T<\/span>here are two ways not to love a girl. The first is the most obvious, and hardly needs mention, but for totality\u2019s sake, I put before you the Secular Humanist Model. This model, from every angle and direction it\u2019s looked at, sucks. You\u2019ve all heard it before, its maxim \u2013 anything goes between two consenting adults \u2013 and its one and only commandment \u2013 unless otherwise specified, no cheating. This relationship is interesting because it is simultaneously greater and worse than the relationships of baboons. Greater, because no baboon is held to the awesome, unwritten oath of fidelity we humans bind ourselves to. Worse, because baboons are\u00a0acutely\u00a0aware of the proper functions of their genitals, and use them accordingly. I\u2019ll leave it at that. Better, because the Secular Humanist Model puts a taboo on rape. Worse, because it denies responsibility. You\u2019ve also heard all the reasons this model is boring \u2013 the hook-ups, heartbreak, chemical bonding, contraceptive culture, abortion \u2013 it is basically a polite Use. Two individuals use each other for their mutual benefit, and then go on there less-than-merry way. (Do I generalize? Of course.)<\/p>\nMy main problem with this model of loving a girl is that it is not loving a girl. It\u2019s a business proposition. The girl usually holds the cards, sure, and the guy is usually the bargainer, which is better than it might be, but is that love? Emotional\u00a0fulfillment\u00a0can be happily traded for pleasure, but is that everything? Is that the desire of our hearts? The Secular Model seems to take it\u2019s inspiration from the pop song that cries, \u201cWhat is love? Baby don\u2019t hurt me\u2026\u201d Not that the artist had this in mind, but is that not an accurate description of the Secular Model? The answer to the question, \u201cWhat is love?\u201d is nothing more than the cautious desire to avoid pain. I don\u2019t know what love is, but don\u2019t cheat on me. I\u2019m not sure about this whole love thing, but I\u2019ll settle for a give-and-take situation in which I won\u2019t be hurt. Except it always<\/em> ends in hurt. But I\u2019ve spent too long on the idiocy of secularism. Let\u2019s talk about those disgusting religious.<\/p>\nThere is a tendency amongst Christians \u2013 and I have<\/em> to point out that I\u2019ve heard it preached most often by our Evangelical brothers \u2013 to practice what we shall call the Jesus-First Model<\/a>. I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve heard it before, some bright-eyed girl wearing a little, silver cross informs you that \u201cJesus comes first in my relationship.\u201d Or your friend tells you, \u201cfirst God, and then my spouse.\u201d It\u2019s not that I disagree with the sentiment \u2013 that God should be our primary goal \u2013 but I do deny the existence of a \u2018love-list\u2019 we are obligated to follow. I remember, as a child, making this list: \u201cFirst comes God, then my family, then my best friend, then the rest of my friends.\u201d But I am leaving childish things behind. God isn\u2019t calling us to pray to him first and then love our girl, as if the timing of the thing mattered to Him. God isn\u2019t demanding that \u2013 for every hour spent on a date \u2013 we give him two hours of praise. God certainly isn\u2019t saying we need to somehow work up a greater emotion over him than over our lover. And why not?<\/p>\nBecause God is<\/em> love, its source and destination. The idea that he is frustrated that you\u2019re loving your girl instead of Him is ridiculous. To put it as clearly as I can, to love another is to love God. We tend to only apply that to \u201cthe least of our brothers,\u201d but it can be equally applied to \u201cthe greatest of our sisters\u201d(if you know what I\u2019m saying). Jesus does not come before your spouse, Jesus is your spouse. God does not come first, God is central. God is where your love comes from in the first place, and he is loved through those you share it with. I find that married people are very aware of this truth, but teenagers are idiots about it. Don\u2019t limit love by trying to order it. It comes from God and goes back to Him, and we \u2013 mysteriously, beautifully \u2013 are the channels of its flow, channels that can never become too full. So love strong.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/graphics8.nytimes.com\/images\/2008\/05\/04\/fashion\/04love.1901.jpg\")
<\/a>T<\/span>here are two ways not to love a girl. The first is the most obvious, and hardly needs mention, but for totality\u2019s sake, I put before you the Secular Humanist Model. This model, from every angle and direction it\u2019s looked at, sucks. You\u2019ve all heard it before, its maxim \u2013 anything goes between two consenting adults \u2013 and its one and only commandment \u2013 unless otherwise specified, no cheating. This relationship is interesting because it is simultaneously greater and worse than the relationships of baboons. Greater, because no baboon is held to the awesome, unwritten oath of fidelity we humans bind ourselves to. Worse, because baboons are\u00a0acutely\u00a0aware of the proper functions of their genitals, and use them accordingly. I\u2019ll leave it at that. Better, because the Secular Humanist Model puts a taboo on rape. Worse, because it denies responsibility. You\u2019ve also heard all the reasons this model is boring \u2013 the hook-ups, heartbreak, chemical bonding, contraceptive culture, abortion \u2013 it is basically a polite Use. Two individuals use each other for their mutual benefit, and then go on there less-than-merry way. (Do I generalize? Of course.)<\/p>\n