Divorce Versus Extramarital Affairs

It is ironic that extramarital affairs are so much more condemned in recent years, when marriage is being attacked on ever other front.  (Divorce, gay marriage, etc.)  In the past, it was generally accepted, although frowned upon, that some men would have extra marital affairs, especially when in positions of power.  (I got the idea for this post during the Petraus scandal, but didn't get a chance to flesh it out until now.)

In the past, many presidents, generals and other people in powerful positions had affairs.  While these weren't usually public, they weren't as secret as you would expect, and those who knew just accepted that as part of life.  Certain needs had to be met, and if one's wife wasn't meeting those needs, someone else would.  There was no big scandal to it, and no one "went to the media" with that info.  If they had, it wouldn't have been printed anyway.  Sure, a certain population of the general public wouldn't understand, but it seems to have just been rationalized as part of life, by those who knew.

Back when divorce was a very rare and difficult process, men stayed married even if there were “issues,” instead finding a mistress, and this was the "acceptable" solution.  Now that divorce is easier, and happening all the time, that is the socially "acceptable" solution.  Interestingly this causes extramarital affairs to become a much bigger deal than they used to be.  It would appear that the general public isn't nearly as offended by a public figure abandoning his responsibility to his wife, as long as he is open about it and gets a divorce.  If he tries to get the best of both worlds, and maintain his marriage, while secretly sleeping with someone else, well that is a national scandal.  Fifty years ago, a public figure getting a divorce would have been the big scandal.

I am not saying that one approach is better than the other, they are both wrong.  I just think it is interesting that while morals seem to be declining in our society in every possible measure, extra-marital affairs happen to be becoming much less socially acceptable than they were 50-100 years ago.  That is an interesting illustration of how our culture now views marriage.  Most secular perspectives see it as unnecessary and quaint, but they do recognize that its only real value comes from actually honoring the commitment.

As for my perspective, while I can imagine how the scenario comes about, I can't imagine having an affair.  Now I am not even married yet, but certain things in life aren't going to change.  My reasoning is simple, and maybe even selfish from a certain perspective: "relationships are way too much work."  Having an affair is, in effect, developing another relationship.  That takes work in itself, plus I am not stupid enough to think that it won't eventually have a negative effect on my existing relationship, which was undoubtedly a lot of work to develop in the first place.  So the whole problem with having an affair is that it’s just too much work, besides the obvious moral implications.  Other people, to whom relationships come much more naturally, won't see it as much as work, and therefore be more tempted.  But if I am not going around developing sexual relationships with women to "get my needs met" when I am single, I am sure as hell not going to be doing that once I am married.

Guarding Your Heart

I had never heard of the concept of "guarding your heart" until I moved back to NorCal a couple of years ago.  I have long been of the opinion that you can't consciously choose who it is that you are attracted to, you can only choose how you are going to act in response to those feelings.  The idea of deliberately not feeling so strongly about a girl seems impossible, since if it was, "guarding my heart" wouldn't be my only motivation to do so.  Life would just be a lot easier.

I have experienced it operating in reverse recently, which was an interesting process to consciously observe.  There was a girl who kept indirectly expressing interest in me, over a long period of time.  I didn't mind hanging out with her, but didn't feel strongly about the issue, probably due in part to the fact that I have had a very singular focus in that regard over the last few years.  Once I "got past" that issue, I tried to take the idea a bit more seriously.  With a number of other doors shutting around me, maybe that was the direction God wanted me to go.  And if it was, would I be okay with that?  The girl in question was getting more aggressive in our interactions, without ever talking about it directly, so the situation needed to be addressed one way or another, especially once her friends started getting in on the action.

I thought and prayed about it for about a week before I concluded that I was in favor of pursuing that possibility.  I had to be able to imagine what it would be like to succeed, before I could summon up the courage to take the first step in that direction.  Taking the initiative to "break that plane" as I call it, to go beyond talking about shallow small talk subjects is always challenging, and this was no exception, even though I wasn't nearly as emotionally caught up in the idea as I usually am by the time I take some deliberate action.

Both of my previous significant relationships were developed at the girl's initiative as opposed to my own.  I have a fairly perfect record of nothing positive ever coming from directly pursuing a girl, and not for lack of trying.  If I take any initiative to move things forward, the response is always negative, even if the girl does the exact same thing a short time later.  I assume there is some spiritual reason for this since the pattern is far too strong to be random.  I can see how it handicaps my leadership role in a potential relationship, by at the very least causing me to hesitate to take action.

Quite the unexpectedly, the response was a negative one, although the girl acknowledged her role getting to that point, she "hadn't really thought about" the outcome.  She didn't really have a reason for her response, but apologized for the position she had put me in.  So the pattern remains unbroken, and I look back to see that I had done the exact opposite of guarding one's heart.  But if it is possible to deliberately set out to care about someone more, then it is probably possible to deliberately care about them less.  But is that really the best way to approach relationships?

Choosing Family

Family is an interesting concept to think about.  We all use the word all of the time, but do we really stop to think about what it means?  With two notable exceptions, we don't get to choose our family; that is determined for us.  Family members are usually related by blood, and therefore have much in common with each other.  There is a big difference between being "like-family" and being "family."  You can be as close or intimate as a family member, but no other relationship will have the same irrevocable longevity.  Friendships rise and fall, but family relationships will in some degree last forever.  Nothing can be done to change the fact that two people are related to each other.  It is in their DNA, part of who they are, down to the last cell.

The only time that family members are "added" without being genetically related is through adoption or marriage.  Both of those are very significant relationships, designed to be as permanent and significant as genetic family relationships.  In the case of marriage, this permanence seems to be breaking down in our culture, with over half of marriages being temporal relationships that come to an end.

Adding someone to an existing family is an interesting process, which I have had very little experience with.  Most of my aunts and uncles were married before I was born, and almost none of my cousins have married yet.  So I have rarely had to accept someone new into my family.  The one cousin who has married, eloped in Vegas, presumably to avoid much of the pressure that might be experienced in my family, from the process of adding a new member.  He says it was the best decision he ever made, but I don't see myself taking the same approach anytime soon.

Dating is basically examining the possibility of adding someone new to your family.  This affects both the one dating, and the rest of their existing family.  Now, other family members don't have control over that relationship, and rightfully so.  But decisions made in that regard reflect on and affect the rest of the family, just like every other decision we make.  So others should be honored in the decisions that we make in that regard, which usually includes listening to their input, especially since it is healthy to get an outside perspective in those cases.

My mom started dating her old high school boyfriend after my parents split up.  That felt strange to me on a number of levels.  Your parents dating anyone is automatically uncomfortable.  The fact that her whole family already knew him from way back was strange, so he was only "new" to me.  And the fact that they unsuccessfully tried to keep that whole relationship on the down low didn't exactly build trust.  My dad has dated a variety of people as well, and I doubt I will ever get used to the idea.  My brother has a long record in that regard, but the idea of him dating is to be expected, although we go about that in very different ways.  It kind of blows my mind how different our experiences are in that regard.

For a variety of reasons, my family members are definitely not the first people I talk with about dating or relationships.  We have very different values and perspectives on those types of relationships, so I have usually avoided discussing that subject with them unless directly asked.  Not that it's wrong to do, I am just not comfortable with it.  But at a certain level, I kind of look forward to the idea of adding someone to my family, someone who is my deliberate choice to include in that family.  But I have to be ready to become part of their family, and of course they have to be willing to be part of my family.

Time Weighs Heavy

"In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the whole Israelite army...But David remained in Jerusalem." (2 Samuel 11:1)

The quote above begins the story of the fall of King David, a man after God's own heart.  This eventually leads David to find Bathsheba, which draws him into a long path of sins before he finally repents.  God intended for mankind to work, even in the garden.  Idleness was not in the plan, and rarely leads to positive things.

There is a similar principle at work in the way that militaries keep their soldier busy during downtimes.  Even if that means having them dig trenches all day, purely to keep them occupied and out of trouble.  There are all sorts of stories of the troubles that soldiers find ways to get into during their downtimes when they aren't kept busy, especially in groups or for extended periods.

Now this must be weighed against the need for rest, which is legitimate.  Rest is an important factor in the Bible, and we see it in everything from the Creation story to the Ten Commandments.  So the question is, when does rest become idleness?

It is not yet Spring, but I still feel a need to start dong something useful.  My break has been long enough, and I can see that it becoming more harmful than beneficial by this point.  Rest can be a good thing, and I have erred against it in the past, but I am confident that is not the case this time.

I wrote this Monday night, and got a call two hours later, from someone who doesn’t even remember knowing me.  It was about a promising potential building project at another local camp.  So maybe God has heard me and agrees.  Only time will tell.

Accommodating Others vs Ones Own Needs

There is an interesting balance of power in any relationship, between getting one's own needs met, and accommodating the other person's needs.  In the traditional male/female relationship, the male is "supposed to" be the leader, while the female supports him in that role.  Regardless of whether you agree with these traditional gender roles, there are obvious potential issues when it comes to implementing them.  There will inevitably be conflict in any relationship, since humans are imperfect.  Much of the conflict will be about whom controls the relationship, which was spoken of in the Garden of Eden, "you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you" (Genesis 3:16b).  That desire for control in our relationships is easy to see today, the question is how to handle the conflicts that tension creates.

In the Old Testament mindset, the leader was served by those around him.  But we see Jesus reversed that balance of power, declaring that "whoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:44).  So the leader should be ensuring that the needs of the followers are being met.  But where do the leader's needs fit into the picture?

I read something interesting recently, that provides an interesting illustration of the power dynamic in a relationship.  There was some female claiming that she knew she could control the relationship she had with her boyfriend when she got him to let her drive instead of him.  Reading that brought me to a pause.  I had been conscious, even before reading that, of times I had let girls drive.  I was aware that when I am in the passenger seat, I am surrendering some level of control.  I didn't like it, but I accepted it as a necessary concession, since males can be a lot more threatening than females.

Guys don't go around worrying about things like rape, because they usually possess a level of physical strength that will protect them in most situations.  Girls rarely have that in their favor, and are therefore more vulnerable.  I deliberately try not to be intimidating in any way when dealing with females, as I figure that helps build trust more effectively.  So I cede a certain level of control to them, to make them more comfortable.  But I am beginning to question whether or not that is a wise approach.

I have long been aware that girls are attracted to confidence, but there is a fine line between that and arrogance.  Arrogance is portrayed in a very negative light in the Bible, so I try to avoid being perceived that way at all.  I have female friends who tell me they are "intrigued" when a guy takes control, and isn't too concerned about their preferences, which is hard for me to relate to.  "Choices are stressful," I was told, and while that is true, it’s not a good reason to avoid them.  Some females seem to be looking for someone to control them, if that will release them from responsibility for themselves, something I would never consider giving up.

One of my favorite quotes about the challenge in relationships is "guys are looking for a good girl who will be bad just for them, while girls are looking for a bad guy, who will be good just for them."  I can easily see the general truth in that statement, but it is still impossible for me to really understand the female perspective that leads there.

The Power of Prayer to Control the Unknown

I have always wondered what effect prayer had on the physical world.  Most people who pray for things, subconsciously assume that prayer is effective, without really thinking about it.  If they didn't think that, why would they pray?  Now if they are just praying, instead of praying for something, they may think prayer is required by God, and will be rewarded after death.  This is where standard pre-composed prayers are used, especially by people with a Catholic perspective.  But praying for something implies that one expects their prayer, and therefore God, to make a difference in their situation.

This is a Biblical idea, "The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective," (James 5:16) at least in regard to healing.  So if prayer is affecting the outcome, via God's intervention, is that by nature a miracle?  I have long believed that God was primarily at work on earth through the seemingly random things in life, that mankind has not yet learned to quantify or predict.  I am confident that he can also work in more direct ways that violate known physical laws, but that this is not nearly as common.

What about praying about something that is predetermined, but unknown from our perspective?  Can God "change" the past, if we don't know what it is yet?  Imagine putting dice in a cup, shaking them, and slapping it down on the table, leaving the cup there.  The outcome of that action is set physically, but we don't yet know what it is.  So can God still change the outcome until after we lift the cup to see the results on the dice?

Another example would be someone recording a sporting event on tape while they are unable to watch it live.  Then while they are watching the playback later, the outcome is unknown to them.  So can praying that their team wins have any effect in the outcome, since it is not yet determined from their perspective.

The idea sort of presupposes that the world revolves around us, but in the context of our relationship with God, maybe it does.  "All things work together for the good of those who love God" (Romans 8:28)  Now this doesn't truly matter in the simple scenarios I have been illustrating it with, but what about questions like, has my cancer gone away completely?  It is either there or its not, but even after a scan is done, until the results are revealed, the outcome is unknown to us, and therefore changeable from our perspective.  And if God already knows the outcome of all things, then anything we pray about is pre-determined, and only variable from our perspective.  But I figure we should keep praying about it anyway.

Let's Just Be Friends

I have recently come to realize that my focus within relationships has become overly narrow the last few months.  I used to deliberately pursue friendships with members of the opposite sex, without any preconceived intention of moving towards a more romantic relationship in the future.  That was reasonably successful, and a huge part of my growth over the last few years.  But I have realized that now that I have a sufficient number of close female friends, I haven't really left that possibility open to new people I am connecting with.  Pretty much any relationship development I have undertaken with females over the last few months has been very deliberately focused towards dating or those types of interactions.

Now developing new relationships with girls is never a simple process.  Both parties are trying to figure out what direction the friendship is going to take, and what the other person is looking for.  Neither one usually wants to express how they feel directly, without knowing where the other is at. (Although there are a few out there that don't hesitate to make the "pre-emptive first strike")

There was someone I had known for quite a while, who had been taking a lot of initiative in pursuing a closer relationship with me.  She never actually talked to me directly about that, there was just a steadily increasing stream of invitations to get together and do things.  This led me to the outlandish conclusion that she was looking for a “relationship” with me.  Even though I found it hard to imagine that happening, and was very focused elsewhere, I will admit that I saw her interest as a positive thing, or at least encouraging, among a series of other doors closing.  While I didn’t force a discussion of the issue with her directly, I made sure to keep our interactions on neutral ground.  Eventually it came to a point where it had to be addressed because of the way other people were treating us, and I had to think and pray about how to approach that issue.  I deliberately tried to open myself to the possibility that she might be a suitable partner for me if I gave her a chance.  When I asked her how she felt, she claimed to have no interest in dating, but just wanted to be close friends.  I found this surprising, but I can recall being inspired by girls who seemed very relaxed about being friends with guys.  That drew me towards them as friends, since I knew our friendship wasn’t breaking any new ground for them, and would therefore be easier.  This appears to be the same thing in reverse, which implies that “I have arrived” in regards to being friends with girls, if other people see me that way.

Because "dating is bad" in certain Christian circles, you have to be friends first.  But that can result in two people pursuing a friendship together for VERY different reasons.  This can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings, or the awareness of that possibility erodes trust even when both parties actually ARE seeking the same thing, as in my case above.

The best way to develop a close friendship with a member of the opposite sex, is to make sure that both of you are blindly attracted to other people.  Ideally those other potential relationships aren't going anywhere, but neither of you can get over it. (Because if either relationship did go somewhere, you wouldn't have time for each other)  And the lack of progress in those endeavors will give you something in common.  Obviously I am not recommending taking this approach, but I can say from experience that it works incredibly well, at least for a while.