[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by MtlMom

I think you just need to get to know the girl better, as a friend. Once our hearts are involved, our decision making can get a little wobbly. There are a lot of "Oprah Christians" out there, and it would be painful to get involved in a relationship only to find that you don't really share the same foundation.

Agreed. Friendship would answer your questions far more so than anything else.

I do think that that is the stage where you really get to know each other, and my wife and I in all honesty, thrive most on the friendship. Romance is well and good, but when you are home together for a day off, it is honestly the foundation of friendship that keeps the relationship strong.

In all honesty, I have seen relationships kept alive by romance, passion, and commitment, and I have a marriage that has romance, friendship, passion, and commitment. The friendship comes into play so very much. I played on a worship team with a guy. I know his wife from school. They have a good, probably average marriage, with kids, and a lot of love affection, and commitment. However, they don't like to spend a huge amount of time together because they really do not put much stock in the "friend zone" as they call it. My wife and I confuse the heck out of them because we actually like to spend a huge amount of time together. I mean, you are as apt to catch us playing mariokarts on the wii or chess as doing anything you would normally consider romantic, and I love it. My wife is also my very best friend. We go out on dates, we enjoy each others company and she even helps me in scheming.

In summation, I think friendship will answer your questions and would be a good foundation for marriage later if it leads there, and if nothing ever came of it... no loss, you have at worst worked on a friendship that stays a friendship. That in and of itself is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Nate

To be quite frank, even the Bible itself places almost no value, by virtue of near silence on the issue, on the "strength" or "depth" or "sincerity" or "maturity" or anything else of a person's Christian life insofar as it relates to the qualities that make a good partner. Read Proverbs 31, which only asks that a woman "fears the Lord," after a litany of much more secular things.

This strikes me as being off.

Lets look at a few terms.

You bring up Proverbs 31 and fearing the Lord in contrast, to strength, maturity, depth, or sincerity.

Lets start with sincerity: Should it be a litmus test? YES! If someones faith is not sincere, it means they are a hypocrite and fraud, thus meaning they do not actually fear the Lord, they are just pretending.

Depth: Is this something important? Take a look at the parable of the sower. If someone has no depth, they wither and fall away, which, pending your soteriology is that they were never truly saved, or that they have fallen from grace. Not a good position to put yourself in.

Maturity: If someone is immature, then chances are they are going to fall under a whole host of things in proverbs. Remember that proverbs describes a contentious wife as a continual dropping in a rainy day, and tells you it is better to live on the corner of a housetop. I have yet to meet many immature people who were not contentious. Part of immaturity is wanting your own way. Immature people also are generally not willing to put in the hard work to make a marriage work.

Strength: I will grant you this is an ambigous term, but the normal usage of terms when in regards to faith, is roughly, how they live their faith when times get rough. Now, I don't know about you, but that seems to be a pretty integral part of "fearing the Lord."

[Nate]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

This strikes me as being off.

You're probably right. I certainly wouldn't put it past me to make theologically ridiculous statements (I still think I'm really a modalist). I think other passages support my point, too, though.

More than anything, I think my comments were mostly my gut-level reaction to the weird importance many have put on public ministry and the visible signs of grace as they relate to the selection of a partner.

I've heard people make comments like (almost a literal transcription of stuff I've heard) "Look how on fire she [/he] is for God! That's so hot!" or "The sexiest thing a woman can do is serve God." It's absurd.

All that comes to mind when I hear someone ask a question like DaGeek's is seminary romances ("Oh! Did you see Keith Starkson answer Dr. Leitschmidt's question on supralapsarianism in OT Lit today? Be still my beating heart!") and that corny LaRue song ("Your faith for the Lord will be strong, even though I know the wait is looo-oong.").

I don't believe God ever intended (and certainly didn't show by example in the relationships He provided for the patriarchs) for us to select a mate based on piety. High morals or good character is one thing, but why make such a big deal out of something so nebulous as "where we are spiritually"? I can't even decipher what that phrase means.

How a person gets turned on (emotionally or sometimes [again, I've literally heard people say things almost to this extent] sexually) by a person's piety is beyond me. I'd never say it wasn't important. I think it's incredibly important to share spiritual beliefs with your partner. I think a wise and godly wife is a blessing. But putting a couple on the scales to see if one is at a "different place" is just silly talk.

For another thing, I don't think "different places" exist to the extent most think they do in our spiritual lives. We're all clumsy, stupid, helpless sheep following a shepherd that we all need daily as much as the next person does. I think Dr. Worm summed up the "question behind the question" that most people (probably even DaGeek) subconsciously (or consciously) have when they ask something like this: "She's [he's] not as 'strong in the Lord' as I am, is that a problem?"

That's presumptuous (even if one did know the person as a close and intimate friend before considering the potential for a romantic relationship), and it misses the point that God made our mates to be physical, emotional, sexual, psychological, educational, ministerial, vocational, parental, and spiritual partners, not just the latter. Furthermore, I think it reduces spirituality to some very anti-Jewish and anti-Christian, almost to a mysticism of sorts. I think, as a whole, the question is just too narrow.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Nate

More than anything, I think my comments were mostly my gut-level reaction to the weird importance many have put on public ministry and the visible signs of grace as they relate to the selection of a partner.

I agree, but I would be very cautious if, say, 1 person was into public ministry or whatever, and the other was obviously content with a life of apathy

I've heard people make comments like (almost a literal transcription of stuff I've heard) "Look how on fire she [/he] is for God! That's so hot!" or "The sexiest thing a woman can do is serve God." It's absurd.

To the first, I would make some sort of borderline inappropriate joke. (on fire she is for God, is that a new euphemism for...) Because I think the redness of face I got would clearly illustrate my point.

The second, I would just respond with since when is serving God sexy? I mean the opportunity for a follow up with a barb would be perfect.

All that comes to mind when I hear someone ask a question like DaGeek's is seminary romances ("Oh! Did you see Keith Starkson answer Dr. Leitschmidt's question on supralapsarianism in OT Lit today? Be still my beating heart!") and that corny LaRue song ("Your faith for the Lord will be strong, even though I know the wait is looo-oong.").

I fail to see how those two communicate. I see my fair share of seminary romances, and me and a married Nigerian friend love to mess with the pretentious ones. But I do see a correlation between faith and waiting on sex till marriage. Call me crazy, but faith and faithfulness seem to be pretty related. Thats not to say the song is not corny. I haven't heard it, and with lyrics such as that I have no doubt in my mind it might make me want to break things. However, I do see the relevance of one to the other.

I don't believe God ever intended (and certainly didn't show by example in the relationships He provided for the patriarchs) for us to select a mate based on piety. High morals or good character is one thing, but why make such a big deal out of something so nebulous as "where we are spiritually"? I can't even decipher what that phrase means.

What, you don't come with the spiritual mall map that says "you are here"? Tisk tisk. But the patriarchs are a pretty good example of why piety is important. The patriarchs had messed up, sexually unfaithful marriages. In the New Testament, where marriage is addressed, it is addressed with relation to spiritual things. The purpose of God's bringing one to another is pretty clear, that the purpose is that they produce a godly seed.

Let me give you a heads up of where I am coming from. My father in law has moved out after 28 years of marriage and turning his back on Christianity, his family, the church, everything. For years he was a seemingly "lukewarm" or "weak" christian. He seemed like a good guy, but not a strong Christian. Now his true colors are coming out. IMO, watching and paying attention to such things early could have changed a lot of things. (even though I would not choose them to change, as I love my wife, if I had the power. However, 30 years ago, the warning signs were there.)

How a person gets turned on (emotionally or sometimes [again, I've literally heard people say things almost to this extent] sexually) by a person's piety is beyond me. I'd never say it wasn't important. I think it's incredibly important to share spiritual beliefs with your partner. I think a wise and godly wife is a blessing. But putting a couple on the scales to see if one is at a "different place" is just silly talk.

I think it all boils down to a different place and what this means. Getting turned on by your partner sexually through piety makes me laugh. Literally. It is just so incongruous to me. However, if someone is just living a nominal life and claiming the banner of Christian, that should give someone pause to think. They truly could be in too different of positions of faith to really make a relationship work. If one lives solely by Christ's standards, and the other just slaps a little Jesus talk in their life to please the Mrs. reality comes crashing in. I am waching it now.

For another thing, I don't think "different places" exist to the extent most think they do in our spiritual lives. We're all clumsy, stupid, helpless sheep following a shepherd that we all need daily as much as the next person does. I think Dr. Worm summed up the "question behind the question" that most people (probably even DaGeek) subconsciously (or consciously) have when they ask something like this: "She's [he's] not as 'strong in the Lord' as I am, is that a problem?"

I think they do exist. I would say the wolf is in a different place than the sheep following the shepherd, than the wolf in sheep's clothing, than the sheep who is lost.

In a non-prideful way, there are people in very different places than us. For example a sheep following the shepherd closely, and one walking into the canyon are in different places. Put in a different way, do their lives demonstrate fruit? I think that that is very important.

That's presumptuous (even if one did know the person as a close and intimate friend before considering the potential for a romantic relationship), and it misses the point that God made our mates to be physical, emotional, sexual, psychological, educational, ministerial, vocational, parental, and spiritual partners, not just the latter. Furthermore, I think it reduces spirituality to some very anti-Jewish and anti-Christian, almost to a mysticism of sorts. I think, as a whole, the question is just too narrow.

I would dare say that I know where a few of my closest friends are before God in all honesty. There are a few people I know who I could tell anything and we talk. But I think there is a danger in what you are saying in going too far and removing the spiritual component as an important part of the relationship. If that were the only criteria, it would be insane, but removing it as criteria would yield as devastating results methinks.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Nate

You're probably right. I certainly wouldn't put it past me to make theologically ridiculous statements (I still think I'm really a modalist). I think other passages support my point, too, though.

More than anything, I think my comments were mostly my gut-level reaction to the weird importance many have put on public ministry and the visible signs of grace as they relate to the selection of a partner.

I've heard people make comments like (almost a literal transcription of stuff I've heard) "Look how on fire she [/he] is for God! That's so hot!" or "The sexiest thing a woman can do is serve God." It's absurd.

All that comes to mind when I hear someone ask a question like DaGeek's is seminary romances ("Oh! Did you see Keith Starkson answer Dr. Leitschmidt's question on supralapsarianism in OT Lit today? Be still my beating heart!") and that corny LaRue song ("Your faith for the Lord will be strong, even though I know the wait is looo-oong.").

I don't believe God ever intended (and certainly didn't show by example in the relationships He provided for the patriarchs) for us to select a mate based on piety. High morals or good character is one thing, but why make such a big deal out of something so nebulous as "where we are spiritually"? I can't even decipher what that phrase means.

How a person gets turned on (emotionally or sometimes [again, I've literally heard people say things almost to this extent] sexually) by a person's piety is beyond me. I'd never say it wasn't important. I think it's incredibly important to share spiritual beliefs with your partner. I think a wise and godly wife is a blessing. But putting a couple on the scales to see if one is at a "different place" is just silly talk.

For another thing, I don't think "different places" exist to the extent most think they do in our spiritual lives. We're all clumsy, stupid, helpless sheep following a shepherd that we all need daily as much as the next person does. I think Dr. Worm summed up the "question behind the question" that most people (probably even DaGeek) subconsciously (or consciously) have when they ask something like this: "She's [he's] not as 'strong in the Lord' as I am, is that a problem?"

That's presumptuous (even if one did know the person as a close and intimate friend before considering the potential for a romantic relationship), and it misses the point that God made our mates to be physical, emotional, sexual, psychological, educational, ministerial, vocational, parental, and spiritual partners, not just the latter. Furthermore, I think it reduces spirituality to some very anti-Jewish and anti-Christian, almost to a mysticism of sorts. I think, as a whole, the question is just too narrow.

I'm not sure if I just got accused of having a sexual fetish for Jesus-lovin' gals or not...

Just messing.

I hate to use another's words as my own a lot, but I think Bill summed up what I want to say. I can honestly say I'm doing my best not to look at her and say, "Oh, she must not love Jesus nearly as much as me" or some such bullcrap like that. I am trying to say that I don't know where she stands with Jesus, and I won't make a move until I do, which means I'm waiting on God to show me.

I'm not using this as a basis for attraction or any such thing. When I think relationship, I think toward marriage. Therefore, in my future spouse, I want someone who loves God with all her heart. It would be absurd, to me, to jump into a relationship with someone who had a terrible or non-existent spiritual life (does that sound judgmental to you? Maybe it is, but, honestly, it is what it is. If they're not living for God and are just doing the church thing out of tradition, I call that a fake spiritual life). My question centered around this: If it is true that two people love God with all their hearts, I suppose a better wording would be what are some things they would need to be alike in in order to make a marriage truly work. But Rachael already provided a solid (I believe) answer to that question, so I suppose it's a moot point.


P.S. With my comment about terrible/non-existent spiritual lives: I'm not speaking of conditional ones (such as a period of time where the person is running from God similar to Jonah) or the obviously normal Christian experience of ups and downs. I'm talking about the kind where you plug the well and hit the bottom two feet down because there's just nothing there to begin with.

[Nate]

It's fine, and admirable, if it's something that you want... mostly, I was just trying to point out that it's not an absolute necessity.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Nate

It's fine, and admirable, if it's something that you want... mostly, I was just trying to point out that it's not an absolute necessity.

I'm not certain how it isn't absolutely necessary, though, from what you've said? What *is* absolutely necessary?

[Nate]

Originally Posted by DaGeek

I'm not certain how it isn't absolutely necessary, though, from what you've said? What *is* absolutely necessary?

Everything that would be absolutely necessary in any romantic relationship. (I tend to think that that list is far smaller than most would think, but whatever.)

There is a world of difference between "loves God with all her heart" (i.e. Mother Theresa) and a "terrible spiritual life" (i.e. Marilyn Manson).

If it's something that's important to you to be "pressing on the upward way, new ground [you're] gaining everyday" together, then cool, go for it.

Beyond that, I'd just focus on getting to know the girl and see if the multitude of other variegated interests in her life jive with your own experiences.

I'm not sure the question you're asking now is the one you started with. You seem to just want to know what makes a good relationship in general.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Nate

Everything that would be absolutely necessary in any romantic relationship. (I tend to think that that list is far smaller than most would think, but whatever.)

There is a world of difference between "loves God with all her heart" (i.e. Mother Theresa) and a "terrible spiritual life" (i.e. Marilyn Manson).

If it's something that's important to you to be "pressing on the upward way, new ground [you're] gaining everyday" together, then cool, go for it.

Beyond that, I'd just focus on getting to know the girl and see if the multitude of other variegated interests in her life jive with your own experiences.

I'm not sure the question you're asking now is the one you started with. You seem to just want to know what makes a good relationship in general.

Ah, I think I understand your viewpoint a little better, which is the reason I asked you just now what exactly is necessary. It's not the original question, but I asked in order to understand what you were saying a little better, if that makes sense. It baffled me (and still does) to think that one could attempt a marriage when the foundation, God, wasn't a solid common-ground.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by DaGeek

Ah, I think I understand your viewpoint a little better, which is the reason I asked you just now what exactly is necessary. It's not the original question, but I asked in order to understand what you were saying a little better, if that makes sense. It baffled me (and still does) to think that one could attempt a marriage when the foundation, God, wasn't a solid common-ground.

This may be about as far as this particular pseudo-heresy of mine will allow me to go without fearing personal blasphemy, but I don't think "God" alone is the foundation of marriage. If I had to put it in similar terms, I would say "the covenant of Mankind with God is the foundation of marriage."

Then again, that makes it seem even more important that the couple be on "equal footing" with regards to their treatment of that covenant, but I don't think that the marriage covenant is as much an extension of the covenant relationship to God as it is a reflection of it. Maybe that's too fine a line.

I think a lot of Christians play dangerously close to a thought process that almost deifies marriage and one's marriage partner, as a result of too closely associating the marriage covenant and the covenant of grace. It's hard to tell, but I think Paul only asks us to mirror Christ, not marry Him.

I am probably making less sense now. I think Christians get into the habit of thinking that marriage exists as a means of direct worship, that if a married couple is not actively serving God and His Church together as a couple that their marriage is somehow incomplete. I don't think this is right.

I think that is what a lot of people mean by "the foundation, God, [should be?] a solid common-ground." It seems a lot of pious folks want [and imagine] nothing more out of their marriages than going off to some foreign field as missionaries, or laboring in a church plant, or teaching Sunday School together.

I tend to think that's kind of the opposite of the Biblical and historical model of the relationship between ministry and marriage. Very few of the greatest apostles were married, as far as we can tell. Paul himself warns us that marriage necessarily (and rightfully so!) interferes with whole-hearted active ministry.

Many of the most revered saints and preachers of Church history have had lives of celibacy or else terrible marriages. Very few that had otherwise successful marriages seem to have had active ministries together as a couple. That dream just doesn't seem to be the picture of marriage that we're given.

You're probably not one of those folks that wants their marriage to look like that, but there are a lot of them, and the Christian community as a whole seems to hold the ministering couple up on a pedestal as the model for all marriages. It seems to start with trains of thought similar to yours expressed here.

The Biblical picture of marriage is realistic and holistic [in a decidely Jewish paradoxical way], in that it both models and puts us at odds with our relationship to Christ and His Church. Paul says not to get married because we are diverting our attention from the Lord, but then he says to model Him in our homes.

There are times when marital and spiritual responsibilities collide. This is exactly what Paul was talking about to the Corinthians. Trying to build a marriage on "the foundation of God" seems to me like an attempt to ignore this fact. It is a dangerous thing to conflate marital and ministerial duty as the same.

Many ministers lives have been ruined by focusing too much on their ministries to the detriment of their wives, thinking that somehow their devotion to God was related to or the same as their devotion to their wives. There is something entirely separate and entirely secular in the marriage relationship, not "based on God."

God gave us marriage for our help, not just spiritually, but in many innumerable secular ways as well (I think, over and above the few spiritual benefits there are). We have Christ to lead us spiritually. Our husbands and wives are here to support us terrestrially. This is why we have none in the eternity of the world to come.

Our husbands and wives are not an addendum or appendix to Christ, but an earthly analogue. We do not need them for our spiritual health or growth, though certainly they can help. What we need them for is our secular health, in the same way that we need Christ for our spiritual support. A mirror of Christ, not a door to Him.

[DaGeek]

Originally Posted by Nate

This may be about as far as this particular pseudo-heresy of mine will allow me to go without fearing personal blasphemy, but I don't think "God" alone is the foundation of marriage. If I had to put it in similar terms, I would say "the covenant of Mankind with God is the foundation of marriage."

Then again, that makes it seem even more important that the couple be on "equal footing" with regards to their treatment of that covenant, but I don't think that the marriage covenant is as much an extension of the covenant relationship to God as it is a reflection of it. Maybe that's too fine a line.

I think a lot of Christians play dangerously close to a thought process that almost deifies marriage and one's marriage partner, as a result of too closely associating the marriage covenant and the covenant of grace. It's hard to tell, but I think Paul only asks us to mirror Christ, not marry Him.

I am probably making less sense now. I think Christians get into the habit of thinking that marriage exists as a means of direct worship, that if a married couple is not actively serving God and His Church together as a couple that their marriage is somehow incomplete. I don't think this is right.

I think that is what a lot of people mean by "the foundation, God, [should be?] a solid common-ground." It seems a lot of pious folks want [and imagine] nothing more out of their marriages than going off to some foreign field as missionaries, or laboring in a church plant, or teaching Sunday School together.

I tend to think that's kind of the opposite of the Biblical and historical model of the relationship between ministry and marriage. Very few of the greatest apostles were married, as far as we can tell. Paul himself warns us that marriage necessarily (and rightfully so!) interferes with whole-hearted active ministry.

Many of the most revered saints and preachers of Church history have had lives of celibacy or else terrible marriages. Very few that had otherwise successful marriages seem to have had active ministries together as a couple. That dream just doesn't seem to be the picture of marriage that we're given.

You're probably not one of those folks that wants their marriage to look like that, but there are a lot of them, and the Christian community as a whole seems to hold the ministering couple up on a pedestal as the model for all marriages. It seems to start with trains of thought similar to yours expressed here.

The Biblical picture of marriage is realistic and holistic [in a decidely Jewish paradoxical way], in that it both models and puts us at odds with our relationship to Christ and His Church. Paul says not to get married because we are diverting our attention from the Lord, but then he says to model Him in our homes.

There are times when marital and spiritual responsibilities collide. This is exactly what Paul was talking about to the Corinthians. Trying to build a marriage on "the foundation of God" seems to me like an attempt to ignore this fact. It is a dangerous thing to conflate marital and ministerial duty as the same.

Many ministers lives have been ruined by focusing too much on their ministries to the detriment of their wives, thinking that somehow their devotion to God was related to or the same as their devotion to their wives. There is something entirely separate and entirely secular in the marriage relationship, not "based on God."

God gave us marriage for our help, not just spiritually, but in many innumerable secular ways as well (I think, over and above the few spiritual benefits there are). We have Christ to lead us spiritually. Our husbands and wives are here to support us terrestrially. This is why we have none in the eternity of the world to come.

Our husbands and wives are not an addendum or appendix to Christ, but an earthly analogue. We do not need them for our spiritual health or growth, though certainly they can help. What we need them for is our secular health, in the same way that we need Christ for our spiritual support. A mirror of Christ, not a door to Him.

Thank you for the long, detailed post! This exactly answers what I was asking you and has given me a bit to chew on. Definitely a lot to chew on.