$,-0/"'"-2$.($E&(,.10'$I+'I"''#&1-5$$40(("0M&$C0,$*(&0-&G$-.$/&$0$(&I'&*-".1$.1$
-)&$)+#01$'&A&'$.I$.+($+'-"#0-&$'.A&$(&'0-".1,)"E$01G$+1".1$C"-)$-)&$d.(G5$$40(("&G$'.A&$",$
-)&(&I.(&$,0*(&G$01G$/'&,,&G5$40(("&G$'.A&$#+,-$-)&(&I.(&$I.''.C$-)&$E0--&(1$.I$Z&,+,B$
,0*("I"*"0'$'.A&$I.($+,5$D-*$D-*$
$
\+-$-)",$&V0'-&G$A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&$-&'',$+,$-)0-$#0(("0M&$",$.1'2$E&1:+'-"#0-&5$$F-$E."1-,$-.$
-)&$S&0'$40(("0M&$-)0-$.+($,.+',$1&&G$01G$-)&$S&0'$U0#"'2$.+($)&0(-,$C01-5$!)&$B.A&('0EB$.I$
-)&$0M&,$#&01,$-)0-$"1$-)",$/(.H&1:/+-:(&G&&#"1M$C.('G=$#0(("0M&$",$.1'2$0$E0(-"0'$)&'E5$$F-$
",$1.-$0$E010*&05$$L.$#0(("0M&$C"''$*.#E'&-&'2$M"A&$+,$C)0-$C&$C01-$.($1&&G5$$DE)&,"01,$6$
#&01,$-)0-$&A&1$-).,&$J)(",-"01,$#0(("&G$-.$J)(",-"01,$C"''$G.$0$-&(("/'&$W./$.I$*.1G+*-"1M$
-)&"($#0(("0M&$"I$-)&2$G.1B-$)0A&$0$G&&E'2$I+'I"''"1M$'.A&$(&'0-".1,)"E$C"-)$J)(",-$1.C=$01G$
01$+'-"#0-&$).E&$"1$0$E&(I&*-$'.A&$(&'0-".1,)"E$-)&15$$FI$C&$G.1B-$)0A&$-)0-=$#0(("&G$E&.E'&$
C"''$E+-$-..$#+*)$E(&,,+(&$.1$-)&"($#0(("0M&$-.$I+'I"''$-)&#=$01G$-)0-$C"''$0'C02,$*(&0-&$
E0-).'.M2$"1$-)&"($'"A&,5$FI$,"1M'&,=$-)&1=$G.1B-$)0A&$-)&$,0#&$I+'I"''"1M$'.A&$(&'0-".1,)"E$
C"-)$Z&,+,=$-)&2$C"''$E+-$-)0-$E(&,,+(&$.1$-)&"($2,"0&$.I$#0(("0M&=$01G$-)0-$C"''$*(&0-&$
E0-).'.M2$"1$-)&"($'"A&,$0,$C&''5$\+-$"I$,"1M'&,$G.$(&,-$"1$01G$(&W."*&$"1$-)&"($#0(("0M&$-.$
J)(",-=$-)0-$#&01,$-)&2$C"''$/&$0/'&$-.$)01G'&$,"1M'&$'"I&$C"-).+-$G&A0,-0-"1M$'.1&'"1&,,5$
Y"1M'&,$#+,-$(&0'"a&$-)0-$-)&$A&(2$,0#&$"G.'0-(2$.I$#0(("0M&$-)0-$",$G",-.(-"1M$-)&"($,"1M'&$
'"A&,$C.+'G$3.($C"''<$G",-.(-$-)&"($#0(("&G$'"A&,5$
$
1)@FD:F@=*6'Q=:F@D:$;*M$)*DL&*"LE)FLH*!)&$M.,E&':/0,&G$*.##+1"-2$E(0*-"*&,$0$A"&C$.I$
,"1M'&1&,,$-)0-$",$*.1-(0(2$-.$-)&$"G.'0-(2$.I$#0(("0M&$.I-&1$,&&1$"1$-(0G"-".10'$*+'-+(&5$F-$
I(&&,$,"1M'&,$I(.#$-)&$,)0#&$.I$/&"1M$+1#0(("&G5$F-$,E&0H,$(&0'",-"*0''2$01G$1.-$
,&1-"#&1-0''2$0/.+-$#0(("0M&5$F-$-(&0-,$,"1M'&,$'"H&$&g+0'$#&#/&(,$01G$'&0G&(,$"1$-)&$
*)+(*)5$h1I.(-+10-&'2=$#012$.($#.,-$J)(",-"01$*)+(*)&,$"#/"/&$#.(&$.I$-)&$-(0G"-".10':
,.*"&-2:A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&$-)01$0$M.,E&'$/0,&G$#0(("0M&5$F-$",$1.$&V0MM&(0-".1$-.$,02$-)0-$
#.,-$*)+(*)&,$*.1-"1+&$-.$#0H&$J)(",-"01$,"1M'&$0G+'-,$I&&'$'"H&$I(&0H,$.($&',&$#0H&$-)&#$
01$./W&*-$.I$C&'':#&01-$/+-$E0-(.1"a"1M$E"-25$$J)+(*)&,$G.$1.-$-0H&$8$J.(5T$,&(".+,'2$0-$0''5$
!)&2$*011.-$I0-).#$).C$.($C)2$>0+'$C.+'G$,E&0H$,.$)"M)'2$0/.+-$,"1M'&1&,,$01G$,.$
(&0'",-"*0''2$0/.+-$#0(("0M&5$$
$
$
]

TH*7I2*BU22J/!*/B*7I2*06#.32*36B2*K7L&*;$;4M&@)*$M*'@)):@<&N*
$
"$;D&'Q$)@)C*6A$=@D):&>*@;A*!@)):@<&
^.C&A&(=$-)&$M.,E&':/0,&G$*.##+1"-2$G.&,$1.-$.1'2$E(0*-"*&$0$A"&C$.I$,"1M'&1&,,$-)0-$",$
*.1-(0(2$-.$-)0-$.I$-(0G"-".10'$*+'-+(&=$/+-$0',.$-.$-)0-$.I$*.1-&#E.(0(2$*+'-+(&5$
J.1-&#E.(0(2$*+'-+(&$",$A&(2$*21"*0'$0/.+-$#0(("0M&$01G$0A."G,$"-$01G$I&0(,$"-$3.($0-$'&0,-$
E+-,$"-$.II<$"1.(G"10-&'25$$!)&$\"/'&$2'"!%)0A&$01$&V0'-&G$A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&=$0,$DE)&,"01,$6$
,).C,$+,5$!)0-$#&01,$-)0-$#0(("0M&$,).+'G$0',.$1.-$/&$I&0(&G$.($0A."G&G9%O)"'&$-(0G"-".10'$
,.*"&-"&,$-&1G$-.$#0H&$01$"G.'$.+-$.I$#0(("0M&$3/&*0+,&$"-$#0H&,$01$"G.'$.+-$.I$-)&$I0#"'2$
01G$-("/&<=$*.1-&#E.(0(2$,.*"&-"&,$-&1G$-.$#0H&$01$"G.'$.I$"1G&E&1G&1*&$3/&*0+,&$"-$#0H&,$
01$"G.'$.+-$.I$"1G"A"G+0'$*)."*&$01G$)0EE"1&,,5<$O)"'&$-)&$-(0G"-".10'$#.-"A&$I.($#0(("0M&$
C0,$,.*"0'$G+-2=$,-0/"'"-2=$01G$,-0-+,=$-)&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$#.-"A&$I.($#0(("0M&$",$I.($E&(,.10'$
I+'I"''#&1-5$$\.-)$.I$-)&,&$#.-"A&,$0(&$E0(-"0''2$-(+&=$.I$*.+(,&=$/+-$-)&2$-&1G$-.$/&*.#&$
+'-"#0-&,$"I$-)&$M.,E&'$)0,$1.-$*)01M&G$2.+($#"1G$01G$)&0(-5$$^.C&A&(=$,"1*&$C&$'"A&$"1$0$
*.1-&#E.(0(2$C&,-&(1$,.*"&-2$C)"*)$"G.'"a&,$"1G&E&1G&1*&$01G$E&(,.10'$I+'I"''#&1-=$
J)(",-"01$,"1M'&,$0(&$.I-&1$&II&*-&G$/2$-)&,&$BC.('G'2B$A0'+&,$"1$,+/-'&$C02,5$$42$&VE&("&1*&$
"1$LfJ$",$-)0-$0-$'&0,-$0,$#012$J)(",-"01$,"1M'&,$0(&$"1I&*-&G$-)&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$"G.',$3I&0($
.I$#0(("0M&<$0,$/2$-(0G"-".10'$"G.',$3.A&(:G&,"(&$I.($#0(("0M&<5$!)",$A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&$/("1M,$
C"-)$"-$-)&$I.''.C"1M$E0-).'.M"&,5
$
T"(",06%N",8">51'(1!&9-`1&$#0W.($I(+"-$.I$-)&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$*+'-+(&:A"&C$",$-)0-$,"1M'&,$0(&$
&V-(&#&'2$E&(I&*-".1",-"*$01G$"#E.,,"/'&$-.$,0-",I2$0,$-)&2$'..H$0-$E(.,E&*-"A&$,E.+,&,5$$
L*">181>%N",8">51'(1!&V%W''7!%0(2%X'(")9-$O)&1$*.1-&#E.(0(2$,"1M'&,$,02$-)&2$C01-$
E&(,.10'$BI+'I"''#&1-B$"1$#0(("0M&=$-)&2$+,+0''2$#&01$8<$,&V+0'$I+'I"''#&1-$01G$?<$*0(&&($.($
#0-&("0'$I+'I"''#&1-=$1.-$-)&$I+'I"''#&1-$.I$*)0(0*-&($M(.C-)$3DE)$67?6:?T<$"1-.$'.A&=$E&0*&=$
W.2=$01G$).E&$3J.'$8=$_0'$6=$8$J.($8]<5$$K,$0$(&,+'-=$#.G&(1$G0-"1M$",$0$(&#0(H0/'2$*(0,,$
I.(#$.I$,&'I:#&(*)01G","1M5$$f.+$#+,-$'..H$M..G$01G$#0H&$#.1&2$"I$2.+$0(&$-.$0--(0*-$
G0-&,=$0$E0(-1&(=$.($0$,E.+,&5$$!)&$(&0,.1$2.+$C01-$0$M..G$'..H"1M$.($0II'+&1-$E0(-1&($",$I.($
2.+($.C1$,&'I:&,-&&#$3"5&5$BE&(,.10'$I+'I"''#&1-B<5$$
$
7L&*0&F$;A*7L&$=$<:F@=*1E)Q$>&*$M*!@)):@<&
!)&(&$0(&$#012$,.*".'.M"*0'$&VE'010-".1,$I.($C)2$,"1M'&,$-.G02$E+-$.II$#0(("0M&$01G$0(&$,.$
,'.C$-.$#.A&$"1-.$*.##"-#&1-5$$`1&$(&0,.1$M"A&1$",$-)0-=$/&*0+,&$,.$#012$2.+1M&($0G+'-,$
0(&$1.C$-)&$E(.G+*-$.I$G"A.(*&=$-)&2$0(&$,+,E"*".+,$.I$E(.,E&*-"A&$E0(-1&(,5$$K1.-)&($(&0,.1$
M"A&1$",$-)0-$"1$-)&$E0,-$"-$C0,$)0(G$-.$BM&-$,&VB$C"-).+-$/&"1M$#0(("&G=$/+-$-)0-$",$1.$
E(./'&#$1.C5$$!)&,&$0(&$*&(-0"1'2$I0*-.(,=$01G$2&-$F$H1.C$#012$J)(",-"01$,"1M'&,$C).$0(&$
/&"1M$*&'"/0-&$01G$C).$)0A&$*.#&$I(.#$"1-0*-$).#&,$C).$31.1&-)&'&,,<$0(&$)0A"1M$0,$
#+*)$-(.+/'&$#.A"1M$"1-.$*.##"--&G$(&'0-".1,)"E,$0,$&A&(2.1&$&',&5$F$E(.E.,&$-)0-$-)&$
(&0,.1$I.($-)&$E&(I&*-".1",#$M.&,$G&&E&(5$$$!)&$*+'-+(&$,&&,$-)&$E+(E.,&$.I$#0(("0M&$0,$
/0,"*0''2$bI+'I"''#&1-b5$$DE)&,"01,$6=$).C&A&(=$).'G,$.+-$-)0-$0-$'&0,-$.1&$.I$-)&$E+(E.,&,$.I$
J)(",-"01$#0(("0M&$",$b,01*-"I"*0-".1b5$
$
-Y/!?0(2!%6'<"%)'/,%+1<"!%M/!5%0!%G;,1!5%6'<"2%5;"%>;/,>;%0(2%=0<"%;1&!"68%/*%8',%;",$%5'%
&07"%;",%;'6)$%>6"0(!1(=%;",%?)%5;"%+0!;1(=%+15;%+05",%5;,'/=;%5;"%+',2$%0(2%5'%*,"!"(5%
;",%5'%;1&!"68%0%,0210(5%>;/,>;$%+15;'/5%!5,01(%',%+,1(76"%',%0()%?6"&1!;999-%3DE)$67?6:?T<$
$
U"(,-=$#0(("0M&$)&(&$",$)&'G$.+-$0,$.1&$.I$-)&$/&,-$E.,,"/'&$C02,$-.$'&0(1$0/.+-$.+($,"1,$01G$
M(.C$.+-$.I$-)&#$-)(.+M)$,E&0H"1M$-)&$-(+-)$"1$'.A&$C"-)$.1&$01.-)&(5$Y&*.1G=$-)",$E(.*&,,$
-0H&,$,0*("I"*&$.1$-)&$E0(-$.I$-)&$,E.+,&5$$F-$",$1.-$01$&0,2$E(.*&,,=$/+-$.I-&1$-)(&0-&1"1M$01G$
E0"1I+'5$$L.1&$.I$-)",$I"-,$"1-.$-)&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$#.G&'$.I$B#0(("0M&$0,$I+'I"''#&1-Bc$K,$
#+*)$0,$E.,,"/'&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$,"1M'&,$C01-$0$E0(-1&($C).$",$0'(&0G2$0$B-.M&-)&(B$E&(,.1$
01G$.1&$C).$",$'.C$#0"1-&101*&$01G$C"''$1.-$(&g+"(&$'.-,$.I$(&0((01M"1M$.I$2.+($'"I&5$L.$
C.1G&($"-$",$,.$)0(G$-.$I"1G$*01G"G0-&,$'"H&$-)",c$$
$
9

F$-)"1H$"-$",$.1'2$I0"($-.$,02$-)0-$C)"'&$-)&(&$)0A&$/&&1$#012$)0EE2$&V*&E-".1,=$-)&$J)(",-"01$
*.##+1"-2$.I$,"1M'&,$"1$#.,-$*"-"&,$.E&(0-&$"1$E(&--2$#+*)$-)&$,0#&$C025$$F1$-)&$J)(",-"01$
,"1M'&B,$#"1G=$$#.,-$*01G"G0-&,$0(&$"##&G"0-&'2$,*(&&1&G$.+-$3&'"#"10-&G$I(.#$
*.1,"G&(0-".1<$.1$-)&$/0,",$.I$'..H,=$E.'",)=$01G$#0-&("0'i,.*"0'$,-0-+,5$$!)",$",$,"#E'2$
01.-)&($C02$"1$C)"*)$J)(",-"01$,"1M'&,$0(&$/&"1M$&II&*-&G$/2$-)&$*+'-+(&B,$BI0($"G.'B$.I$
E&(,.10'$I+'I"''#&1-$01G$B1&0($"G.',B$.I$,&V+0'$/&0+-2$01G$#.1&25$$!)&2$0(&$'..H"1M$I.($
,.#&.1&$0'(&0G2$B/&0+-"I+'B$"1$-)&$#.,-$,+E&(I"*"0'$C025$F1,-&0G=$C&$,).+'G$(&0'"a&$-)0-$
#0(("0M&$",$1-@65*=;6-4&?-56;A*)3-&(?-2A&(262-:6=&'6-+56*?-4(+(?6$26;@62-+5?&(35 21=?*4*=*1;-26?@*=69-$O&$0(&$-.$I0''$"1$'.A&$C"-)$-)&$M'.(".+,$-)"1M$_.G$",$G."1M$"1$.+($
,E.+,&B,$'"I&5$O&$/&*.#&$*.##"--&G$-.$.+($,E.+,&B,$I+-+(&$M'.(25$O&$C01-$-.$G.$C)0-&A&($"-$
-0H&,$-.$/&$0$A&)"*'&$I.($-)0-5$$F(.1"*0''2=$-)",$A"&C$.I$#0(("0M&$&A&1-+0''2$G.&,$E(.A"G&$
+1/&'"&A0/'&$E&(,.10'$I+'I"''#&1-=$/+-$1.-$"1$-)&$,0*("I"*&:'&,,$01G$,+E&(I"*"0'$C02$-)0-$
*.1-&#E.(0(2$E&.E'&$C01-$"-$-.$*.#&5
$
eL.-&7$K*-+0''2=$E&.E'&$C"-)$B-(0G"-".10'$,.*"&-2B$"G.',$*01$#0H&$"G.',$.+-$.I$'..H,$01G$
#.1&2$0,$C&''5$$F1$-(0G"-".10'$*+'-+(&=$-)&$I0#"'2$C0,$.+($).E&::"-$C0,$-)&$C02$-.$&,-0/'",)$
.+($10#&=$.+($&*.1.#"*$01G$,.*"0'$,-0-+,5$$!)",$0',.$'&0G,$-.$#0H"1M$'..H,$01G$#.1&2$"1-.$
"1.(G"10-&$I0*-.(,$"1$*)..,"1M$(&'0-".1,)"E,5N
$
0$'&*/DL&)*U&@>$;>*M$)*!@)):@<&4G%$:A@;F&
!)&(&$0(&$E(./0/'2$,.#&$.-)&($(&0,.1,$I.($-)&$I0*-$-)0-$#012$J)(",-"01$,"1M'&,$C.1B-$#.A&$
.+-$"1-.$(&'0-".1,)"E,5$$U"(,-=$"1$0$*)+(*)$'"H&$S&G&&#&(=$#012$E&.E'&$0(&$1&C&($-.$-)&$
J)(",-"01$I0"-)5$!)&2$C&(&$*.#E'&-&'2$0G&E-$0-$-)&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$0EE(.0*)$-.$G0-"1M$01G$
#0(("0M&=$10#&'27$8<$G0-"1M$",$,"#E'2$I.($I+1=$,&V=$01G$#02/&$,.*"0'$,-0-+,=$C)"'&$?<$
#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M$",$A&(2$.E-".10'=$.1'2$I.($-)&$/(0A&=$01G$C)&1$"-$",$G.1&::.1'2$I.($(",H:
I(&&$E&(,.10'$I+'I"''#&1-=$,&V$01G$*0(&&(5$$L&C&($J)(",-"01,$1.C$(&0'"a&$-)0-$J)(",-"01$
G0-"1M$(&'0-".1,)"E,$,).+'G$/&$G"II&(&1-::#.(&$,&(".+,=$.($,.#&-)"1M$3cX<$$\+-$-)&$
,&(".+,1&,,$#02$/&$(0-)&($,*0(2$-.$0$E&(,.1$C).$",$+,&G$-.$G0-"1M:0,:,&V+0':I+15$Y&*.1G=$F$
-)"1H$S&G&&#&($)0,$0$(0-)&($&g+0'$/0'01*&$.I$,"1M'&,$C).$)0A&$-)&$.A&(:G&,"(&$I.($#0(("0M&$
01G$,"1M'&,$C).$)0A&$-)&$I&0(:0A."G01*&$E(./'&#5$$!)&$*)01*&,$.I$.1&$H"1G$G0-"1M$-)&$
.-)&($H"1G$0-$S&G&&#&($",$I0"('2$M..G=$/+-$-)&$*.#/"10-".1$*01$/&$&VE'.,"A&c$
$
!)"(G=$,.#&$E&.E'&$,"#E'2$)0A&$-&#E&(0#&1-,$-)0-$)"M)'2$A0'+&$"1G"A"G+0'$I(&&G.#$01G$
0+-.1.#25$$[",E(.E.(-".10-&$1+#/&(,$.I$-)&,&$E&.E'&$0(&$0--(0*-&G$-.$0$E'0*&$'"H&$L&C$
f.(H$J"-25$$^&(&$-)&2$*01$*.1,-(+*-$-)&"($.C1$'"A&,$01G$'"I&,-2'&,$I(&&$I(.#$-)&$*.1,-(0"1-,$
01G$&VE&*-0-".1,$E+-$.1$-)&#$"1$#.,-$.I$-)&$(&,-$.I$-)&$C.('G5$$K$)"M)$E&(*&1-0M&$.I$,+*)$
E&.E'&$E(./0/'2$#0H&$01$&#.-".10':E,2*).'.M"*0'$"G.'$.I$E&(,.10'$I(&&G.#5$$!)&2$I&&'$
,"#E'2$,-"I'&G$/2$-)&$'.,,$.I$I(&&G.#$-)0-$#0(("0M&$C"''$#&015$
$
U.+(-)=$G0-"1M$01G$#0(("0M&$)0,$0'C02,$/&&1$0$I("M)-&1"1M$E(.,E&*-$I.($0$,"M1"I"*01-$
E&(*&1-0M&$.I$&A&(2$M&1&(0-".15$F1$#.(&$-(0G"-".10'$,&--"1M,=$-)0-$E&(*&1-0M&$.I$,*0(&G:.I:
#0(("0M&$E&.E'&$M.-$,"M1"I"*01-$,+EE.(-$01G$M+"G01*&$301G$E(&,,+(&$-.$#0((2c<$I(.#$-)&$
,+((.+1G"1M$*.##+1"-2$01G$*+'-+(&5$$\+-$-)0-$G.&,$1.-$)0EE&1$"1$0$E'0*&$'"H&$LfJ5$$
$
UE=&>*$M*7LE'(*M$)*0&@>$;@=*!@)):@<&40&&V:;<
Y.$).C$G.&,$0$J)(",-"01$,"1M'&$,-("H&$0$/0'01*&$/&-C&&1$#0(("0M&:"G.'0-(2$01G$#0(("0M&:
0A."G"1MX$$Y&0,.10'$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M5$$F1$M&1&(0'=$-)0-$#&01,$-)0-$C)"'&$#+*)$.I$-)&$-"#&$
2.+$*01$/&$(&'0-"A&'2$E0,,"A&=$C0"-"1M$-.$B*.#&$0*(.,,B$,.#&.1&=$-)&(&$0(&$.-)&($-"#&,$"1$
C)"*)$2.+$,).+'G$/&$G&'"/&(0-&'2$'..H"1M$I.($E(.,E&*-"A&$#0(("0M&$E0(-1&(,$0#.1M$E&.E'&$
-)0-$2.+$#02$)0A&$.A&('..H&G5$$!)0-$",$0$/0'01*&G$0EE(.0*)5$^&(&$0(&$,.#&$(+'&,$.I$-)+#/5
$
B9-C6=&3)*D6-+56-2612&)2-4&?-)&+-8&*)3-'1??*136$2667*)3

!)&(&$0(&$#012$-"#&,$.($B,&0,.1,B$"1$C)"*)$0*-"A&$G0-"1M$01G$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M$G.$1.-$)0A&$
-.$/&$E+(,+&G5$K12.1&$C).$0'C02,$1&&G,$-.$B)0A&$,.#&/.G2B$",$E(./0/'2$"1$-.$#0(("0M&:
"G.'0-(25$
K12.1&$C).$",$1&A&($#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M$",$10"A&$0/.+-$2.+($.C1$,"1I+'$I&0(,$01G$
E&(I&*-".1",#5$$O)&1$2.+$0(&$M."1M$-)(.+M)$0$,"M1"I"*01-$-(01,"-".1::,-0(-"1M$0$1&C$W./=$
,-0(-"1M$0$1&C$,*)..'=$G&0-)$.I$0$E0(&1-=$.($,.#&$.-)&($I0"('2$0/,.(/"1M$-"#&$.($&A&1-::"-$
#"M)-$1.-$0-$0''$/&$0$M..G$-"#&$-.$B/&M"1$0$(&'0-".1,)"EB5$F1$I0*-=$0I-&($,.#&$&#.-".10''2:
*)0(M&G$-"#&,$2.+$#"M)-$C01-$-.$G&'"/&(0-&'2$0A."G$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M5$F1$,+*)$,"-+0-".1,=$
.I-&1$2.+($W+GM&#&1-$",$*'.+G2$01G$2.+($#.-"A&,$/0G5$$[+("1M$,.#&$-"#&,$.I$)&0'"1M$.($(&:
M(.+E"1M$2.+$E(./0/'2$1&&G$G&&E$J)(",-"01$I("&1G,)"E$#.(&$-)01$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M$01G$
G0-&,5$$
$
E9-F1@6-1-:1;1)=68-@*6G-&4-H2*)3;6-=1;;*)3H
>0+'$(&I&(,$-.$)",$,"1M'&1&,,$0,$0$BM"I-B$"1$8$J.($T7T5$$Y"1*&$)&$0'#.,-$"##&G"0-&'2$
0I-&(C0(G,$,02,=$-?/5%18%5;")%>0(('5%>'(5,'6%5;"&!"6<"!%5;")%!;'/62%&0,,)-%3A5Q<=$>0+'$
E(./0/'2$#&01,$-)0-$0$,"1M'&$BM"I-B$*.1,",-,$.I$0$A&(2$'.C$BI&'-$1&&GB$I.($0$(.#01-"*$
(&'0-".1,)"E$.($#0(("0M&5$$O&$1&&G$-.$#0H&$0$I&C$*0+-".10(2$(&#0(H,$)&(&=$).C&A&(5$$0<$
U"(,-=$"-$",$E.,,"/'&$-)0-$0$B'.C$1&&GB$I.($(&'0-".1,)"E,$",$1.-$I(.#$_.G$/+-$",$0$,"M1$.I$0$G&&E$
"G.'0-(2$.I$E&(,.10'$I(&&G.#5$`($"-$#02$/&$01$"10/"'"-2$-.$*(&0-&$G&&E$(&'0-".1,)"E,$"1$
M&1&(0'5$[.1B-$#",-0H&$0$,&'I",)$,E"("-$.($01$"10/"'"-2$-.$H&&E$I("&1G,)"E,$.($0$I&0(iG",G0"1$.I$
-)&$.EE.,"-&$,&V$0,$0$B,"1M'&$M"I-Bc$F1$.-)&($C.(G,=$C&$,).+'G$1.-$/&$-..$g+"*H$-.$0**&E-$0$
'0*H$.I$(.#01-"*$G&,"(&$0,$0$BM"I-B$I(.#$_.G5$h1'&,,$2.+BA&$G.1&$,.#&$,&(".+,$G0-"1M$01G$
#0G&$0$-(+&$&II.(-=$2.+$*01B-$/&$,+(&$0/.+-$2.+($.C1$)&0(-$"1$-)",$(&M0(G5$$$/<$Y&*.1G=$"-$",$
E.,,"/'&$-)0-$0$BM"I-B$'"H&$-)",$",$1.-$0$E&(#01&1-$*.1G"-".1$/+-$(0-)&($,.#&-)"1M$M"A&1$I.($0$
G&I"1"-&$E&(".G$.I$-"#&5$$F-$#+,-$/&$(&:&A0'+0-&G$E&(".G"*0''25$$*<$!)"(G=$"-$",$1.-$E.,,"/'&$I.($
0$#01$.($C.#01$-.$/&$,.$,+(&$.I$B_.GB,$*0''"1MB$-)0-$-)&2$&A&($-.-0''2$*'.,&$.II$-)&$
E.,,"/"'"-2$.I$#0(("0M&5$$f.+$,).+'G$,-02$.E&1$-.$_.G$/2$0''.C"1M$2.+(,&'I$-.$/&$"1$0$#.(&$
BE0,,"A&B$#.G&$I.($G0-"1M5$$[.1B-$,&&H$/+-$G.1B-$(&I+,&5
$
%9-E(+-;1=7*)3-1-H2612&)H-&?-1-H3*4+H-,&(-25&(;8-:6-1=+*@6;,-81+*)3-1)8-'1??*1362667*)39
WLCX*
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!.$0II"(#$E&.E'&$.I$-)&$.EE.,"-&$,&V$C"-)"1$-)&$J)(",-"01$*.##+1"-25$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!.$)&'E$.1&$01.-)&($'&0(1$-)&$"1-("*0*"&,$.I$*(.,,:M&1G&($*.##+1"*0-".1=$
G",*&(1#&1-=$01G$(&'0-".1,)"E
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!.$,-02$.E&1$-.$_.GB,$.C1$'&0G"1M$0/.+-$C)&-)&($2.+$,).+'G$/&$#0(("&G$.($1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!.$0A."G$-)&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$"G.',$-)0-$#0H&$G0-"1M$01G$#0(("0M&$A&(2$
-)(&0-&1"1M
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!.$0A."G$0A."G"1M5$$[0-"1M$01G$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M$",$0$E(.*&,,$.I$,&'I:G",*.A&(2$
0,$C&''$0,$+1G&(,-01G"1M$*(.,,:M&1G&($(&'0-".1,)"E,5$$[.1B-$E(.*(0,-"10-&5
$
I$PX*!)&(&$)0,$/&&1$01$"1-&(&,-"1M$G&/0-&$"1$-)&$J)(",-"01$C.('G$.A&($-)&$-&(#$BG0-"1MB5$
3*I5$@%Z1!!"2%4051(=%T''2?)"%/2$Z.,)+0$^0((",5<$$Y.#&$0(&$G(0C"1M$0$)0(G$01G$I0,-$
G",-"1*-".1$/&-C&&1$-)&$(.#01-"*$0EE(.0*)$.I$-(0G"-".10'$,.*"&-2$3"&$b*.+(-,)"Eb<$C"-)$-)&$
(.#01-"*$0EE(.0*)$.I$*.1-&#E.(0(2$,.*"&-2$3"&$bG0-"1Mb<$C"-).+-$1.-"1M$-)&$"G.'0-(2$"1$
&0*)5
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$F1$B*.+(-,)"EB$-)&$#01$+"(5%1(%-.$0$C.#01B,$).#&$01G$I0#"'25$^&$B*0''&GB$.1$)&(5$
!)&(&$)&$#&-$-)&$I0#"'2=$M.-$-.$H1.C$)&($"1$-)&$*.1-&V-$.I$)&($&1-"(&$I0#"'2=$C).$0',.$
M.-$-.$H1.C$)"#$A"(-+0''2$0,$C&''$0,$,)&$G"G5$$!)&$I0#"'2$-)&1$H&E-$,-(.1M$*.1-(.'$.A&($
C).$-)&$C.#01$,0C$01G$)0G$M(&0-$"1E+-$"1-.$C)&-)&($)&$C0,$,+"-0/'&$.($1.-$I.($
#0(("0M&5
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$F1$BG0-"1MB$-)&$#01$01G$C.#01$+"(5%'/5%"1-.$E+/'"*$E'0*&,$.I$&1-&(-0"1#&1-$"1$
.(G&($-.$M&-$-.$H1.C$.1&$01.-)&(5$$!)",$1.-$.1'2$(&#.A&G$I0#"'2$"1E+-$-.$0$M(&0-$G&M(&&=$
/+-$"-$0',.$E+-$-)&$&#E)0,",$1.-$.1$*)0(0*-&($0,,&,,#&1-$/+-$.1$I+1$01G$B/&"1M$,&&1B5$
;

3Y&&$\&-)$\0"'&2=$D,'&%D,'(5%N',>;%5'%:0>7%L"05V%G'/,5!;1*%1(%5;"%[\5;%G"(5%.&",1>0%
3Z.)1,$^.EH"1,=$8@QQ<
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!)&(&$0(&$#012$#.A&#&1-,$01G$E(.E.1&1-,$.I$0$B(&-+(1$-.$*.+(-,)"EB$/+-$#012$
.I$-)&#$0(&$E(./'&#0-"*5$8<$!)&2$G.1B-$-0H&$"1-.$*.1,"G&(0-".1$-)&$"G.',$"1)&(&1-$"1$
-(0G"-".10'$,.*"&-25$?<$!)&2$-&1G$-.$-(2$-.$"1,-"-+-".10'"a&$.1&$E0(-"*+'0($#.#&1-$"1$
)+#01$,.*"0'$)",-.(25$O)2$1.-$M.$B0''$-)&$C02$/0*HB$-.$0((01M&G$#0(("0M&,X$$]<$F-$
E(./0/'2$*(&0-&,$#.(&$E(./'&#,$-)01$"-$,.'A&,$-.$(&I+,&$-.$+,&$-)&$C.(G$BG0-"1MB$0-$0''5$
F1,-&0G=$C)2$1.-$0G#"-$-)&$E(./'&#,$C"-)$-)&$*.1-&#E.(0(2$#.-"A&,$I.($01G$#.G&',$.I$
(&'0-".1,)"E,$01G$-0'H$0/.+-$).C$G0-"1M$,).+'G$/&$G"II&(&1-$"1$0$J)(",-"01$*.##+1"-25$
^&(&$0(&$,.#&$M+"G&'"1&,7$

$
-H*0D):V&*@*O>&):$E>;&>>O*(@=@;F&H*BJ.+(-,)"EB$",$.("&1-&G$-.C0(G$*)0(0*-&($0,,&,,#&1-$01G$
*.1,"G&(0-".1$.I$E(.,E&*-,$I.($#0(("0M&5$F-$",$E+(&$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M5$B[0-"1MB$",$
.("&1-&G$-.C0(G$(&*(&0-".1$C"-)$*.#E01".1,)"E5$!)&(&$",$-)&(&I.(&$0$H"1G$.I$E+(&$
BG0-&B$-)0-$)0,$1.-)"1M$-.$G.$C"-)$0,,&,,"1M$-)&$.-)&($E&(,.1$I.($0$I+-+(&$,&(".+,$
(&'0-".1,)"E5$K(&$C&$1&A&($-.$G0-&X$^&(&$0(&$,.#&$(+'&,$.I$-)+#/7$8<$FI$C&$-(2$-.$
"1,",-$-)0-$C&$,).+'G$1&A&($BG0-&B$C"-).+-$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M=$C&$0(&$M."1M$-.$I0''$"1-.$
'&M0'",#5$!)&(&$0(&$-..$#012$,.*"0'$.**0,".1,$-)0-$*0''$I.($,.#&-)"1M$'"H&$0$BG0-&B5$
?<$`1$-)&$.-)&($)01G=$-).,&$C).$E(&E.1G&(01-'2$G.$E+(&$BG0-"1MB$&,E&*"0''2$0,$-)&2$
M&-$.'G&($C"''$/&$E'02"1M$C"-)$-)&$&#.-".1,$.I$.-)&(,5$]<$!)&(&$#+,-$/&$M&1-'&$C02,$
-.$,"M10'$-)&$,&(".+,1&,,:'&A&'$C"-)$C)"*)$2.+$0,Hi0M(&&$-.$0$E0(-"*+'0($G0-&5$$!)&$
.'G&($2.+$0(&=$01G$-)&$#.(&$.I-&1$2.+$BM.$.+-B=$-)&$g+"*H&($/.-)$E&.E'&$#+,-$/&$-.$
0*H1.C'&GM&$-)0-$2.+$0(&$G."1M$#0(("0M&:,&&H"1M5$f&,=$J)(",-"01"-2$2'"!%-&1G$-.$
#0H&$G0-"1M$(&'0-".1,)"E,$#+*)$#.(&$B,&(".+,B$#.(&$g+"*H'25$
+H*J$*;$D*@==$P*C$E)>&=M*A&&Q*&'$D:$;@=*:;%$=%&'&;D*P:DL*@*;$;4(&=:&%:;<*Q&)>$;H*?$
J.($;789II$",$"1A.H&G$I.($-)",$(+'&$01G$("M)-'2$,.=$-).+M)$-)&$#012$E(.)"/"-".1,$"1$
-)&$`'G$!&,-0#&1-$0M0"1,-$Z&C,$#0((2"1M$1.1:Z&C,$-&0*)&,$-)&$,0#&$-)"1M5$3!)&,&$
C&(&$1.-$E(.)"/"-".1,$0M0"1,-$#0((2"1M$.+-,"G&$.I$.1&B,$(0*&=$/+-$.I$.1&B,$8015;%0,$
*01$/&$,&&1$"1$L+#/&(,$8?5<$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$O)0-$",$-)&$'.M"*$/&)"1G$-)",X$FI$2.+($E0(-1&($G.&,1B-$,)0(&$2.+($I0"-)=$-)&1$
)&$.($,)&$G.&,1B-$+1G&(,-01G$"-5$K1G$"I$Z&,+,$",$*&1-(0'$-.$2.+=$-)&1$-)0-$#&01,$-)0-$2.+($
E0(-1&($G.&,1B-$+1G&(,-01G$)'/9%^&i,)&$G.&,1B-$+1G&(,-01G$-)&$#0"1,E("1M$.I$2.+($'"I&=$
-)&$M(.+1G$#.-"A&$.I$0''$2.+$G.5$`A&($01G$.A&($2.+$C"''$#0H&$G&*",".1,$-)0-$2.+($
E0(-1&($*01B-$I0-).#5$L.C$-)&$&,,&1*&$.I$"1-"#0*2$"1$#0(("0M&$",$-)0-$I"10''2$2.+$)0A&$
,.#&.1&$C).$(&0''2$+1G&(,-01G,$2.+$01G$0**&E-,$2.+$0,$2.+$0(&5$U"10''2$2.+$)0A&$
,.#&.1&$-)0-$2.+$G.1B-$)0A&$-.$)"G&$I(.#$.($0'C02,$/&$B,E"11"1MB=$C).$BM&-,B$2.+5$\+-$"I$
-)&$E&(,.1$",$1.-$0$/&'"&A&(=$)&$.($,)&$>0(K5%+1G&(,-01G$2.+($A&(2$&,,&1*&$01G$)&0(-5
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$FI$2.+$#0((2$,.#&.1&$C).$G.&,$1.-$,)0(&$2.+($I0"-)=$-)&(&$",$.1'2$-C.$
C02,$-.$M.5$8<$`1&$",$-)0-$2.+$C"''$#.(&$01G$#.(&$)0A&$-.$'.,&$2.+($-(01,E0(&1*25$F1$
-)&$1.(#0'=$)&0'-)2$J)(",-"01$'"I&=$2.+$(&'0-&$J)(",-$01G$-)&$M.,E&'$-.$&A&(2-)"1M5$$f.+$
C"''$-)"1H$.I$J)(",-$C)&1$C0-*)"1M$0$#.A"&5$$f.+$C"''$/0,&$G&*",".1,$.1$J)(",-"01$
E("1*"E'&,5$f.+$C"''$-)"1H$0/.+-$C)0-$2.+$(&0G$"1$-)&$\"/'&$-)0-$G025$\+-$"I$2.+$0(&$
10-+(0'$01G$-(01,E0(&1-$0/.+-$0''$.I$-)&,&$-).+M)-,=$2.+($E0(-1&($C"''$I"1G$"-$0-$'&0,-$
-&G".+,$.($0EE0''"1M$01G$&A&1$.II&1,"A&5$f.+($E0(-1&($C"''$0'#.,-$;0<"%-.$-)"1H$-)0-$-)&$
1.(#0'$J)(",-"01$",$./,&,,&G5$^&$.($,)&$C"''$,02=$bF$)0G$1.$"G&0$2.+$C&(&$-)",$.A&(/.0(G$
0/.+-$-)",5B$?<$!)&$.-)&($E.,,"/"'"-2$",$-)0-$2.+$,"#E'2$#.A&$J)(",-$.+-$.I$,+*)$0$*&1-(0'$
E'0*&$"1$2.+($*.1,*".+,1&,,5$f.+$#02$&A&1$)0A&$-.$'&-$2.+($)&0(-:0(G.($I.($J)(",-$*..'5$
O)2X$\&*0+,&$"I$2.+$H&&E$)"#$*&1-(0'$2.+$C"''$I&&'$",.'0-&G$I(.#$2.+($,E.+,&5
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$L.=$-)&(&$",$1.-)"1M$"1$-)&$\"/'&$I.(/"GG"1M$2.+$-.$BG0-&B$0$1.1:J)(",-"01=$
,"1*&$-)&(&$",$1.-)"1M$"1$-)&$\"/'&$0/.+-$BG0-"1MB$0-$0''c$\+-$-)&(&$",$0$*'&0($(+'&$0M0"1,-$
#0((2"1M$.+-,"G&$-)&$I0"-)5$O",G.#$G"*-0-&,$-)&1$-)0-$2.+$G.1B-$M&-$B,&(".+,B$C"-)$
,.#&.1&$C).$G.&,1B-$/&'"&A&5$$f.+$#+,-$*.1,"G&($-)0-$0,$0$J)(",-"01=$2.+$H1.C$C)0-$"-$
",$'"H&$-.$/&$/.-)$"1,"G&$01G$.+-,"G&$.I$J)(",-=$C)"'&$2.+($E0(-1&($G.&,$1.-5$!)0-$E+-,$-)&$
(&,E.1,"/"'"-2$.1$2.+5$$^&$.($,)&$C"''$1&A&($+1G&(,-01G$C)2$2.+$-)"1H$-)&$G"II&(&1*&$",$
T

,+*)$0$/"M$G&0'5$3^&i,)&$C"''$-)"1H$"-$",$,.#&-)"1M$'"H&$0$[&#.*(0-$#0((2"1M$0$
S&E+/'"*01$.($0-$#.,-$'"H&$-C.$E&.E'&$.I$G"II&(&1-$(0*&,$#0((2"1M$.1&$01.-)&(5<$!)0-$
#&01,$"I$2.+$M&-$"1A.'A&G$G&&E'2=$-)&$.-)&($E&(,.1$C"''$1&A&($(&0''2$+1G&(,-01G$C)2$
2.+$C01-$-.$/(&0H$+E5$!)0-$C"''$/&$&1.(#.+,'2$E0"1I+'5$
YH*B&&=*O@DD)@FD:$;O*:;*DL&*'$>D*F$'Q)&L&;>:%&*>&;>&H*
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$f&,=$E)2,"*0'$0--(0*-".1$",$,.#&-)"1M$-)0-$#+,-$G&I"1"-&'2$M(.C$/&-C&&1$
#0(("0M&$E0(-1&(,$01G$"-$C"''$*.#&$&0,"'2$"I$2.+$)0A&$-)&$BG&&E&(B$0--(0*-".1$FB#$,E&0H"1M$
.I5$$BJ.#E(&)&1,"A&$0--(0*-".1B$",$,.#&-)"1M$-)0-$2.+$*01$/&M"1$-.$,&1,&$C"-)$E&.E'&$"I$
2.+$G&'"/&(0-&'2$G",0/'&$-)&$G&I0+'-$'..H,:E.'",)$,*(&&1"1M$#.G&$3#&1-".1&G$0/.A&<$
O)0-$",$B*.#E(&)&1,"A&B$0--(0*-".1X$3F1$I0*-=$2.+$#02$I"1G$-.$2.+($).((.($2.+$0(&$
I&&'"1M$"-$C"-)$E&.E'&$C).$G"(&*-'2$A".'0-&$2.+($.'G$,*(&&1"1M$E.'"*25<
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$>0(-$.I$"-$",$/&"1M$0--(0*-&G$-.$-)&$E&(,.1B,$B*)0(0*-&(B$.($!*1,15/06%8,/15%3_0'$
67??II5<$$Z.10-)01$DGC0(G,$,0"G$-)0-$B-(+&$A"(-+&B$"1$012$E&(,.1::-)&$*.1-&1-#&1-=$E&0*&=$
01G$W.2$I(.#$-)&$M.,E&'::",$/&0+-"I+'5$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$>0(-$.I$"-$",$/&"1M$0--(0*-&G$-.$B#",,".1$"1$'"I&B$.($!*1,15/06%=185!9%O)0-$",$)",$
.($)&($G&&E&,-$#",,".1$"1$'"I&X$O)0-$E0(-$.I$-)&$C.(H$.I$-)&$H"1MG.#$G.&,$)&$.($,)&$
)0A&$0$E0,,".1$I.(X$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$`1$-)&$/0,",$.I$/.-)$.I$-)&,&=$2.+$#+,-$/&*.#&$0--(0*-&G$-.$-)&$E&(,.1B,$
8/5/,"%!"689%DE)&,"01,$6$-&'',$+,$-)0-$-)&$E+(E.,&$.I$#0(("0M&$",$-.$)&'E$.1&$01.-)&($
/&*.#&$-)&$M'.(".+,=$+1"g+&$E&(,.1,$_.G$",$#0H"1M$+,5$$40(("0M&$E0(-1&(,$*01$,02=$bF$
,&&$C)0-$2.+$0(&$?">'&1(=%01G$C)0-$2.+$+166%/&$3&A&1$-).+M)=$I(01H'2=$2.+$0(&1B-$-)&(&$
2&-<5$!)&$I'0,)&,$.I$2.+($I+-+(&$0--(0*-$#&5b$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$h'-"#0-&'2=$2.+($#0(("0M&$E0(-1&($,).+'G$/&$E0(-$.I$2.+($B#2-).,B5$J5Y5$
d&C",$,E.H&$.I$0$B,&*(&-$-)(&0GB$-)0-$+1"-&G$&A&(2$E&(,.1,$I0A.("-&$/..H,=$#+,"*=$E'0*&,=$
.($E0,-:-"#&,5$$J&(-0"1$-)"1M,$0(.+,&$"1$2.+$01$B"1*.1,.'0/'&$'.1M"1MB$"1$2.+$-)0-$M&-,$
2.+$"1$-.+*)$C"-)$-)&$Z.2$-)0-$",$_.G5$$\&(1,-&"1$,0"G$-)0-$\&&-).A&1B,$U"I-)$0'C02,$
#0G&$)"#$,+(&$3G&,E"-&$)",$"1-&''&*-+0'$0-)&",#<$-)0-$-)&(&$C0,$0$_.G5$$\&&-).A&1$
G.&,1B-$G.$-)0-$I.($#&5$DA&(2.1&$)0,$!'&"-)"1M$-)0-$#.A&,$2.+$,.$-)0-$2.+$'.1M$I.($
)&0A&1$.($-)&$I+-+(&$H"1MG.#$.I$_.G5$$Y.#&-"#&,$2.+$C"''$#&&-$0$E&(,.1$C).$,)0(&,$-.$
0$M(&0-$G&M(&&$-)&$,0#&$B#2-).,B$-)(&0G5$`I-&1$-)&$E&(,.1$",$E0(-$.I$-)&$-)(&0G$)"#$.($
)&(,&'I5$$!)",$",$A&(2$)0(G$-.$G&,*("/&=$./A".+,'25
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Y&#":-(0M"*$1.-&5$$K1$0CI+'$'.-$.I$&0,,1"2%E&.E'&$G.$1.-$H1.C$C)0-$-)",$
C).'&$B*.#E(&)&1,"A&B$0--(0*-".1$",5$4012$E&.E'&$*)..,&$-)&"($#0(("0M&$E0(-1&($.1$-)&$
/0,",$.I$'..H,iE.'",)i#.1&2$01G$1.-$.1$-)&$/0,",$.I$*)0(0*-&(=$#",,".1=$I+-+(&:,&'I=$01G$
#2-).,5$$`I-&1$-)&$E&(,.1$-)&2$#0(("&G$",$1.-$(&0''2$0--(0*-"A&$-.$-)&#$0-$0''$"1$-)&$
*.#E(&)&1,"A&$C025$
ZH*J$;OD*)$'@;D:F:[&\>&]E@=:[&*DL:;<>*D$$*^E:FV=CH**!)",$C0,$.1&$.I$-)&$M(&0-$0GA01-0M&,$
.I$-)&$.'G$B*.+(-,)"EB$0EE(.0*)5$F1$*.+(-,)"E=$-)&$B,+"-.(B$01G$-)&$B,+"-.(&,,B$M.-$-.$,&&$
.1&$01.-)&($"1$#.(&$10-+(0'$,&--"1M,::I0#"'2$'"I&=$*)+(*)$'"I&=$*.##+1"-2$'"I&5$!)&$
*.#E(&)&1,"A&$0--(0*-".1$01G$&A0'+0-".1$.I$*)0(0*-&($C0,$&0,"&($-.$G.5$O)&1$0$
(&'0-".1,)"E$M.&,$.+-$"1-.$E+/'"*$&1-&(-0"1#&1-$&A&1-,$01G$M&-,$,&V+0'=$0$A&(2$
,+E&(I"*"0'$01G$&#.-".10'$0--(0*-".1=$&A&1$0GG"*-".1=$*01$0(",&$g+"*H'25$$!)&$I0*-$-)0-$
-)&,&$B*(+,)&,B$*01$/&*.#&$,.$).,-"'&$01G$/"--&($,.$g+"*H'2$,).C,$-)0-$-)&$
*.#E(&)&1,"A&$0--(0*-".1$01G$0G#"(0-".1$C0,$1&A&($-)&(&5$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$f&,=$&@)=C*$;?*'@_$)*:;*M):&;A>L:Q*&]Q&):&;F&>H*!)&$J)(",-"01$
*.##+1"-2$0II.(G,$E'&1-2$.I$.EE.(-+1"-2$I.($-)",5$$DA&1$0I-&($2.+$G&*'0(&$-.$01.-)&($bF$
C01-$-.$G0-&$2.+b=$2.+$0(&$0/'&$-.$B&1-&($-)&$C.('G,B$.I$.1&$01.-)&($"1$-)&$.'G&($
*.+(-,)"E$C02$-)0-$",$A&(2$G"II"*+'-$.+-,"G&$-)&$J)(",-"01$*.##+1"-25$$f.+$*01$,-+G2$-)&$
\"/'&$-.M&-)&(=$,&(A&$"1$-)&$*"-2$-.M&-)&(=$01G$,.$.15$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$f&,=$A$;OD*L@%&*>&]*(&M$)&*'@)):@<&H*!)&$\"/'"*0'=$-)&.'.M"*0'=$01G$
E(0*-"*0'$(&0,.1,$0(&$A.'+#"1.+,$01G$C&$)0A&$.-)&($4J4$)01G.+-,$-)0-$0GG(&,,$-)",5$
!)&(&$",$1.$0#/"M+"-2$0/.+-$-)",$"1$-)&$\"/'&$.($"1$-)&$)",-.(2$.I$J)(",-"01$-)&.'.M2$01G$
E(0*-"*&5$F-$",$&A&1$,.#&-)"1M$-)0-$&A&(2$#0W.($C.('G$(&'"M".1$0M(&&,$.1c$\+-$&A&1$-)",$

)01G.+-$,).+'G$#0H&$./A".+,$-.$2.+$).C$"#E.(-01-$"-$",$-.$E+-$I("&1G,)"E$G&A&'.E#&1-$
/&I.(&$(.#01-"*$G&A&'.E#&1-5$
`H*.&D*@;A*>E(':D*D$*F$''E;:DC*:;QEDH**bJ.+(-,)"Eb$0,,+#&G$-)0-$&VE&("&1*&G$#0(("&G$
E&.E'&$3"1$2.+($&V-&1G&G$I0#"'2<$C.+'G$M"A&$2.+$#0W.($"1E+-$"1$-)&$,&'&*-".1$.I$0$
,E.+,&5$$4012$E&.E'&$0(&$1.C$"1,",-"1M$-)0-$C&$(&-+(1$-.$-)&$.'G$(&g+"(&#&1-$.I$
M&--"1M$-)&$I0-)&(B,$*.1,&1-$.($&A&1$.I$0((01M&G$#0(("0M&,5$$\+-$-)0-$",$,&'G.#$
E(0*-"*0/'&=$&,E&*"0''2$I.($0<$,"1M'&,$C).$)0A&$/&&1$0C02$I(.#$).#&$I.($2&0(,$01G$
/<$,"1M'&$J)(",-"01,$C).,&$E0(&1-,$)0A&$'"--'&$+1G&(,-01G"1M$.I$-)&$M.,E&'5$
^.C&A&(=$-)&$/0,"*$E("1*"E'&$",$("M)-$01G$"#E.(-01-5$40(("0M&$",$1.-$,"#E'2$01$
"1G"A"G+0'$G&*",".15$!)&$J)(",-"01$*.##+1"-2$)0,$0$G&&E$"1A&,-#&1-$"1$2.+$01G$0$
G&&E$"1-&(&,-$"1$)&0'-)2$01G$)0EE2$#0(("0M&,5$K',.=$-)&$*.##+1"-2$)0,$#012$
#0(("&G$E&.E'&$"1$"-$C).$)0A&$#+*)$C",G.#$I.($-)&$,"1M'&,5$Y"1M'&,$,).+'G$M&-$
*.##+1"-2$"1E+-$0-$&A&(2$,-&E$.I$-)&$C02$"1$-)&"($G0-"1M$01G$#0(("0M&$,&&H"1M5$
$
O)0-$0(&$-)&$(&g+"(&#&1-,$I.($M&--"1M$#0(("&GX
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$\`!^$J^SFY!FKLY5$\.-)$J)(",-"01,=$/.-)$.1$B,0#&$E0M&B$C)"*)$#&01,$
,E"("-+0'"-2$",$0-$'&0,-$*.#E'&#&1-0(2=$1.-$-..$I0($0)&0Gi/&)"1G=$1.-$-..$.EE.,&G=$/.-)$
M(.C"1M5$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$K\dD$!`$Y`djD$>S`\dD4Y5$4.A"1M$-)(.+M)$01G$#0H"1M$*)01M&,$C"-).+-$
.1&$E&(,.1$0'C02,$M&--"1M$C025$L.-$C.(H"1M$.1$A&(2$,0#&$E(./'&#,$.A&($01G$.A&(5$
3\+-$-)&#&,<$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$K!!SKJ!F`L$3J.#E(&)&1,"A&$,&1,&<5$f&,=$E)2,"*0'$0--(0*-".1$&A&1-+0''2::
/+-$1.-$#0"1$I0*-.(5$b42-).,b5$O)2$,.#&$#+,"*=$.($,.#&$E'0*&,$#.A&$2.+$G&&E'2$01G$
M&-$"1$-.+*)$C"-)$W.2$01G$I+'I"''$'.1M"1M,5$$
$

Some Broad Principles (not formulas!) of Wise Dating

1. The Gospel Principle: Fall in Love with Jesus and with His gospel. The gospel is what will make
your relationships last (whether it be friendships or a future marriage). Why? Because Jesus did not
cast you off when you were hard to love- He entered into our suffering and sin (and took it upon
Himself). Believing that as a fundamental conviction enables you to love others who are hard to love.
2. The Kingdom-Orientation Principle: Look for someone who is living for something bigger than
him/herself. Someone who is being transformed by the gospel and therefore is seeking to spur you on
in heading toward a common horizon. Other orientations or Mini-horizons (ie common hobbies,
music, sports, sense of humor, etc) wont last in a marriage.
3. The Marriage Preparation Principle: Ask am I preparing this person for a godly marriage to me
or TO SOMEONE ELSE (and vice-versa), or would what were doing/ thinking together bring
baggage into a marriage (guilt or comparision over your sexual sin, bad patterns of self-absorption,
being in love with love not the person, etc).
4. The Community Principle: LISTEN to the advice of parents (believers or not- Exodus 20:12),
church authorities (Hebrews 13:7,17), and friends (see the Proverbs). IN THAT ORDER (since only
the first two have authority)! Make your dating decisions with the honest council of the Christian
Community and in submission to parents and pastors. Individualism in dating is a killer.
5. The Equal-Yoke Principle: The Bible is clearyou can only marry believers (1 Cor 6:14-18; 7:39).
And the thing is, you ALWAYS date the people you end up marrying. Right? Therefore, this implies
no missionary dating- it didnt work for wise old Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-4), why should you try it?
If you want to date an unbeliever, youre already in DEEP trouble (see #s 1 and 2 and listen to
Steves Free from a Bad Yoke message at RUFgators.com).
6. The Gender-Role Principle: Men need to learn how to lead and women need to learn how to follow,
but NOT with each other. Women need to learn to submit to their fathers, church leaders, and other
authorites. Men need to learn to be leaders in all their relationships. But dating is not a biblical
institution in which the guy leads and the girl follows. That comes only in marriage. The best way to
see if a man is a good leader and a woman is a good follower is by observing the roles they play in
other relationships- NOT (at least not primarily) by practicing with each other.
7. The Love Principle: Finding the person you marry is not so much about evaluating your feelings for
the person, but evaluating your willingness to commit to the person. Dont marry the person youre
ga, ga over- marry the person youll commit to. 1 Cor 13 describes love primarily in terms of
character and commitment, not in terms of butterflies in your stomach. Love is a VERB first and
foremost (for the grammatically challenged like myself , that means love is an action more than an
emotion).
8. The Purity Principle: Paul encourages Timothy to treat older women like mothers and younger
women like sisters with ABSOLUTE PURITY (1 Tim 5:2). So what would you do with your sibling
physically? Thats whats appropriate in dating. We are told in the Bible that we are not to have
even a hint of sexual immorality, and sex is defined not as intercourse but as ANY physical touch
that is arousing. You were made to go all the way in marriage- so dont arouse or awaken love till
its time (Song of Songs). If you dont remain pure with someone in dating, you will question each
others purity after marriage. (If you both know you couldnt withstand temptation while dating, why
should you trust that your partner can do so afterward when things get rough in your marriage and
other people look better than you?). Lack of purity now hurts your sexual relationship in marriage.
Some Scattered Thoughts On Dating (cut and pasted from KEVIN TWIT)

A. Friendship is the primary thing in choosing a mate, sexual attraction is secondary. As

Tim Keller contends, most us when we walk into a room of people of the opposite sex, immediately
eliminate 90% of them based on looks. We have it backwards. We look for people that turn us on, and
then try to make them our friends. If we understood that being one flesh is so much more than physical
we would be wiser and consider who can I grow old with and enjoy getting to know for the next 50 years.
B. Talk through weirdness! There are two interpretations to every event. If a guy doesn't call
you it can mean either he isn't interested or that he is so interested that he doesn't want to come on too
strong and mess things up. Girls, you will adopt one of these two interpretations based mostly on your
self-confidence. But there is no way to know what someone's actions mean unless you talk about it.
Girls, guys are not real good at picking up subtle messages. Guys, neither are girls. You need to talk to
each other, don't assume and let things just remain confused and then drift away.
C. But, beware are too many DTR talks! Just enjoy the relationship! I think most people have
endless DTR talks to try to eliminate risk and achieve a sense of control. There is a place for a DTR talk,
but check your motivation. Don't make "the relationship" the focus, make getting to know and learning
how to love another person rather yourself, the focus.
D. "Ownership" is a right enjoyed only by married couples! (1 Cor 6-7) This means that you
don't have ownership over who you are dating either physically or emotionally. This also means that girls
should not submit to someone they are dating.

E. Guys, be men and pursue well. It will relieve the girl's feeling that dating is an
everlasting audition! But be willing to follow through. Don't just pursue hard and then back off.
I really believe that from our perspective there are tons of people you could marry. Pray that
God would give you His love for this person you are pursuing because if your love for God is
like the morning mist that disappears as soon as the sun comes up (Hosea 6:4), how can you
expect to love a sinner? But it is not sin for a woman to ask a guy out dont call something sin
that the Bible doesnt call sin.
II. So, What is the Purpose Of Dating? We need to ask 1st, what is the purpose of mankind? To
glorify God and enjoy Him forever. So, this must ultimately be the purpose of dating! Dating is not just
about getting married, but it is also not to be a substitute for marriage! John Holzman in his book Dating
With Integrity (which, while far from perfect has some good principles) say that the purpose of dating is
to be blessed and to be a blessing. I think that is a helpful perspective because otherwise dating takes on
huge, overwhelming pressure. Too many people get caught in the catch-22 of "I don't want to date them
unless I would marry them, yet I don't really know them well enough to know if I want to date them." On
the other hand, we don't want to make dating too casual. There are too many people who date around to
have their cake and eat it too, to have fun but avoid any commitment or real intimacy. Being a blessing
should be our goal in all relationships (remember we are love one another as ourselves) and dating is no
exception!
IV. The Problem With Most Christian Books On Dating

"Super-Spirituality" "We should focus on being the right person rather than on looking for the right
person." This sounds good (and we should pursue sanctification) but unfortunately is not Biblical. There is
nothing wrong with seeking a spouse, in fact, it is encouraged (if not by implication commanded.) Look at
Prov. 18:22 "He who finds a wife finds a good thing..." Then compare it with what is said about wisdom in
Prov 8:35. Finding wisdom and finding a wife (or husband -- the Bible is not being sexist at this point)
both are means through which we receive favor from God. Are we called to seek wisdom? (look at Prov

8:1-11) So, by implication, are we called to seek a spouse. It is not spiritual to pretend that you are content
when you are not. It's not spiritual to think you don't need anybody but you and God.

They present a Simpleton Approach to the Christian Life" Dan Allender uses the term simpleton to
refer to the majority of Christians who want a little formula or set of rules that are guaranteed to make life
"work" (whatever that means!) This approach is rampant in "Dating" books and even in books that
advocate courtship instead of dating. For example, listen to these quotes from Choosing God's Best by Dr.
Don Raunikar (a book I would not recommend.)
o

"Dating creates more problems than it solves: broken hearts, illegitimate children, abortions,
sexually transmitted diseases, and feelings of guilt or shame that can last a lifetime... [I almost
laughed out loud when I read this -- is dating the problem or is sin the problem?]

As serious as these consequences are, the solution for them is simple: biblical courtship instead
of dating... [It's so simple, all you have to do is court rather than date and your life will be worryfree!]

dating is little more than an experimental blip. As an experiment, though, it has been a total
failure. With God's help, it's a failure you can avoid from now on... If you are one of those singles
who has experienced the brokenness of a failed dating or marriage relationship, you will find
healing in the courtship process this book describes. (pg 14-15) [Is he serious? If you follow the
rules his book describes - which he claims are Biblical even though he doesn't even deal with a
single scripture until page 87 and then misuses Ruth as an example of courtship!] No rules, not
even Biblical ones will bring healing -- it is the gospel that brings healing!

"...courtship offers us a way to meet our needs legitimately without getting out of God's will,
without missing God's planned blessing, without causing ourselves pain and grief, without causing
hurt to other people, and without causing confusion in our lives." [Courtship does not guarantee
all these things but even if it did, it seems to me that God likes confusion, it is one of His best
tools! see Deut 8:2 ff, Isaiah 50:10-11

They are driven by fear" I Kissed Dating Good-bye is like this. The whole motivation for courtship is
that dating brings pain. Choosing God's Best even admits that it is counting on pain as the motivation for
you following it's formula! (see pg. 14 at the bottom) These books are driven by the same thing our culture
is, fear. But fear is a sub-Christian motivation! Perfect love casts out fear, therefore a distinctively
Christian approach to relationships can't be driven by fear! These books fail to address the real sin issue
that underlies so much of dating (and courtship by the way) and that is fear driving us to try to take control!
[By the way, I do think there is wisdom to couples looking for community input into their relationship.)

Criti%ue
Deepening Discipleship

Developing Discernment

!"##$"%&
IS THERE A PLACE BETWEEN CYNICISM AND IDOLATRY?

'()!"#*$)+&(&,

A Publication of
Ransom Fellowship
1150 West Center Street
Rochester, MN 55902
www.ransomfellowship.org

Resources
for Equipping
Wise Christians

!"##$"%&-).&/0&&1)
2(1$3$,4)"1*)5*67"/#(
'()!"#*$)+&(&,

arriage is universal. As Christians,

we know why. Genesis tells us that
God created it at the very beginning
of his creation of humanity. Gods creation
of the first man and woman is inseparable
from his creation of marriage and the first
societal institutionthe family. Genesis
tells us that marriage was created because
God thought, it was not good that the
man should be alone.1 So God made a
woman, to be a corresponding, suitable
partner for the man. When Adam saw her,
he was delighted, and burst forth with a
spontaneous doxology. Wow! Bone of my
bones, flesh of my flesh! Finally, here is
someone like me, one of my own kind!
Proverbs tells us whoever finds a wife,
finds a good thing.
Then why is it that everywhere we
look, we see evidence of the misery marriage can produce? Tolstoy described it as
hell.2 Even in the Bible there is plenty of
evidence of marital misery, unfaithfulness,
manipulation, deceit, cruelty, abuse and
sorrow. If there ever was a marriage made
in heaven or made by God, it was the
marriage of Adam and Eve. Yet even before
the birth of their first child (i.e., during the
honeymoon period), Adam was blaming
God for giving him this troublesome
woman.
What gives? Marriage is a good gift of
God. And like all of Gods gifts, it can
function as an idol, or God substitute.
Marriage can also function as a means of
serving other idols like the State, or the
reproduction of children, or socio-economic success, political advancement, romantic

love, sexual fulfillment or individual happiness. When marriage does function as an

idol or as a means of achieving other idolatrous goals, it can only fail and bring disappointment, even cynicism. As the Psalmist
wrote, Those who choose another god
multiply their sorrows.3 But when marriage is allowed to be what God created it
to be, and to serve the purposes God created it for, it can be an enormous blessing to
the married couple, their children, to every-

When it comes to marriage,

Americans have both high
hopes and debilitating fears.
one who interacts with them and to society
as a whole.
This is true, even in a fallen world.
Since every marriage is a union of 2 sinners,
no marriage can be perfect. Denis De
Rougemont asked, Inasmuch as when
taken one by one, most human beings of
both sexes are either rogues or neurotics,
why should they turn into angels the
moment they are paired?4 He is right! But
the beauty of marriage as designed by God
is that it was made to cope with rogues and
neurotics living in an unpredictable and
tragically fallen world. It was made to gradually transform and sanctify rogues and
neurotics, but only if and as they make
daily choices to keep their marital promises.
Despite widespread cynicism about
marriage in the United States today; despite
the dramatic rise in divorce, cohabitation

and unwed parenthood, most Americans

rank a happy and lasting marriage as
extremely important on their list of life
goals. In their book, The Case for Marriage,
Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher write,
Americans are still the marrying kind. But
our ideas about what marriage means have
changed in subtle ways that undermine our
abilityas individuals or as a societyto
achieve the goals of wedlock, creating a lasting love between a man and a woman, and
a firm bond of mutual support between a
mother and a father. When it comes to
marriage, Americans have both high hopes
and debilitating fears. As two scholars put it
after an exhaustive study of the attitudes of
todays college students, They are desperate to have only one marriage, and they
want it to be happy. They dont know
whether this is possible anymore.5
There are subtle and not so subtle ways
in which our cultures ideas about marriage
have changed, and those changes have
undermined the very thing we say we want.

Historical Highlights of Love and

Marriage in Western Culture
The Ancient Greco-Roman World
The Ancient Greco-Roman World was the
cultural, political and legal background to
the New Testament, and early Christian
understandings of marriage. In that world,
the purpose of marriage was procreation. In
Classical Greece, a father would betroth his
daughter to a bridegroom with the words:
I pledge (my daughter) for the purpose of
producing legitimate children.6
1

The Orator Apollodorus expressed the

cult for a father to force his children to
What person, absorbed by religious or
pervasive Greek male ideal: the Athenian
marry or divorce against their will. While
philosophic meditations, could endure the
man could have three women: his wife for
no one expected them to be in love at
crying of newborn babies, the songs of their
producing heirs and watching over his
marriage, mutual affection was seen as
nurses to quiet them, the noisy crowd of
property, his concubine for daily attention
desirable and it was expected that love
servants? What disgust in having to bear
to his body (meaning sexual relations), and
would grow after marriage.
the continual filth of little children!
hetaeras (educated, high class courtesans)
In the Greco-Roman world, it was
Heloise preferred to be called Abelards
for pleasure (intellectual and sexual).7
believed that the gods and goddesses of
friend, sister and lover rather than ruin
Under Roman law, marriage (and prolove, like Eros and Aphrodite, would afflict
his career by becoming his wife.
creation) served the State. The Emperor
people with romantic passion, which they
However, they did marry secretly to
Augustus became concerned that upper
had no control over. For example, in
honor her uncles wishes, but lived separateclass Roman citizen families were dying
Euripedes play Hippolytus,10 Aphrodite
ly. Soon after, her uncle, Fulbert, began to
out. Between 18 B.C. and 9 A.D., he
punished Hippolytus for his sin of chastity
beat Heloise, and Abelard abducted her and
enacted marriage legislation to
placed her in an
encourage legitimate marriage and
abbey for safety.
Romantic love (eros) differs dramatically from
fertility in the upper classes. The
Fulbert took revenge.
Law penalized celibates and childChristian love (agape) which is active love of your With the help of a
less couples and gave positive incenfriend, he overpowneighbor as yourself. Marriages do not survive
tives for couples to have a miniered Abelard in his
without large daily doses of agape love.
mum of three or four children
sleep and castrated
(depending on their class). The
him. Abelard believed
Augustan Marriage legislation was
this was Gods judgineffective, as the public reacted strongly
by causing his stepmother to fall in love
ment for his sexual sin, so he withdrew to a
against it and found ways around it.
with him. Tragedy ensued, including murcloister as a celibate cleric and ordered that
Since the official purpose of marriage
der and death.
Heloise become a nun, permanently. Both
was procreation, men were encouraged to
Understanding this Greek view of love
of them donned the habit the same day.
divorce their wives for infertility, so they
helps explain the common pagan response
She was 17 and he was 39. They were legalcould remarry and bear citizen children for
to Christian sexual morality. Many Pagans
ly married, and there were no outside obstaRome.8
marveled at the Christians sexual freecles preventing them from living together as
Slaves were not citizens, so their prodomfreedom from being driven by
man and wife. Yet Heloise and Abelard
creation was irrelevant to the state and they uncontrollable romantic and sexual passion
never saw each other again. Abelard lived
could not be legally married. This had seriand freedom to be chaste while single and
another 24 years as a monk, writer, teacher
ous consequences for the Christian Church. monogamous when married.
and founder of the abbey of Paraclet, in
Within the Greco-Roman upper classes, far
which, ironically, Heloise would rise to the
more women than men were converted to
The Middle Ages (1100 to 1500)
rank of abbess. Heloise wrote Abelard two
Christianity, so the only available Christian
During this time period was the birth of
impassioned, erotic love letters, reproaching
men for them to marry were slaves. Second
romantic love. The story of Heloise and
him for abandoning her. Abelard never
and third century pagan attacks on the
Abelard, one scholar writes, still has the
replied. He died in 1144, and she died
Christians refer to the problem of Christian shock value of a romance-cum-horror
twenty years later and was buried beside her
women being forced to marry pagans or to
story but it is true. Denis de Rougemont
husband.12
cohabit with Christian slaves in a kind of
describes Abelard and Heloise as the earliHow can we explain this bizarre story
common-law marriage. Roman civil law
est passionate lovers whose story has
of tortured love? Theres at least one influprohibited this, and it was acknowledged by reached us through an abundance of
ence that sheds some light on this couples
the Church only by Bishop Callistus, who
courtly poems and letters.11
story: the role of early medieval
had himself been a slave before becoming
Abelard met Heloise in 1118, when he Catholicism and its embracing of Greek
bishop of Rome in the early third century.9
was 37 years old, and a well-known master
dualism.
It is interesting that Priscilla is an
of theology. She was 15. They fell in love
During the early middle ages, the
upper class Roman name, and Acquila is a
and she was willingly seduced. During their Catholic Church gradually took over the
common slave name. It is likely that he was passionate love affair, Heloise became pregjurisdiction of marriage. Catholic teaching
a freedman, and that this New Testament
nant. Her uncle insisted that Abelard marry carried on the tradition of the most ascetic
couple formed an inter-class marriage!
her, and he agreed, but wanted the marriage of the fourth century Church Fathers, who
Under Roman Law, during the N.T.
to be secret, since according to canon law,
had been strongly influenced by Greek
period, the paterfamilias (the oldest male in he would not be allowed to continue teach- dualism, which denigrated the body in cona Roman family) had the power to make
ing philosophy and theology if it was
trast to the spirit. They taught that there
and break his childrens marriages. This was known that he was married. But after their
was a radical disjunction between spirituusually done to improve the economic or
son was born, Heloise objected to marryal vocations, like teaching theology and
political status of the family. Over time,
ing, because of the commonly held belief
secular vocations, including marriage and
however, the couples consent gained legal
that family life was incompatible with the
family life. They also taught that the only
and social weight, and it became more diffi- life of a scholar. As Abelard later put it,
purpose of sexual relations was procreation,
2

and that enjoyment of sex was sinful. Lives

unmarried man and another mans wife. Its
doctrine of marriage, which had became an
of the saints, sung or recited, extolled those
model was the perfect knight and the inacobject of contempt. These ideas came from
who had taken vows of chastity. For examcessible idealized lady, usually the wife of a
people, who though nominally Christian,
ple, The Life of Saint Alexius (circa 1050)
king (i.e., Lancelot and Queen Guinevere,
were still pagan in their spirits.18
told the story of a mans ascension to saintthe wife of King Arthur,). It should either
hood which began when he abandoned his
go sexually unconsummated or adulterous.
The Reformation Period
wife on their wedding night and fled to live
Richard De Fournival, physician to the What was the impact of the Protestant
in poverty.13
King of France in the thirteenth century
Reformers on love and marriage? They are
Pope Leo IX condemned clerical mardescribed love as a folly of the mind, an
our spiritual forbears, whose allegiance to
riage in 1049. But in the early Middle
unquenchable fire, a hunger without surScripture before Church and Tradition
Ages, a significant number of priests lived
feit, an agreeable illness, a sweet delight, a
transformed marriage and family life in
with concubines, and some were married,
pleasing madness.16
ways we now take for granted.
even though marriage disqualified men
In his book Love in the Western World,
Few people have influenced the institufrom rising in the church hierarchy.
Denis de Rougemont writes that love
tion of marriage more than Martin Luther.19
The Churchs teaching helps explain
defined by this tradition feeds on obstaIn letters and tracts, he directly challenged
why Heloise and Abelard could not reconcles, short excitations, and partings. It is
the Catholic Churchs insistence on the
cile the mundaneness of marriage and fami- unstable and though it may overcome
celibacy of priests. He rejected the Greek
ly life with the work of a cleric and scholar.
many obstacles, it almost always fails at
dualism that idealized virginity. He argued
It also explains Abelards self-punishing
one. That is the obstacle constituted by
from Scripture that those not gifted with
masochism in refusing to live with
chastity should marry. Otherwise,
the wife he loved (not to mention
they would either be tormented
Few people have influenced the institution by desire or commit sexual sin;
his cruelty to her). Sexual passion,
even in marriage, was considered
of marriage more than Martin Luther. He and marriage was a purer state
sinful. It is strangely fitting that
than either of those alternatives.
Abelard and Heloises lives coincid- challenged the Catholic Churchs insistence He recommended marriage to
ed with what scholars call the birth on the celibacy of priests and rejected the
everyone, both priest and layman,
of romantic love. Denis de
and taught that mutual love
Greek dualism that idealized virginity.
Rougemont even dates what he
between husband and wife was a
calls the rebirth of eros to 1118,
God-given mandate, and couples
the year Abelard and Heloise met for the
time.17 This is why it is incompatible with
should study to be pleasing to each other.
first time, and the century in which love
marriage, an institution set up to be lasting,
In 1525, at age 42, Luther decided to
was first recognized as a passion worth culno matter what time brings along, includpractice what he preached, and he married
tivating.
ing all the regular unromantic chores like
26-year-old Katherina von Bora, a runaway
Romantic love and attraction have
taking out the garbage and changing dianun from the Cistercian convent. Heres the
existed in all times and places. What else
pers, or dealing with a failed septic system
story: Convinced by the ideas of the
could the writer of Proverbs be referring to
that has backed up into your basement (this Reformation, Katherina and eleven sister
when he marvels at the way of a man with has happened to us four times in fifteen
nuns decided to renounce their vows.
a maid (young woman)?14 He says it is a
years!), and the challenges of aging, ecoLuther arranged for them to escape, hidden
mystery too wonderful for him, somenomic losses, accidents, serious illnesses and in a wagon among herring barrels. After a
thing that he does not understand.
death.
dangerous journey, through German counRomantic love is universal, but cultural
De Rougemont argues that romantic
tryside divided by fierce religious factions,
conditioning plays an enormous part in its
love, as defined by this tradition, is also
they were delivered to the Augustinian
meaning and expression. A very particular
incompatible with happiness. It is more in
monastery at Wittenberg, where Luther was
form of romantic love began in Europe in
love with love, with passion and with being a monk and professor of biblical theology.
the twelfth century French aristocratic
in love, than with the beloved. It is intrinA Wittenberg student wrote to a friend, a
courts and has profoundly impacted
sically unfulfillable, because its fire is only
few days ago a wagonload of vestal virgins
Western culture ever since. It was named
kept burning by obstacles, and it often ends came to town, more eager for wedlock than
courtly love, and was made fashionable
in death, as in the myth of Tristan and
for life. God grant them husbands before
and spread by the songs and poems of the
Iseult, Romeo and Juliet, Anna Karenina,
they fare worse!20
troubadours.
Madame Bovary, Elvira Madigan, or Dr.
Luther felt responsible to find husFrom its birth, this kind of romantic
Zhivago.
bands or suitable positions for the nuns. In
love was emphatically not considered a basis
Romantic love, or eros, so defined, difthe end, all were provided for but
for marriage. As the twelfth century writer
fers dramatically from Christian love, agape, Katherina. Because of her poverty, the man
Andreas Capellanus wrote in The Art of
which is active love of your neighbor as
she loved was pressured by his family to
Courtly Love, Everybody knows that love
yourself. Marriages do not survive without
marry someone else, leaving her with a brocan have no place between husband and
large daily doses of agape love. If de
ken heart. Luther then chose a Dr. Glatz
wife.15
Rougemont is correct, the cultivation of
for Katherina, but she refused to accept
Twelfth century European culture dicromantic love began in Europe as a reaction him on any terms. She humbly sent word
tated that love could only occur between an against Christianity, and in particular to its
to Luther that she would be willing to
3

marry his friend Dr. Amsdorf or Luther

ing the corners and bawling through the
ed both romantic love and lust as approprihimself. Luther had no intention of marrywhole house? I would not exchange you for ate reasons to marry.
ing because he expected at any moment to
all the kingdoms of Europe.23 When their
Falling in love was considered a
be burned at the stake as a heretic. But after fourteen-year-old daughter, Magdalena died mild form of insanity, in which judgment
some thought, he decided that marriage
in Martins arms, he and Katherina were
and prudence were thrown to the winds.25
would give a status to Katherina and a testi- overcome with grief.
To protect the young from impulsively
mony to his faith. He summed up his reaHeres one other story from the
marrying on the basis of love, most
sons for marrying with three points: to
Reformation period. Widbrandis
European countries made marriage under
please his father (who wanted progeny), to
Rosenblatt (1504-1564) outlived four husthe age of 21 illegal and invalid unless done
spite the pope and the Devil, and to seal his bands (three of them reformers), giving
with the consent of parents or guardians.
witness before martyrdom.21
birth, in total to eleven children and raising (In England this became law in 1753.)26
Martin and Katherinas marriage did
more children from her husbands previous
The Puritans27 were children of the
not begin as a love match but they came
marriages.
Reformation in England and America.
to love each other deeply. Luther wrote I
While grieving over the death of her
Despite their reputation, they were anyam not infatuated, but I cherish my wife,
third husband, who died of the plague,
thing but squeamish about sex.
and I would not exchange Katie for France Widbrandis was summoned to the
Samuel Willard, the author of the most
or for Venice, because God has given her to deathbed of another reformers wife,
complete textbook of Puritan divinity in
me, and other women have worse faults.
Elisabeth Butzer, who was also stricken
the late seventeenth century, frequently
Luther wrote that a Christian is bound to
with the plague. The dying woman pleaded expressed horror at the Popish conceit28 of
love his neighbor as himself. His wife
the Excellency of Virginity. The
is his nearest neighbor; therefore she
New England clergy, the most
William Whateley encouraged mutual Puritanical of the Puritans,
should be his dearest friend. He
wrote, The first love is drunken.
believed that sexual intercourse
dalliances for pleasures sake in bed,
When the intoxication wears off, then
was a human necessity and marwith wives having the same rights to
comes the real marriage loveUnion
riage the only proper context for
of flesh does nothing (by itself ). There initiate sex and experience sexual satis- it. They taught that sexual love is
must also be union of manners and
good in itself, not only for procrefaction as their husbands.
mind. Katie, you have a husband that
ation, and they discouraged abstiloves you.22
nence. William Whateleys conduct
The Luthers had six children (two of
with Widbrandis to marry her soon-to-bebook, written in 1623, encouraged mutual
whom died) and they ran a large extended
widowed husband. Marilyn Yalom writes,
dalliances29 for pleasures sake in bed, with
household including six or seven orphaned
This deathbed appeal from one woman to
wives having the same rights to initiate sex
nephews and nieces, the four children of
another says something about the kind of
and experience sexual satisfaction as their
one of Luthers widowed friends,
people they must have been: a wife conhusbands! The poet John Donne (1571Katherinas aunt, tutors for the children,
cerned for the future well-being of her hus1631) wrote that lovemaking was about
servants, Luthers student boarders, other
band, a widow whose reputation for gooduninhibited mutual pleasure, a union of
guests and a stream of Protestant refugees.
ness and hard work had preceded her.
body and soul.
Martin and Katherinas attitude toward Widbrandis married Butzer the following
Being totally realistic about the power
their children and domestic life could not
year.24 Butzer wrote of his appreciation for
of sexual temptation, especially in the
have differed more from the attitude of
his second wife, while still grieving over the young, the Puritans encouraged early marHeloise and Abelard. There was nothing
death of Elizabeth.
riage. It was the parents duty to find suitunspiritual about raising children that
This story is not unusual.For most of
able husbands and wives for their children.
made it incompatible with teaching theolo- history, marriage has been a practical neces- Suitability must include spiritual compatgy. Luther believed that due to the exacting sity. Until industrialization, economic work ibility, mutual attraction and affection.
nature of family life, it was a far better
has centered in the home and children were William Perkins wisely warned, He or she
training ground for character (daily
needed to share the work. When a husband who marries where they affect not, will
patience, charity, fortitude and humility)
or wife died (which happened frequently),
affect where they marry not! In other
than a monastery ever could be. And he
the living spouse had to find a new spouse
words, youd better marry someone youre
thoroughly enjoyed his home. He wrote of
as soon as possible, to share the work and
attracted to, otherwise, you will surely be
his first baby, Hans is cutting his teeth and parenting.
attracted to someone youre not married to.
beginning to make a joyous nuisance of
While economic concerns were normal in
himself. These are the joys of marriage of
The Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries
matchmaking, Puritan ministers forbade
which the pope is not worthy. Martin
By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
parents to arrange marriages purely for ecohung out diapers, to the neighbors amusethanks to the spread of literacy and the
nomic gain or against the will of their chilment. He replied, Let them laugh. God
printing press, and to poets and playdren.
and the angels smile in heaven. At one
wrights, especially Shakespeare, romantic
There was only one limitation the
point, Martin cried out to one of his chillove was a familiar theme in Europe. But
Puritans placed on marital affection and
dren: Child what have you done that I
the advice literature, medical treatises and
sexual relations: they must not interfere
should love you so? What with your befoul- sermons of the time overwhelmingly reject- with religion. The chief purpose of humani4

ty is to glorify God, and all earthly

Mutual attraction was increasingly valstruggled to recognize what the feeling of
delights and pleasures must serve that end, ued. During the late eighteenth century in
love is so they might not mistake it for
not compete with it. John Cotton wrote,
New England, rural parents often encourother feelings. Ellen Rothman writes,
Husband and wife must not become so
aged young courting couples to sleep
Efforts to measure love involved a series of
transported with affection that they look at
together, fully clothed, within the safety of
negative calculations: it must be more
no higher end than marriage itself.30 In
the family home, to test their attraction!
compelling than friendship, more lasting
other words, marital love is not to be treatThis practice was called bundling. and
than passion, more serious than romance.36
ed as an idol.
ministers often preached against it. During
The marriage of Queen Victoria and
The Protestant Reformation introthe heyday of bundling, (the 1780s),
Prince Albert was a famous love match
duced two important characteristics of mar- there was, not surprisingly, a surge in prewhich did not start out that way. I highly
riage that were continued by the Puritans.
marital pregnancies in New England.
recommend a BBC production (on DVD)
First, the Reformation challenged the
Nearly 30% of brides were pregnant on
of their story.
dualism between sacred and secular and
their wedding day.32 In the 1830s, more
spirit and body that placed theological
than 20% of brides were pregnant.33
Where We Are Today
study, the church, monasticism and celibacy
Romantic love and the romantic novel
While some extremist groups attack marabove marriage, family, sexuality and
riage directly, Linda Waite and Maggie
childbearing. It restored the biblical
describe the contemporary
The Reformation dramatically raised Gallagher
vision that all of life is spiritual,
war on marriage as not so much a
the status of marriage and the wife,
except for sin; and in the process,
frontal assault from outside enemies
dramatically raised the status of mar- and helped create a new model of
but a sideways tug-of-war inside each
riage and the wife, and helped create
of us between competing values:
family relations which is still with us. between rights and needs, between
a new model of family relations,
which is still with us. Also, love
individualism and community,
(including sexual attraction) now belonged
grew together after 1780. Initially novels
between fear and hope, between freedom
within marriage, rather than in romantiwere considered harmful, particularly for
and love. On the one hand, we cherish
cized adulterous affairs.
women, because they implicitly taught
marriage as the repository of our deepest
Second, the Reformers and Puritans
women to act on their feelings, and encour- hopes and wishes to forge stable families, to
also shared a vision of marriage which
aged an extravagant and false view of
find lasting love. On the other hand, we
serves a higher purposethe glory of God
life.34 But gradually, romantic love became
fear being tied down or trapped and jealand his Kingdom. This helps us understand a respectable motive for marriage among
ously guard our right to redefine ourselves
the unromantic deathbed-arranged marthe propertied classes. By the 1850s, the
and our lives, with or without our partners
riage described earlier.
vision of romantic love elaborated in books
consent.37
These Reformation couples understood and magazines became the only acceptable
themselves as companions and partners in
basis for marriage, more important than
Feelings of Cynicism
nurturing their childrens moral developfamily connection, financial prospects or
There is widespread cynicism about marment and in creating a Christian communi- religious affiliation.
riage as a lifelong commitment. In the
ty. Encouraged to read the Bible in Luthers
Jane Austin wrote her novels in the late United States today, only 56% of all adults
vernacular translation, they began a tradieighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
are married, compared with 75% thirty
tion of mixed-gender Bible study that is
All of her heroines insist on marrying for
years ago. Laura Kipnis, author of Against
still with us. The wives shared their huslove and not economic security. They hold
Love, A Polemic, writes, for a significant
bands zeal for the Reformation and the
out against formidable family and social
percentage of the population, marriage just
many dangers and hardships that resulted
pressures, andlucky for themend up
doesnt turn out to be as gratifying as it
from the religious strife.31
getting love and money! Austins novels
promises. In other words, the institution
And their generous practice of
invariably end with a wedding (or two).
itself isnt living up to its vows.38
Christian hospitality was formidable, welThe way her characters develop give the
For many, Christian marriage is particcoming orphans, extended family, traveling
readers confidence that these will be good
ularly intolerable and unrealistic because it
teachers, and religious refugees into their
marriages, but we are left to imagine how
restricts sexual intimacy to monogamous,
homes, often for long periods of time.
love sustains the couples in the daily, unrolifelong, heterosexual marriage. From all
These families took literally Jesus teaching
mantic challenges of family life. Her stories
quarters, we pick up the message, directly
that as we welcome the needy and the
encourage a romanticized picture of marand indirectly, that healthy people have
stranger in his name, we welcome Jesus
riage for her heroines.
active sex lives (whether they are married or
Himself.
While young people enjoyed their
not).39 The fact that sex is now readily availincreased freedom to marry for love, this
able without marriage is one significant reaThe Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries new ideal brought problems of its own.
son for fewer and later marriages.
By the late eighteenth century, it was
Successful courtship now depended on
In earlier centuries, it was not uncomalmost universally assumed that young peo- falling in love which could not always be
mon for brides to be pregnant on their
ple would decide for themselves who to
arranged. A young minister told a friend in
wedding day. But those couples did not
marry, though parental consent was still
1797, I now must wait to be impelled by
generally have sexual intercourse until they
important.
some (irresistible) impulse.35 Young people
were engaged. As the twentieth century
5

progressed, it became increasingly common knowing these things in our heads, these
that are cynical about the possibility of
for couples who were dating or going steady kinds of stories can still breed discontent
healthy male/female relationships or marto be sexually intimate (at some level).
with our marriages, and tempt us to throw
riage, frequently depicting men and women
But on secular college campuses today,
away a good but imperfect marriage (there
as mutual predators. Lee Siegel, writing for
not only is sex disconnected from marriage
are no perfect ones!) to chase a fantasy. The the New Republic44 describes the popular
(present or future plans), but from dating
book, The Bridges of Madison County, by
T.V. series Sex in the City as an assault on
and romance. One student writes, College
the way, was incredibly populara runheterosexual romantic hope. The four sinis about casual sex, hooking up and oneaway best seller for many months.
gle thirty-something women who are looknight stands, often when drunk. Its sex
In America today, divorce is so coming for love and happiness in the city are
unburdened with meaning. Not surprisingmonplace, that it is possible to speak of A
constantly trashed by the creepy men they
ly, STDs are at epidemic levels on secular
Divorce Culture as Barbara Defoe
have sex with, and the women themselves
college campuses today.
Whitehead does in her book by that title.
alienate the only decent guys in the show
I wish I could say that attitudes and
According to one estimate, half of all marby their own creepy behavior. I recently
behavior are totally different among
riages made in the mid-1970s will end in
learned that (at least in California!) proChristians. But many professing Christians
divorce. And for marriages made more
fessed Christian women have Sex in the City
seem to experience very little dissonance
recently, some demographers project that as parties, where they get together to drink
between their faith and casual sex. One six- many as 64 percent will end in divorce.40
martinis, watch reruns, and air their grievteen year old told me that she had sex
Whitehead writes: With each passing
ances about men.
because it was easier than talking. Some are year, the culture of divorce becomes more
sexually promiscuous, while dreaming of a
deeply entrenched. American children are
Marriage is Still Popular
future Christian marriage to a wonderful
routinely schooled in divorce. Mr. Rogers
Despite rampant cynicism, marriage is still
godly spouse. There seems to be no
very popular, and for good reason.
connection in their minds between
Contrary to commonly held antiOur culture still saturates us with an marriage myths, research consistently
the lives they are living now and the
futures they envision for themselves.
updated version of the medieval ideol- shows that married people live
No question about whether the godly
longer, are healthier, wealthier, happiogy of romantic love. Marriage and
spouse of their dreams would want to
er, and have more satisfying sex lives
family are too banal for romance.
marry someone who is living as they
than single people.45
are now and no questions about the
There is a decline in the proporimpact of their present choices on their
(taught) toddlers about divorce. An entire
tion of Americans marrying, and especially,
future moral character and their ability to
childrens literature is devoted to divorce.
marrying successfully, yet marriage remains
be faithful to a spouse.
While well motivated, these books, movies
an extremely important goal to most
Our culture still saturates us with an
and T.V. shows carry an unmistakable mes- Americans. Ninety-three percent of
updated version of the medieval ideology of sage about the impermanence and unreliaAmericans rate having a happy marriage
romantic love. Marriage and family are too bility of family bonds. Like romantic love,
as either one of the most important or very
banal for romance. Grand romantic passion the childrens storybooks say, family love
important objectives.46 Yet, they fear this
can only happen in adulterous affairs.
comes and goes. Daddies disappear.
may be impossible to achieve.
For example, in The Bridges of Madison Mommies find new boyfriends. Mommies
Several years ago, I audited a class on
County, after a three-day affair, Robert, a
boyfriends leave. Grandparents go away.
Feminist Theory at Clarke University. A
divorced National Geographic photograEven pets must be left behind.41 Not surnumber of women in the class expressed a
pher, tells Francesca, the wife of an Iowa
prisingly, many children of divorce are
longing for a reliable, faithful husband who
farmer, My whole life has brought me here extremely cynical about marriage as a relawould enable them to raise children at
to you...Do you think love like this haptionship of permanent commitment.42
home. But their mothers had stayed home
pens to everyone? Were hardly two sepaTragically, divorce is sometimes neceswith children and their dads had walked
rate people. Were fused. This kind of cersary, and the lesser of evils, but far less freout, leaving them poor and with no job
tainty comes but once in a lifetimeIs it
quently than is often assumed. While many skills. They realized that they had to be
right giving it up? Dont throw us
Americans prefer to believe that children
financially independent, whether they marawayCome away with me.
are infinitely resilient and divorce does no
ried or not. Similar fears motivate many
In this genre of romance stories, the
long-term damage to them, all the evidence people to begin marriage with pre-nuptial
grand passion is fleeting, unfulfillable and
points the other way. Longitudinal studies
contracts as insurance, just in case the marultimately a fantasy. If Francesca went off
tracking the impact of divorce on children
riage fails.
with Robert, what are the chances that he
over a twenty-five-year period have shown
Even when the word marriage is not
wouldnt neglect her like he did his first
on-going negative consequences, including
spoken, there is a longing for what marriage
wife, through his obsession with photogragreater difficulty in forming permanent
representsa permanent relationship of
phy and travel? The everyday routines of
marital commitments themselves.43 It turns
love and commitment. Think of the populife would inevitably change their relationout that children are not always better off
larity of romantic comedies (especially
ship, and their romance would be tarnished when the parents are happily divorced
among single women). All romantic comewith their guilt and the pain inflicted on
rather than unhappily married.
dies are about finding Mr. (or Ms.) Right,
Francescas husband and children. While
There are many movies and T.V. shows or finding your soul mate. The implication
6

is that this is the person you will spend

whether her doubts comes from too many
surfs the web for everything else. There are
your life with.
romance novels!) Yet to Abby, since the
websites for every group, including busy
But intrinsic to these movies, is the
womans romantic feelings do not match
professionals, Christians, and those who
assumption that a certain chemistryrecip- the mans, all those universal elements of
want to hook up just for sex.
rocal romantic loveis the ONLY basis for marriage/family that already exist should be
In the first half of 2003, Americans
a lasting relationship. For example, heres a
thrown away.
spent $214.3 million on personals and datletter sent to Dear Abbys advice column in
Though she promised to marry him
ing sites. Forty million Americans visited at
1998:
over two years ago, this woman has no obli- least one online dating site in the month of
DEAR ABBY: I have been engaged
gations to the man who has sacrificed so
August 2003.49
to a wonderful man for more than two
much for her and her daughter; nor does
The web opens up a vast pool of
years and cannot seem to set a wedding
she have any duty to her daughter, who has potential mates, unlimited by contexts of
date. He loves me and my 9-year-old
come to know him like a father.
time, history or space. Clearly there are
daughter. He does all of the laundry, the
This is the ethic of expressive individu- negatives to this. There is the shopping
dishes and the cleaning, and he accepts my
alism at work. When your highest obligametaphor: with your profile and photo, you
daughter as his own. He works two jobs so
tion is to yourself, it becomes your moral
sell yourselfor different versions of yourwe dont go without anything.
obligation to leave a marriage or (or virtual
selfto different websites.
Sounds perfect, right?
marriage), when you experience any personThe absence of any real life context
The problem is, I dont think I love
al dissatisfaction with it. It is your moral
makes it much easier for people to deceive,
him. I say that I do, but I dont feel it. He
obligation to break promises and solemn
use, cheat on and dump each other and
is all a woman could ask for in a husband,
vows.
then disappear into thin air, without a
but is that enough to replace love? Or have
trace.
I read too many romance novels?
Finding Your Partner Today
There is also the temptation to never
He wants to get married as soon as
There is widespread anxiety today about
commit to a good relationship, because of
possible. I am 29, have never been
over-choice. If I just put one more
married and I feel my daughter
new, improved profile on a few
One Christian seminary professor and
needs a father. I am also afraid I
more websites, and give it another
counselor says that romantic comedies
wont find a man who will ever love
six months, I may find the perfect
often function for women as pornography man or woman of my dreams!
me as much as he does.
Can I find a man whom I
does for menas addictions to fantasies. You can now check and find out
love, who accepts my daughter as his
whether the person you are seriownor should I marry a man I
ously dating really has removed
dont love but who would be a wonderful
how to find a spouse. Dick and I have
his or her profiles from dating sites.
husband and father?
heard the same complaint, over and over
But I dont think on-line dating is all
FOR BETTER OR WORSE
again by single thirty-something friends.
negative. I heard an Indian woman on pubThe men say there are no good women
lic radio who said she wouldnt mind an
Abbys response:
left while the women complain there are
arranged marriage, but the traditional
DEAR FOR BETTER: If you marry
no good men left.48
Hindu marriage broker was too expensive
this man, knowing in your heart that you
Since Americans are marrying later,
and knew too few men who fit her and her
do not love him, you will be doing yourself they are less likely to meet their spouses in
parents specifications for a husband. She
and him a great disservice. Marriage is supschool or college. The pattern at Christian
considered on-line Indian courtship as a
posed to last forever. And forever is a long
colleges is different, and more students are
kind of arranged marriage, enabling her to
time to live with yourself, feeling that you
engaged by graduation. This is not necesshow her parents a dozen profiles of men
sold out because you were afraid you
sarily good; for example, when Christians
who fit both her and their requirements for
wouldnt find a man you can love. Let him
interpret romantic/sexual attraction as the
a husband.
go.47
Holy Spirits clear guidance. Divorce statisThe web is the route for those who
Think about the assumptions behind
tics for Christian college graduates are not
want to be pro-active and there are many
this correspondence. With the exception of
that different from divorce statistics for the
happy stories of couples that have found
a wedding ceremony, all of the elements
general population.
each other on-line.
which anthropologists recognize as univerSingle men and women spend most of
Others, however, are resisting what the
sal to marriage and family are already prestheir time at work, but fears of sexual
N.Y. Times calls the Dating Industrial
ent in this relationship: They are living
harassment suits have made dating coComplex, the barrage of websites, matchtogether, raising a daughter together, workworkers risky. Some companies even forbid
making services and books.50 The obsessive
ing together for the familys well-being, and it. The bar scene is horribly depressing. If
search for a partner requires a lot of time
(presumably) having a sexual relationship.
you do not meet people at church (or
and energy and more are deciding to let
On top of that, the mans feelings and
LAbri) or some kind of voluntary club,
romance happen by chance not
actions prove that he loves the woman and
where can you meet potential spouses?
commerce.51
her daughter very much. The only thing
It should not be surprising that matchTrusting to chance, fate or serendipity
missing is a feeling of romantic love on the
making has become a huge on-line busiis reinforced by huge numbers of romantic
part of the woman. (She wonders herself
ness, catering to the generation that already comedies, which tell stories of a secularized
7

Providence bringing people together.52

would come. Jesus ended with the words,
work in war-ravaged China made her a legOften their trust in serendipity leads them
For I tell you, none of those who were
end in her own life-time.56 During her time
to break existing engagements and to other
invited will taste my dinner.
in China, Gladys fell in love with a
questionable behavior (as in the John
Think about this. The invited guests
Nationalist Chinese officer, Colonel
Cusack movie Serendipity). I spoke with a
turned down an invitation to feast with
Linnan. Few love affairs can have flourwoman recently who told me that her sister God the Father and Son at their Kingdom
ished in circumstances stranger than that of
(a Christian) breaks up with her boyfriend
banquet! They turned down salvation! The
Gladys and Linnan. They met at odd
every time she watches a romantic comedy.
three excuses given represent three universal moments in the mountains, in shattered
Now there may be good reasons for her to
idol systems, which in every age have served villages, in bombed towns. They talked at
break up with him, but that is a very poor
as God substitutes. They are property or
odd moments between battles and births
one! One Christian seminary professor and
wealth, work and marriage/family.
and baptisms. They exchanged scraps of
counselor says that romantic comedies
Some of Jesus most disturbing statenews, had a meal together, talked of the
often function for women as pornography
ments are direct challenges to the idolatry
future they would build in the new China.
does for menas addictions to fantasies.
of marriage and family.54 For example,
His concern, his gentleness, his tenderness
There is certainly a need for Christians unless you hate father and mother, wife
toward her never wavered. They discussed
to come up with healthy alternatives to our
and children, brothers and sisters, and even
marriage; he was eager that they should
cultures dating chaos. Some Christian fam- life itself, you cannot be my disciple (Luke marry at once, live together as man and
ilies are adopting one or another so-called
14:26-27).
wife as best they could, war or no war. It
courtship model.53 Historically, arranged
Jesus relativized marriage and blood
was Gladys who said, No. The war had to
marriages have been successful, and in some family, making them subservient to the
be won first. Marriage, their personal hapcultures, they still are today. But cultural
Kingdom of God. To Jesus, the first famipiness, must wait.57
context is enormously important,
By this time, Gladys was an adopand where marriages have been
tive mother to five Chinese orphans
When we treat marriage as an idol, we and several adults and she was spying
arranged, the practice has been
put impossible demands on our spouses on the Japanese invaders. They found
common and supported by the
entire culture. Also, young people
out and put a price on her head. A
to fill the place of God for us.
ordinarily have had veto power
fugitive, ill, and without money or
(except among the upper classes
food, she led 100 homeless children in
and royalty). It is particularly important in
ly is the family of Gods adopted children,
an epic journey across the wild Chinese
a culture like ours, which puts such a high
which we enter by being born again. The
mountains to safety. Soon after, she colpremium on romantic attraction, to
biological family is the second family.55
lapsed in delirium and was not expected to
remember the wise admonition of the
When his family came looking for
live. Colonel Linnan found her, as she was
Puritan preacher: Those who marry where
him, Jesus asked, Who are my mother and recovering, and implored her to marry him.
they affect not, will affect where they marry my brothers? Whoever does the will of God But now, Instead of that inner exultation,
not. Mutual attraction should never be the is my brother and sister and mother (Mark the rounded delight of knowing that she
only consideration, but it is an important
3:31-35, Mt. 12:46-50, Luke 8:19-21).
loved and was loved in return, there was
one.
Paul consistently used family language
this nagging anxiety to do the right thing
to describe the Church. He too saw the
by her God, her children, and the man she
Marriage in the Bible
biological family as secondary to the
lovedThere was so much work to be
Church, the first family.
done for the Lord, and she, the small
Beware of Idols
For Romans and Jews, marriage and
woman, the small disciple, had her part to
Gods greatest gifts are those things we are
childbearing were mandatory duties.
play in that work.
most likely to treat as God substitutes, or
Probably the most radical challenge to the
(Weeping, she) said good-bye to him
idols. Throughout history, marriage and
idolatry of marriage was Jesus and Pauls
at the station outside Sian, and walked back
family have served as some of the most
teaching that singleness was a high call for
through the narrow streets with an overpowerful idols.
the sake of the Kingdom of God (Mt
whelming ache of loneliness in her heart,
In the parable of the great dinner
19:12). Paul wrote that marriage brings dis- aware that she would never know complete(Luke 14:15-24), a dinner guest exclaimed
tress and anxieties, especially at times of cri- ly if she had acted wisely or notonly that
to Jesus, Blessed is anyone who will eat
sis. He recommended the single life because through all her waking days she would
bread in the kingdom of God! Jesus
unmarried men and women have a vocaremember Linnan as the one man she had
responded with a surprising story about the tional freedom to serve Christ with unhin- loved. The war swept him away and she
different excuses people will make to avoid
dered, undivided devotion that is impossinever saw him again.58
eating bread in the kingdom of God. The ble for married people (1 Cor 7:28-38).
How do you react to this story? If
first couldnt come to the banquet because
The immediate context of Pauls advice was Gladys Aylwards painful decision to refuse
he had to inspect his new field; the second
probably the imminent destruction of
marriage to the man she loved seems totally
had to try out his new oxen; and the third
Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D.
unthinkable to you, I would suggest that
just got married. The master was furious
I recently reread the amazing story of
marriage may be an idol in your life. Her
and sent the servant out to bring in the
Gladys Aylward, a London parlormaid who situation was an exact illustration of Pauls
poor, blind, lame and anyone else who
went to China in 1930. Her missionary
teaching in 1 Cor 7 and of Jesus call to
8

take up the cross and follow him. Personal

hotter sex.
justifies marital sex by them.
happiness is not our highest calling. The
All idols kill love and therefore underPaul commanded married couples not
Kingdom of God is.
mine or destroy marriage. When we treat
to deprive each other of their conjugal
Marriage can be an idol in itself, but it marriage as an idol, we put impossible
rights. He assumed the womans sexual
can also serve other idols, like the State, as
demands on our spouses to fill the place of
desires and needs as much as the mans, as
in ancient Rome. It can serve materialistic
God for us. When the state, work, money,
well as their equal rights to initiate sexual
idols of upward mobility, the love of
power, happiness, children or sex are idols,
intimacy and experience sexual pleasure (1
money, the American dream.59 The recent
anyone who gets in the way of those goals
Cor 7).
Cohen brothers film, Intolerable Cruelty is a is crushed.
Similarly, the writer of Proverbs
very funny and canny depiction of those
exhorted husbands to rejoice in the wife of
who use marriage and divorce as a means of What is Marriage?
your youth for the rest of your lives (i.e., as
getting richer (repeatedly marrying and
Some Pharisees tried to test Jesus by drawshe ages!). May her breasts satisfy you at all
divorcing up).60
ing him into a contemporary Jewish debate
times; may you be intoxicated always by her
Marriage can also serve the idol of
about divorce. The asked him, Is it lawful
love (Prov 5:15-23).
motherhood and procreation. Jesus chalfor a man to divorce his wife for any and
Recently, two large national sex surveys
lenged this idol when a woman cried out to every reason?61
concluded that married couples experience
him, Blessed is the womb that bore you
Rather than choosing sides in the
the most satisfying sex, physically and emoand the breasts that nursed you! Without
debate, Jesus referred them to the central
tionally, than any other group. Another
denigrating motherhood, Jesus expanded
issue, the created nature and purpose of
national poll found that married men and
her view of womanhood, saying,
women (many of them
Blessed rather are those who hear
The problem with non-marital sexual inter- church goers) with traditionthe word of God and obey it! The
al ideas about the meaning
course is that it performs a life-uniting act
blessing of discipleship is accessible
of sex as a sacred union,
to anyoneman or woman, young
exclusive to marriage, and a
without a life-uniting intent, and thereby
or old, married or single, parent or
sign and symbol of their conviolates its intrinsic meaning.
not. Jesus rejected the common view
jugal commitment, experithat a woman without children was
ence the best sex of all!63
by definition barren, cursed and outside marriage. Have you not read that the one
Given our cultures myths about hot sex,
of Gods blessing (Luke 11:27-28).
who made them at the beginning made
these statistics may seem surprising. But if
Marriage can serve the idol of individthem male and female, and said, For this
we believe God made sex for marriage, we
ual personal happiness, as in the Dear Abby reason a man shall leave his father and
shouldnt be surprised.
letter.
mother and be joined to his wife, and the
The problem with non-marital sexual
If you have a list of qualifications for
two shall become one flesh? So they are no
intercourse is that it performs a life-uniting
the spouse you want to marry, check that
longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what
act without a life-uniting intent, and therelist carefully for idols. Does your mate have God has joined together, let no one sepaby violates its intrinsic meaning. What God
to be a beauty queen (or king)? I have met
rate.
hates about it is not the sex act itself, but
a surprising number of Christians (mostly
What do we learn here about the
the walking away afterward, the exploitamen) who have a list of physical qualificanature and purpose of marriage? It is a hettion and abandonment of the person you
tions, like she must be at least 58 tall,
erosexual union between a man and a
have been one flesh with. It is also sin
blond, have a good figure, etc. Perhaps
woman. It means leaving the parent/child
against our own bodies, which are united
Christian women have similar lists, but are
relationship and establishing a new social
with Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit.
less honest about admitting it, I dont
unit. While Scripture commands us to
We also learn from Jesus teaching that
know.
respect and care for birth family members,
marriage is a covenant, a solemn oath or
Remember the words of Proverbs
the center of commitment, submission, loy- pledge of a man and woman to each other
31:30: Charm is deceitful, and beauty is
alty, and decision-making is now with the
unreservedly. Marriage was created to be a
vain, but a woman (or man) who fears the
new couple.
life-long union. But because of the brokenLord is to be praised. Even the most gorMarriage is cleaving, or adhering to ness of a fallen world, the New Testament
geous grow old, wrinkle, change shape, and your partner, exhibiting the strong commit- allows divorce in cases of radical covenant
are vulnerable to defacing accidents and illment to the new relationship. The Hebrew
breaking, like adultery or desertion, where
nesses. If a particular definition of beauty is word means loyal affection.
in effect, one partner has already abantoo important to you, you will be attracted
Becoming one flesh is the purpose
doned the marriage. But this is a far cry
to other people, especially as your spouse
and goal of the leaving-cleaving complex.
from divorce for reasons of incompatibiliages.
Jesus says they are no longer two, but one,
ty or because one is no longer in love.
It is good to be romantically and sexuhaving been joined together by God.
In Malachi 2:14, the Lord presents
ally attracted to your spouse. But if a fantaThe sexual union is an expression of
himself as witness against the husband who
sy version of romance and sexual fulfillment the whole person union of marriage. It
breaks faith with his wife, the wife of his
are number one on your list of specificaaccomplishes many good purposes; for
youth, though she is your partner, the wife
tions, you will start looking outside your
example, procreation, unity and pleasure.62
of your marriage covenant. Malachi calls
marriage for more exciting romance and
And the Bible never ranks these purposes or divorce for reasons of incompatibility
9

hatred or dislike violence, a treacherous

breach of the marriage covenant.64
Weddings and Public Vows
David Blankenhorn writes, To understand
why the United States has the highest
divorce rate in the world, go to some weddings and listen to what the brides and
grooms say. In particular, listen to the
vows(because) it is the content and the
integrity of the dedicating promise itself
what we say and mean when we say I
dothat shapes the nature and destiny of
the marriage.65
If a man and woman promise to stay
together as long as love lasts, their only
hope is that the feelings of love they have
on their wedding day will endure, and they
will be some of the lucky ones who beat the
divorce statistics.
The power in the traditional Christian
marriage vows is that they force a man and
woman, at the beginning of their marriage,
to anticipate the worst-case scenarios for
their future together. In the presence of
God, family and friends, they vow to each
other: In the Name of God, I take you to
be my wedded husband/wife, to have and
hold from this day forward, for better for
worse, for richer for poorer; with all my
worldly goods I do thee endow; in sickness
and in health, to love and to cherish, and
forsaking all others, keep myself only to
you, until we are parted by death. This is
my solemn vow.
With such grim vows, why are weddings usually times of joy and celebration,
dressing up and flowers, feasting, drinking
and dancing? Because a man and a
woman are making such an amazing,
unqualified promise of love and fidelity,
with their eyes open, having faced the
grim possibilities of what may go wrong
in the future. There is no romanticism
here. My husband Dick calls these vows a
pre-emptive strike against cynicism.
Am I really willing to love and support
him/her in chronic disease, accident,
bankruptcy, betrayal, disappointment, suffering and loss, all the while knowing that
we will both change in unpredictable
ways? Am I willing to face my own sin,
vanity, jealousy, selfishness in the confidence of Gods forgiveness, but also in my
own willingness to apologize, forgive and
be forgiven by my spouse? The realism
and humility that makes a relationship to
God possible starts a couple in the direction of honest love for each other.66 This
10

is the only sure way to experience marriage as good news.

The traditional marriage vows, made
soberly and in the fear of God, provide a
solid foundation for facing the inevitable
uncertainties of life, with a partner who is
committed to standing with you to the end.
It is fitting to make these vows in a public
ceremony, because marriage is not just a
private decision, but also a public act, with
profound legal and social meaning. This is
something worth celebrating with friends
and family who are committed to supporting your marriage into the future.
Is Laura Kipnis right that the institution of marriage itself isnt living up to its
vows? I dont think so. We have either

The real soul-mate is the one

you are actually married to.
redefined the vows (and marriage) so that
there is very little to live up to, or we have
made solemn marriage vows and broken
them ourselves.
The Courtship Model
Is there a particular model of courtship in
the Bible? No! As in history, there is great
variety of ways biblical couples met and
married, and a similar variety of motives.
Isaac and Rebekahs marriage was
arranged by Abraham, who sent his servant
to kin, in order to find a wife for Isaac
among believers. It is a story of Gods providence and answered prayer which included
the girls choice. She willingly agreed to
leave her family and marry a man she had
never laid eyes on. Their meeting is one of
the more romantic stories in the Bible: the
servant told Isaac all that had happened,
then Isaac brought her into his mother
Sarahs tent. He took Rebekah, and she
became his wife; and he loved her. So Isaac
was comforted after his mothers
death(Gen. 24:66-67).
Moses met his wife Zipporah at a well,
just as Abrahams servant met Rebekah at a
well. The men met the women at work, not
in some romantic setting. They were in the
midst of their daily chores, drawing water
for the familys needs. Caleb offered his
daughter as a prize to whatever man defeated an enemy city.
Joseph was given Pharaohs daughter in
marriage. Surely there were political
motives in that match.

Bloodline and inheritance was very

important in ancient Israel. Levirate marriage was established in the law as a way to
assure the continued name and inheritance
of a husband who died before having a son.
It was the duty of the dead husbands
brother or next-of-kin to marry the widow.
Their firstborn would carry on the name of
the deceased brother, so that his name
would not be blotted out of Israel.
The book of Ruth tells the story of a
woman in this situation, who, under the
guidance of her mother-in-law, approached
her dead husbands relative, an older man
named Boaz. She lay down next to him in
the night, and asked him to perform the
duty of the next-of-kin and marry her. He
agreed and praised her for putting family
loyalty before her desire for a younger husband, whether poor (presumably for love)
or rich (presumably for money). Ruth and
Boaz married and had a son named Obed,
who became the father of Jesse, the father
of David, the forefather of Jesus.
In Proverbs 31:1 the Kings mother
gives her son advice about the kind of
woman he should choose to marry. So this
was not to be an arranged match.
The Song of Songs is an extraordinary
love poem, most of it voiced by an anonymous black woman. She is in love, and is
assertive and uninhibited about sexual
desire, as is her lover. There is reference to a
wedding, but it is difficult to discern a clear
story line. Bruce Walke believes there is a
love triangle with a King and a shepherd in
love with the same woman, whose heart is
with the shepherd. I dont know. What is
clear is a lot of erotic language and sexual
initiation on the part of the woman as well
as the man she loves, and there is a wedding, so this is mutual married love.
I Cor. 7 is clear that from Gods point
of view, men and women are equally free to
choose marriage or singleness. (First century Roman and Jewish parents would not
have agreed.) Paul says if a widow decides
to remarry, she is free to marry anyone she
wishes (and there were many young widows in the early church). Pauls only stipulation was that believers marry believers. He
also exhorted the Thessalonians to learn
how to take a spouse for yourself honorably,
rather than to wrong or exploit a sister or
brother lustfully.67 Marital choice again
seems to be assumed.

A Different View
The alternative to a cynical rejection of

marriage on the one hand and an idolatrous

inflation of marriage on the other is not
achieving some golden mean of medium
sized hope in the middle. It is building our
marriages on a different foundation altogetheron the biblical worldview, and the
Christian Story.
In our confusing culture, it is a temptation to romanticize the past, and think
that finding a mate used to be easy. I dont
think its ever been easy. Ive only given a
few highlights, but the history of courtship
reveals different kinds of struggles for men
and for women in every culture and era.
There is no one sanctified model of
courtship, no foolproof paradigm that will
guarantee a successful, happy marriage.
Whether to marry, when to marry, who to
marry, how to find him or herare all part
of the life of faith, of trusting God to hold
our hands, and walk with us into a future
that we are blind to but He is not. The priorities of the Christian life in general, apply
here. Seek first His Kingdom and his
righteousness, and all these things will be
given to you as well(Mt. 6:33).
As J.R.R. Tolkien wisely said, Nearly
all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes, in the sense that almost certainly (in
a more perfect world, or even with a little
more care in this very imperfect one) both
partners might be found more suitable
mates. But the real soul-mate is the one you
are actually married to.
~Mardi Keyes
Mardi Keyes is a worker at the Southborough, MA,
branch of LAbri Fellowship. This article is adapted from
a lecture given at the Rochester LAbri conference in
February 2004. Copyright 2004 by Mardi Keyes.

Further Reflection
To those who are addicted to romantic
comedies, and are incapable of breaking the
habit cold turkey, start by being selective
about the ones you watch.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding and
Monsoon Wedding are antidotes to the
extreme individualism of most romantic
comedies. They show marriage as embedded in large, extended families, with many
stakeholders.
Monsoon Wedding tells the story of an
arranged Indian marriage. The couple marries very soon after meeting for the first
time. This movie deals realistically with the
sense of anger and betrayal the fianc feels
when his soon-to-be-bride tells him, the
day before the wedding, that she has been

having an affair with a married former

boyfriend. But it also shows the power of
grace, as he forgives her, and thanks her for
her honesty They put past sins behind them
and commit themselves to a faithful marriage.
High Fidelity has a lot of bad language
and some sexually explicit scenes, but it is a
very brilliant and funny story of a thirtysomething man whose only accomplishment in life has been to keep his options
open because of his terror of commitment.
In the course of the story, he starts to recognize the self-deceptive pattern in all his
romantic crushes and their inability to
deliver happiness. He gradually moves
toward wanting what he calls the steady
low-watt-glow of marriage.
Movies that depict real marriages, like
A Beautiful Mind. Read biographies of single and married people who have served
God fruitfully, like Shadow Lands.
And spend time with married couples
and families whom you respect and can
learn from.
Endnotes
1Genesis 2:18
2Denis de Rougemont, Love in the Western World
(Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University
Press,1983), p. 300
3Psalm 16:4
4Ibid
5Ibid, p. 3
6Marilyn Yalom, The History of the Wife (New York:
Harper Collins, 2001), p. xiii, p. 22
7Yalom, p. 22. Pseudo-Demosthenes expressed the
pervasive Classical Greek male ideal (in the 4th century B.C.E.): We have mistresses for our enjoyment,
concubines to serve our person, and wives for the bearing of legitimate offspring. See Sarah B. Pomeroy,
Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical
Antiquity (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), pp. 2-3
8Pomeroy, p. 159
9Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New
York: Crossroad, 1987) p. 262
10Euripides, Hippolytus
11de Rougemont, p. 74, 110
12Yalom, pp.60-65. In the movie Being John
Malcovich, the puppeteer portrays the story of Abelard
and Heloise.
13Yalom, p. 58
14Proverbs 30:18
15The Emergence of the Modern American Family,
Carl Degler, p. 70
16Yalom, p. 68
17de Rougemont, p. 292
18Ibid, pp. 73-74
19Yalom, pp. 98-105

20Yalom, pp. 101-102

21Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin

Luther (A Mentor Book, Abington Press, 1955), pp.

223-225
22Ibid, p. 236
23Ibid
24Yalom, p. 102
25Stone in Wing to Wing
26Ibid
27Ibid, pp. 108-145
28too high or favorable opinion of
29playful flirtation
30Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritans and Sex in The
American Family in Social Historical Perspective, p. 312
31Yalom
32Martyrs to Venus in The New Republic, October
28, 2002, p. 36a review of the book Sexual Revolution
in Early America by Richard Godbeer
33Ellen K. Rothman, Hands and Hearts: A History of
Courtship in America (Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, 1987), pp. 45-46
34Rothman, p. 31
35Ibid, p. 31
36Ibid, p. 36
37Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for
Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier,
and Better Off Financially (New York: Broadway
Books, 2000) p. 2
38Laura Kipnis, The State of the Unions: Should
This Marriage Be Saved? in the New York Times OPED (Review of the Week), Sunday, January 25, 2004,
p. 15
39See Time magazine on the health benefits of an
active sex-life, January 19, 2004
40Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The Divorce Culture:
Rethinking Our Commitments to Marriage and Family
(New York: Vintage Books of Random House, 1998),
p. 44
41Ibid, p. 11
42Whitehead, pp. 188, 128
43Judith S. Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis, Sandra
Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year
Landmark Study (New York: Hyperion, 2001).
44Who is Carrie Bradshaw really dating?
Relationshipism by Lee Siegel in New Republic,
November 18, 2002, p. 30-33
45Waite and Gallagher
46Ibid, p. 3
47Yalom, p. xi
48Barbara Defoe Whitehead, Why There Are No Good
Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single
Woman (New York: Broadway Books, 2003)
49For instance, Match.com, Nerve.com, DreamMates, The Right Stuff, eHarmony and eCrush,
TurboDate, HurryDate, 8minute Dating and Its Just
Lunch
50Books like Surrendered Single, Find a Husband After
35 Using What I learned at Harvard Business School,
and Make Every Girl Want You

11

51New York Times, Sunday Styles, Section 9,

64David Clyde Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics (Grand

November 30, 2003, pp. 1, 12

52For instance, Love Actually, Sleepless in Seattle, Youve
got Mail, Happenstance Serendipity, Notting Hill, Ever
After, It Could Happen to You.
53For one model, see Mars Hill Audio (Ken Meyers),
Wandering Toward the Alter tape 3, end of side 1
54Luke 9:59-62, Mt. 8:21, Mt. 10:34, Mark 10:2831, Luke 18:28
55Rodney Clapp, Families at the Crossroads (Downers
Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press, 1993), chapter 4
56Alan Burgess, The Small Woman (New York: Dutton
& Co., 1957)
57Ibid, pp. 189-190
58Ibid, pp. 251-252
59The early 20th century novelist Edith Wharton
shrewdly chronicled and critiqued the practice of marriage and divorce as vehicles of social ambition and
economic advancement. (see The Custom of the
Country and The Glimpses of the Moon). In these novels, marriage and divorce are the domestic equivalent
of acquisitive capitalism, motivated by the same principles of self-interest, power and competitive advantage.
See The Divorce Culture, p. 24
60On this theme, see Edith Whartons novels, referenced in The Divorce Culture
61D.A. Carson, The Expositors Bible Commentary,
Matthew 13-18 (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1995),
p. 411
62C.T., Philip Yancy article pointing out that humans
are wired to be able to have sex far more frequently
than is necessary for reproduction, and far more than
any other species in the animal kingdom.
63Waite and Gallagher, chapter 6

Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), p. 191

65David Blankenhorn, I Do in Wing to Wing, Oar to
Oar: Readings on Courting and Marrying, p. 77
66Dick Keyes, manuscript of book on Cynicism, chapter 19
671 Thess. 4:3-6

Ransom Fellowship is a writing and speaking ministry designed to help

Christians develop skill in discernmentby which we mean skill in studying the
Scriptures and applying the truth of Gods Word to all of life and culture.
For more information find us on the web at
www.RansomFellowship.org
Ransom Fellowship
1150 West Center Street
Rochester, MN 55902
Fax: 507.280.9535
Email: info@ransomfellowship.org

12

A Man and His Friends

Ecclesiastes 4: 9-12 and Proverbs 27: 5-6, 17

Evaluate this statement:

The most important relationships for the traditional person are their family ties, for the modern person it is
their lovers, and for the postmodern person it is their friends because their family and lovers have let them
down (Dr. Tim Keller).
What is the biggest problem among students at Davidson? What makes Davidson a hard place for people?
Are friendships here easy, available, shallow, going places? With all the talk about community and
fellowship and connection, why are people falling through the cracks here?
Great irony of loneliness here ! absence of folks who listen, care, know, interested genuinely,
confront, confess, celebrate, common vision.
Individualism comes to fruition
What makes for true friendship?
Guys hanging out (playing xbox, watching super bowl, survivor)
Guys on athletic team
Guys praying and studying Bible together
Facebook friends and groups
What is the difference in these things? Companions vs. true friends (brothers).
Lover vs. Friend: yet in some ways nothing is less like a friendship than a love-affair. Lovers are always talking to

one another about their love, friends hardly ever talk about their friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed
in each other, friends side by side, absorbed in some common interest. Above all, Eros (while it lasts) is necessarily
between two only. But two, far from being the necessary number for friendship, is not even the best. And the reason for
this is important: In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I
am not large enough to carry the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets. Now
that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronalds reaction to Charles joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having
him to myself now that Charles is dead, I have less of Ronald. Hence true friendship is the least jealous of loves. Two
friends delight to be joined by a third, and three by a fourth, if only the newcomer is qualified to become a real friend.

The Great Tragedy: Those who simply want friends will never really make any! Lewis says, That is why those pathetic people who
simply want friends can never make any. The very condition of having friends is that we should want something else besides
friends. Where the truthful answer to the question Do you see the same truth? would be I see nothing and I dont care about the
truth, I only want a friend, no friendship can arise though affection of course may. There would be nothing for the friendship
to be about, and friendship must be about something, even if it were only enthusiasm for dominoes or white mice. Those who have
nothing can share nothing, those who are going nowhere can have no fellow travelers.
You will not find the warrior, the poet, the philosopher, or the Christian by staring in his eyes as if he were your mistress; better
fight beside him, read with him, argue with him, pray with him.

Read passages Ecclesiastes and Proverbs.

Friends work well together ! two better than one. (v. 9)
Friends help each other out in times of need ! (v. 10)
Friends offer comfort and understanding ! (v. 11)
Friends cushion lifes blows ! v. 12
Friends galvanize us for crusades that God has called us to
Friends disclose and confront
Friends help to celebrate

Critique
Deepening Discipleship

Developing Discernment

!"#"$%&'()*+,-./0%(1*23
+9%.:6'+9.*2.;"<%
HELPING CHRISTIANS SPEAK COMPASSIONATELY AND WITHOUT
COMPROMISE ON A DIFFICULT TOPIC.

4,.5(67*.8%,%$

A Publication of
Ransom Fellowship
1150 West Center Street
Rochester, MN 55902
http://www.ransomfellowship.org

Resources
for Equipping
Wise Christians

!"#"$%&'()*+,-./0%(1*23
+9%.:6'+9.*2.;"<%
4,.5(67*.8%,%$

here are few issues that have generated Christian groups, because he regarded his
were frustrated that the public discussion
more political heat and extreme rheto- own situation as more complex and tragic
of this matter has been dominated by insisric; more anger and hatred; confusion
tently ideological voices: on one side, gay
than their stance could acknowledge. He
and pain, than the issue of homosexuality.
also worried that the gay subculture encour- rights activists demanding the churchs
Christianity has come under fire for its traunqualified acceptance of homosexuality;
aged homosexual believers to draw their
ditional teaching that homosexual behavior
on the other, unqualified homophobic conidentity from their sexuality and thus to
is intrinsically immoral. For those who
shift the ground of their identity subtly and demnation of homosexual Christians.
believe that a persons homosexual orientaHays wrote this article, after Garys death,
idolatrously away from God.
tion is biologically determined, as much as
in the hope that it would foster compasFor more than 20 years, Gary had
race and sex are, the traditional Christian
grappled with his homosexuality, experienc- sionate and carefully reasoned theological
teaching seems cruel and intolerantakin
reflection within the community of faith. I
ing it as a compulsion and an affliction.
to racism or sexism. It appears to many that Now, as he faced death, he wanted to talk it have quoted Hays because both here and in
the God of the Bible condemns people for
his studies on the Bibles teaching about
all through again from the beginning,
expressing the innate identity He gave
because he knew my love for him and trust- homosexuality, he expresses so well the spirthem.
it with which I have attemptThere are many
ed to reflect on this terribly
Public discussion has been dominated by insistently sensitive issue.
Christians and nonChristianswho feel
Let me start by pointing
ideological voices: on one side, gay rights activists
alienated from all camps.
out
that there are enough
demanding the churchs unqualified acceptance of
They cannot celebrate
differences between male
homosexuality; on the other, unqualified homopho- homosexuals (gay men) and
their homosexual feelings and wholeheartedly
lesbians that they should not
bic condemnation of homosexual Christians.
embrace a homosexual
automatically be lumped
lifestyle because they are
together, even though the
convinced (for any number of reasons) that
two groups are often political allies. For
ed me to speak without dissembling...In
their homoerotic feelings are the result of
particular, Gary wanted to discuss the bibli- example: few men are aware of choosing to
something having gone wrong. I have
be gay. Many women are not either, but a
cal passages that deal with homosexual
friends in this situation, and my heart goes
significant number of women
acts...
out to them.
convert to lesbianism, sometimes after
He had read hopefully through the
Those who identify with the gay rights standard bibliography of the burgeoning
years of marriage and raising children.
movement talk a lot about respecting diversi- movement advocating the acceptance of
For radical feminists, lesbianism can be
ty, but they do not always respect the diver- homosexuality in the church...In the end,
a political choice, motivated more by femisity among those with homosexual feelings.
nist ideology than by an exclusive sexual
he came away disappointed, believing that
They need to allow space for those who
these authors, despite their good intentions, attraction to women. For them, lesbianism
interpret those feelings as the result of
had imposed a wishful interpretation on the is the strongest possible statement of consomething having gone wrong...including
tempt for men (or of their irrelevance).
biblical passages... Gary, as a homosexual
those who seek help to change.
While many women become lesbians
Christian, believed that their writings did
Richard Hays, a New Testament schol- justice neither to the biblical texts nor to
after experiencing abuse by men, there are
ar, wrote about his best friend from college, the depressing reality of the gay subculture
also compelling ideas that draw feminists
who spent a week with his family shortly
to embrace lesbianism. Obviously, to comthat he had moved in and out of for 20
before dying of AIDS. Hays writes: (Gary) years.1
municate with these women, we need to
was angry at the self-affirming gay
understand their thinking. We must also
Hays writes that both he and Gary
1

be prepared to face the uncomfortable fact

that many of them grew up in families and
churches where they experienced
Christianity as bad news for women.

an erotic attraction to other men. He is

describing men who are homosexual
psychologically and behaviorally.
Secondly, Boswells argument depends
on ignoring or rejecting the most likely
meaning of the Greek phrase para physin
he Debate Among
(unnatural) in favor of his own idiosyncratChristians
ic meaning. Para physin was a common
A growing number of scholars now
stock
phrase or literary convention used
claim that the Bible passages traditionally
by
Graeco-Roman
(Stoic) Moralists and
used to censure all homosexual behavior
4 and had the accepted
Hellenistic
Jews
have been misunderstood and cannot legitimeaning of against or contrary to nature,
mately be applied to the contemporary
frequently
used to designate homosexual
moral debate about homosexuality. These
acts
as
immoral,
in contrast to heterosexual
revisionist scholars include Catholics and
acts,
which
were
natural or according to
Protestants, including some from an
nature.
To
Paul
and
his audience, nature did
Evangelical background, like Letha
refer
to
a
universal
moral
order.
Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott who
Furthermore,
Jewish
writers,
like Pauls contogether wrote Is the Homosexual My
temporary,
Josephus,
specifically
associated
Neighbor?
the
natural
with
Gods
Creation
and
Law.
What unites these people is the convicRobin
Scroggs,
in
The
New
Testament
tion that Scripture nowhere teaches that
and Homosexuality, argues that
homosexual behavior is intrinsically,
Pauls clear denunciation of homoand therefore always, wrong. They
We
must
face
the
uncomfortable
fact
sexual acts in Romans 1 refers only
admit that the few biblical texts
referring to homosexual acts all
that many lesbians grew up in families to pederasty, the predominant
model of homosexuality in Pauls
express disapproval, but it is argued
and churches where Christianity was
culture. Pederasty was an intrinsicalthat in each case there is something
ly exploitive, temporary, and
bad
news
for
women.
in the context that makes that parunequal relationship between an
ticular expression of homosexuality
adult male and a pre-adolescent boy
immoral. For example: attempted
true
God
for
idols.
Paul
is
not
arguing
in
a
(often
a
slave).5 Scroggs argues that the
gang rape or inhospitality in Sodom
case-by-case way that every individual
contemporary gay Christian model of
(Genesis 19), idolatry and ritual defilement
homosexual
has
consciously
and
willfully
mutual, consenting, monogamous adult
in the Old Testament Holiness Code
rejected
God,
rather
he
is
making
a
sweephomosexual partnerships is so different that
(Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), lustful promising
diagnosis
of
the
fallen
human
condithe N.T. teaching simply cannot be applied
cuity in Romans (1:24-27), and pederasty
tion,
and
some
of
its
tragic
consequences.
to it.
(the sexual relationship of adult men with
The
most
influential
revisionist
scholar
It is probably true that pederasty
boys) in Corinth (1 Cor 6:9-11) and
is
the
late
Catholic
Yale
historian,
John
was
in
the forefront of Pauls mind, but he
Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:9-10). They argue that
Boswell,
author
of
Christianity,
Social
explicitly
condemns the homoerotic elewhat is censored in the Bible is not homoTolerance,
and
Homosexuality
and
Same
Sex
ment
(male
with male) not the pederastic
sexuality itself, but only abusive, exploitive,
Unions
in
Pre-Modern
Europe.
According
to
element
(man
with boy) of the sexual pracuncommitted, or in other ways destructive
Boswell,
Romans
1
isnt
talking
about
tice.
And
the
fact
that Paul explicitly
expressions of it.
homosexuals
at
all.
He
writes
there
is
no
included
female
same-sex
behavior in his
The question under debate is: Does the
clear
condemnation
of
homosexual
acts
in
condemnation,
indicates
that
he had more
Bible teach that homosexual behavior is
the
verses
in
question.
Instead,
Paul
is
conin
mind
than
pederasty.
This
is
the only
intrinsically wrong no matter what the condemning
individual
heterosexuals
who
go
biblical
reference
to
lesbianism,
and the
text and personal motivation? Or, as with
against
(exchange)
their
own
natural
Graeco-Roman
texts
rarely
refer
to it. The
heterosexuality, does its rightness or wrongheterosexual
inclinations
to
engage
in
fact
that
Paul
departed
so
dramatically
from
ness depend on the specific context and
3 Boswell contends
homoerotic
behavior.
the
literary
conventions
by
including
lesmotivation of the people involved? I dont
that to Paul, nature did not mean a unibianism baffles Scroggs because of his insishave the space to analyze each of the
versal
moral
order,
but
the
personal
nature
tence that Paul could only have had pedBiblical references to homosexuality, so I
of
the
(individual)
pagans
in
question.
erasty (an exclusively male phenomenon) in
will focus on Romans 1 because this pasThere
are
two
problems
with
this
view.
mind.6 But if Paul is condemning all
sage clearly addresses the intrinsic moral
First of all, men who commit homosexual
homosexuality as contrary to the universal
status of homosexuality.
acts
because
they
are
consumed
with
pascreated nature of things, then the inclusion
Romans 1:24-27: Therefore, God
sion
or
inflamed
with
lust
for
other
men,
of lesbianism is not at all
gave them over in the sinful desires of their
are
by
any
normal
definition
homosexual,
surprising. It is perfectly fitting.
hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading
not
heterosexual.
Paul
is
condemning
I believe Scroggs, Boswell, and others
of their bodies with one another. They
homosexual
acts
committed
by
men
with
miss
the obvious in this passage: Paul uses
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and

worshiped and served created things rather

than the Creatorwho is forever praised.
Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over
to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural
ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed indecent acts with other
men, and received in themselves the due
penalty for their perversion.
Pauls reference to homosexual behavior in Romans 1 appears in the context of
his sweeping theological analysis of the fallen condition of humanity. The widespread
practice of homosexuality in the pagan
world is cited as evidence that human
beings are in rebellion against the Creator.2
Their exchange of natural sexual relations
for unnatural reflects their exchange of the

homosexuality, in and of itself, as an illustration of the moral confusion and unrighteousness that comes from refusing to
acknowledge the Creator who, as Jesus said,
made them male and female at the beginning, and said, For this reason a man
shall...be joined to his wife, and the two
shall become one flesh(Mt. 19.4-5).
Marriage between a man and a woman, two
complementary equals, was established at
creation as the only legitimate context for
sexual intimacy.
In Romans I, Paul establishes the
intrinsic immorality of homosexual behavior, irrespective of social context, personal
motivation or anything else. This means
that when Paul condemns pederasty (in 1
Cor 6:9-11) he not only condemns the
exploitation involved in that practice,
(which he surely hated),but also the homoeroticism itself. Pauls teachings must therefore be taken seriously by Christians and
applied (with love, care and sensitivity) in
every culture to whatever model of homosexuality emerges.

mplications of the Bibles

Teaching

self.... All peopleJews and Greeks,

Christians and non-Christians, heterosexuals and homosexuals stand in radical
need of Gods mercy.8
The second mandatory Christian
attitude is love: Jesus says we must love
our neighbor as ourselves, including our
homosexual neighbor. James wrote that
we cannot praise God and with the same
tongue curse men and women who are
made in Gods likeness. Gay bashing and
jokes are sinful and reveal unreality and
hypocrisy in our praise of God.
Were commanded to show hospitality, literally to love the stranger. Gods
word does not say: welcome people into
your homes, lives and churches, except of
course homosexuals. Paul even rebuked
the Corinthian Christians for refusing
to associate with sexually immoral nonChristians (1 Cor. 5:9). He said we
would have to leave the world to avoid
them, and that is not an option for
Christians! We
must be salt and light in the world, with
non-Christian friends.
If we try to walk the delicate line of
loving practicing homosexuals without
condoning their sexual practice, we will
be accused of homophobia by those who

Homosexual behavior is wrong. But

it is not the worst sin. It is not even singled out as the worst sexual sin. And
it does not set people apart as subHomosexual behavior is wrong.
human or some kind of moral
freaks. In dealing with this issue,
But it is not the worst sin. And it
two mandatory Christian attitudes
does not set people apart as subare essential: humility and love.
human or moral freaks.
First humility. It is scandalous
when heterosexual Christians rant
and rave about homosexual sin as a
demand acceptance and even celebration
detestable abomination to God, while
of homosexuality. Listen to the words of
excusing themselves of other sins the
Black feminist bell hooks:
Bible calls abominationslike lying,
In the past year, I talked with a
pride, stirring up dissension (or gossip),
black
woman Baptist minister, who
dishonest business practices and injustice
though
concerned about feminist issues,
7
in the law courts. These things are also
expressed
detestable to God. Furthermore, human
very negative attitudes about homosexunature is such that, given the circumality, because, she explained, the Bible
stances, any of us could be tempted to
commit sins, sexual or otherwise, that we teaches that it is wrong. Yet in her daily
life she is tremendously supportive and
now consider ourselves incapable of.
caring of gay friends. When I asked her
In Romans 1, Paul sets up what
to explain this contradiction, she argued
Richard Hays calls a homiletical sting
that it was not a contradiction, that the
operation. The passage builds to a
crescendo of condemnation against those Bible also teaches her to
identify with those who are exploited or
wicked pagans... But then, in Romans
oppressed.9
2:1, the sting strikes: Therefore you
This woman is a good example to
have no excuse, whoever you are, when
us,
yet
bell hooks goes on to accuse her
you judge others; for in passing judgof
homophobic
attitudes that encourment on another you condemn your-

age persecution of gay people in the

black churches.

Homosexual Orientation in a
Biblical Perspective
We must understand homosexuality in light
of the brokenness and abnormality of living
in a fallen world. All of the Bibles references to homosexuality specify homosexual
behavior or acts; there is no Hebrew or
Greek word for a homosexual person as
such.
It cannot be denied that some people
can only remember, as far back as they can
recall, being attracted to the same sex. They
are not aware of ever having had a choice in
the matter. This raises a terribly troubling
question. Isnt God cruel and unfair to prohibit homosexual behavior for those with a
homosexual orientation they did not
choose?
We must never minimize the suffering
experienced by those with persistent homosexual desires, who struggle to be celibate.
At the same time, ever since the fall, every
one of us has been born with an orientation, or predisposition, to sin which we
have not consciously or freely chosen. Yet
God holds us morally accountable for our
acts. Paul puts it very strongly. We are
slaves of sin (Romans 6:17)so much so
that we need redemption, a word that
means emancipation from slavery. We
have the first fruits of redemption,
but our struggle against sin will not be
over until the final redemption of our
bodies (Romans 8:23). Even if some
people are biologically predisposed to
homosexualitythat is not the same
thing as causationit does not determine behavior.
We are, in fact, in deep trouble if we
believe that a biological predisposition for
certain behavior (aggression for example)
frees us from moral responsibility for our
actions. Pre-Menstrual Syndrome affects
some women dramatically. That does not
excuse them morally if they abuse their
children when suffering from PMS.
The fact that the Bible speaks of
homosexual behavior but not homosexual
persons, should encourage us all. God does
not define us by, or stigmatize us for our
particular temptations (sinful dispositions
or orientations), whatever they are! To
define any person by their sexual orientation is to radically reduce a splendid Image
bearer of God.
Thankfully, God sees everything, and
understands the combination of factors
3

biology, environment, and choicethat

Christians are homophobic, in the
and lust are extremely common in our culinfluence our behavior. And He offers forway that term is defined by the gay moveture, but that does not make them morally
giveness and help to anyone who genuinely
ment. But the Bibles prohibition against
neutral or morally right.
asks Him. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul
homosexual practice is not homophobic.
According to Genesis 19:4-5, the
says that some of the Christians in Corinth
It does not single out homosexual behavior
percentage of homosexual men in Sodom
had been practicing homosexuals, but, by
for censure, nor does it condone hatred
was far higher than in America today: all
Gods grace, were no longer. The same is
toward any person. In fact, the moral line
the men, from every part of the city of
true for many today. There
the Bible draws is not
are no quick fixes, and
between heterosexual
It is scandalous when heterosexual Christians rant behavior (good) and homoChristians must beware of
promising total healing for
sexual behavior (bad). All
and rave about homosexual sin as a detestable
any problem in this still
sexual activity that is not
abomination to God while excusing themselves of
fallen world. Nevertheless,
consensual, and in the conother sins the Bible calls abominations.
it is a fact that a great varitext of heterosexual,
ety of therapeutic
monogamous marriage is
approaches have helped
immoral, and falls short of
many homosexuals change both in orientaGods norms.
Sodomboth young and old demanded
tion and practice.
This teaching is particularly difficult to
to have sex with Lots guests. If we allow
Many find help in one of the ex-gay
the Apostle Pauls argument in Romans 1 to swallow in an individualistic culture like
ministries, but it is also crucial for Christours, which has made sexual freedom into
interpret the story of Sodom, then a high
ians struggling against homosexual temptaan idol. Our whole culture screams at us
incidence of homosexual behavior does the
tion to have the love and support of a local
that to be human, to avoid neurosis, etc.,
opposite of normalizing it. It is evidence
church or Christian community, and partic- that a culture is in a state of significant con- everybody must be sexually active. Too
ularly, close, affectionate, non-erotic friend- fusion, distortion, and rebellion against
many Christians have their own version of
ships with heterosexual people of the same
that lie by treating sex within marriage in
Gods created order.
sex (healthy opposite sex friendships are
an idolatrous way.
The Christian faith is unthinkable
also important).
At the same time, ironically, we are
for many people today because of its
increasingly seeing the tragic and destructeaching that for homosexuals, there is
tive fall-out of the idolatry of sex: a soaring
no morally legitimate way to express
omosexuality, an Urgent
their sexuality, whereas for heterosexuals, divorce rate, unwanted pregnancies; aborApologetics Issue
tions; single mothers and fatherless chilMy husband and I speak on secular there is at least the possibility of enjoydren; a whole array of STDs (at epidemic
ing
sex
within
marriage.
college campuses quite frequently, and our
levels on many college campuses today),
This
is
true,
but
Francis
Schaeffer
three sons have attended secular liberal arts
sexual addictions; and of course, AIDS
wrote
in
1968:
If
a
person
who
has
colleges in New England. There is no queswhich due to such high levels of promiscuhomophile
tendencies,
or
even
has
praction that in the non-Christian academic
ity among gay men, has taken a particular
ticed
homosexuality,
is
helped
in
a
deep
and media world today, homosexuality is
toll in that population. All this is what
way,
then
they
may
marry.
On
the
other
the single issue that Christians feel most
comes from so-called freedom!
hand,
there
are
a
certain
number
of
cases
intimidated by, and are most scorned for.
Christians need to challenge our
who
are
real
homophiles.
In
this
case
they
Where tolerance is believed to be the highcultures
idolatry of sexual freedom. In the
must
face
the
dilemma
of
a
life
without
sexest virtue, Christians who believe homosexfirst
century,
when pagans were converted
ual
fulfillment.
We
may
cry
with
them
conual practice is wrong are perceived to be on
to
Christ,
it
was
in the area of sexual moralcerning
this,
but
we
must
not
let
the
selfthe lowest moral ground.
ity
that
their
lives
tended to change most
pity
get
too
deep,
because
the
unmarried
In terms of public opinion, the higher
quickly
and
dramatically.
And the pagans
girl
who
has
strong
sexual
desires,
and
no
the prevalence of homosexuality, the more
marveled
at
the
Chris-tians
sexual freedom,
one
asks
her
to
marry
has
the
same
probit appears to be just one among other sexual
defined
as
freedom
from
being
driven by
lem.
In
both
cases
this
is
surely
a
part
of
the
lifestylesas morally neutral as being lefttheir
passions,
heterosexual
and
homosexuabnormality
of
the
fallen
world.
And
in
handed. The media, which tends to be
al.
It
was
a
freedom
that
empowered
them
both
cases
what
is
needed
is
peoples
understrongly committed to normalizing
to
live
as
chaste
when
single,
and
monogastanding
while
the
church,
in
compassion
homosexuality, makes the most of this,
mously when married. This kind of freeand understanding, helps the individual in
which is probably why we still hear the
10
dom benefits the whole communitymen,
every
way
possible.
claim that 1 out of 10 people are homosexwomen and childrenand protects the vulThe
same
can
be
said
of
single
men,
uals, even though that figure has been comnerable, those who are hurt the most by
widows
and
widowers,
divorced
and
those
pletely discredited. The figures for exclusive
individual sexual freedom run wild.
who
are
sexually
incapable.
Teach-ing
that
homosexuality are more like 1 to 3% for
distorts
the
Bible
by
making
an
idol
of
white males and half of that for females.
But in fact, the prevalence of homosexuality marriage (including sexual fulfillment with- C o m m e n d i n g t h e B i b l e s
Sex Ethic
has no logical bearing on the question of its in marriage) is not only false teaching, but
is
extremely
unhelpful
to
all
single
people
One of the reasons a strong gay rights
morality. One can never argue from an is
some of whom may never marry.
movement has emerged is that over the last
to an ought. For example, pride, greed
There is no denying that some

decades, heterosexual marriage has lost its

attractiveness and moral authorityboth of
which are needed to make the normativity
of marriage persuasive and plausible. Many
homosexual men and lesbian women quite
reasonably point their fingers at the breakdown and ugliness of so many marriages
today, and the abuse of women and children, which many of them have experienced first hand, in the so-called traditional
family. It is not surprising that many are
commending alternative family forms.
Bill Bennett has astutely pointed out
that conservatives are in a panic about the
issue of homosexual marriage while virtually ignoring the issue of divorce, which has
been far more widespread and devastating
to our culture. The breakdown of heterosexual marriage has come in large part from
the idolatry of individual freedom and
unwillingness to live within Gods marriage
norms. Homosexual marriage is just another step further down that same road.
This poses a huge challenge to us who
believe that faithful, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the Creators norm, and
is good for us. We, of all people, must be
demonstrating that. This must mean much
more than living with prohibitions. Our
marriages and family lives must positively
demonstrate the goodness of Gods sexual

Conservatives are in a
panic about homosexual
marriage while virtually ignoring the issue of
divorce, which has been
far more widespread
and devastating to our
culture.
and family norms; they must be beautiful,
attractive and life-affirming for men,
women and children. They must also be
welcoming to othersincluding homosexualsand a source of rich blessing in society.
Celibate singleness must also be seen as a
good, positive and productive call, as it was
in the lives of Jesus, Paul, and other disciples, both men and women (Mt 19:12, 1
Cor 7, Mary, Martha and Lazarus, etc.).
If these things are not living realities,
we cannot expect our verbal apologetics for
Biblical faith and sexual morality to be persuasive.
These are sensitive and complicated

issues. Christians need to think them

through in a sane and careful way and provide an alternative to the polarized rhetoric
from extremists on all sides. This is one of
the most important apologetics issues the
Christian Church is facing today, and it is
not likely to go away soon.
I have only touched on a few of the
challenges surrounding this terribly difficult
issue. We need Gods grace to walk the
tightrope, following His word with humility in all that it teaches, loving those who
disagree with us, and reaching out in compassion to those men and women who are
suffering the sad and tragic consequences of
living outside the created sexual boundaries
that God gave us for our good.
~Mardi Keyes

7Pr. 17:15 acquitting the guilty and condemning the

innocent
8Richard Hays, Awaiting the Redemption of our
Bodies, Sojourners, (July 20, 1991) p. 19.
9bell hooks, Talking Back: thinking feminist, thinking
black (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1989) pp. 122123.
10Excerpted from Letters of Francis A. Schaeffer, Lane
T. Dennis, ed., (Westchester, Il., Crossway Books,
1985)

Mardi Keyes co-directs the Southborough, MA, branch of

LAbri Fellowship with her husband Dick. They are the
parents of three sons aged 29, 28, and 22.
Copyright 2001 by Mardi Keyes.
Resources:
Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship Services, Box
7881, Reading, PA 19603. (610-376-1146)
Exodus International, Box 77652, Seattle, WA 98177.
(206-784-7799)
Endnotes:
1Richard B. Hays, Awaiting the Redemption of Our

Bodies, Sojourners, (July 20, 1991), pp.17-21.

2Richard Hays, Relations Natural and Unnatural: A
Response to John Boswells Exegesis of Romans 1,
Journal of Religious Ethics (Nov 14, 1986) p.189.
3John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and
Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the
Beginning of the Christian Era to the 14th Century
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Phoenix
Edition, 1981) p. 109.
4Richard Hays, Relations Natural and Unnatural...
p. 192-194. Josephus (whose life overlapped with the
apostle Paul) wrote, The law (Lev. 18 and 20) recognizes no sexual connections except for the natural
(kata physin) union of man and wife...But it abhors
the intercourse of males with males.
5Even in those rare homosexual relationships (for
example, between same age young men) that
stretched the normal pederastic model, inequality
was still built in. One always took the passive role, for
the pleasure of the other who took the active role.
6He concedes that the negative judgment made on
both female as well as male homosexuality...could be
considered a general indictment (p. 121); and that
Pauls general language for men (males with males, as
Leviticus stated it, with no age difference indicated)
could be too. But he continues to insist that Paul
could only have had pederasty in mind (p. 122).

Ransom Fellowship is a writing and speaking ministry designed to help

Christians develop skill in discernmentby which we mean skill in studying the
Scriptures and applying the truth of Gods Word to all of life and culture.
For more information or to receive a sample copy of Ransoms newsletters,
Critique and Notes from Toad Hall, please log on to our website at:
www.RansomFellowship.org
Ransom Fellowship
1150 West Center Street
Rochester, MN 55902
Fax: 507.280.9535
Email: info@ransomfellowship.org

THE STRUGGLE WOMEN DONT TALK ABOUT

Casey Cockrum

Women are battling masturbation and pornography. Its a taboo subject among
women and is rarely mentioned as a struggle for them. I have had many conversations
with young women about the battles they endure with masturbation and pornography.
Red faces with streaming tears sit before me, and the constant refrain is, Why do I
continually chase after masturbation and pornography? I thought this was a male
problem! What can you say about a topic that is never discussed but is ever present in
the lives of Christian Women? Even I still tend to think of it as strictly a male problem
though, of course, it isn't.
Several months ago (two weeks before my wedding to my husband) I was
talking with a pastor friend of mine. He told me about his camping trip with his
eleven-year-old son. They went to the woods to discuss the birds and the bees,
masturbation and all that other stuff that comes with being a boy. I told my then
fianc I was glad he would be the one to have to speak these things to our children one
day. But the reality is this is not just a discussion between a daddy and his son, this
should be a discussion between mom and daughter, best friends in college, a college
ministry leader and her female students, a youth leader and her female students.
Last week a friend whose job is to work on computers in a school district told me
that female teachers conduct the most searches for internet pornography in his district.
Consequently he gets the most calls from women in the schools to come and remove
inappropriate material from their computers which have been taken over by
pornographic images. I asked him if the women are embarrassed when they have to get
his assistance. He replied, Casey, they used to blush and make up excuses for why
there was pornography on their computer, but now they just laugh and say thanks.
Women think more and more like men with regard to these issues. I believe this
is due to the corruption of our own hearts added to the unprecedented prevalence of
pornography. When Paul describes the sexual perversion he sees in Rome, the Holy
Spirit compels him to explain what is happening in Romans 1. And what he saw there
directly corresponds to what we see now: God gives both men and women over to their
lusts if they insist on indulging in sexual practices contrary to his plan.
Our shameful lusts are inflamed by the prevalence of pornography in much of
culture. Even our shampoo and soft drink ads are driven by sexual innuendo. One
effect of this sexualizing of culture is that our young women imbibe and adopt
destructive views of female sexuality. A young teen used to get her views of modesty
and femininity from her mother, but now the ubiquity of pornography wars against
contemporary notions of Biblical womanhood.
For example, both soft-core (television, romance novels, and some movies) and
hard-core (magazines, internet, and movies) pornography are more on the radar screen
now of women. What used to be considered soft pornography is actually fairly hard
core. I recently watched an episode of Sex and The City just to see the attraction. I
watched the edited version, which is less explicit than the original HBO version. The

show featured masturbation and pornography. One character was frustrated that her
vibrator broke, while another character was jealous of her boyfriends pornography
habit. I was disgusted that television could be so raw and graphic, but I also saw very
clearly why so many women love this show: It portrays what many women truly think,
feel, and battle today. We need to discuss the longings and battles of women so that
women do not have to watch a soft porn show to feel understood.
Our dominant cultural media shouldnt be the only avenues that profess what
we think, feel, and battle. Masturbation and pornography are no longer the province of
men alone and women who have serious issues; they are the struggles of some
women even godly women who profess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Our
churches through their teaching and fellowship must address these issues of the heart
with tenderness and clarity.
If I had the answers to end these struggles, my husband and I would be very rich
and living on some island with an umbrella drink in one hand and a great book in the
other. I can offer hope hope that women are not alone in their struggles and that the
Gospel of Jesus Christ can set women free. Ask your church to discuss these topics with
women. I have shaken many snakes out of bushes, that I could not kill by teaching
on women and sexual sin, but, I assure you, the snakes are eating holes in the lives of
godly women. Lets shake the snakes out and see what happens. Maybe, just maybe,
they will be killed!
Casey Cockrum is the Assistant Director of College & Career Ministry at Independent
Presbyterian Church, in Memphis. E-mail her at: casey@indepres.org