![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/02\/spiritual-intimacy.jpg\" "\\"Couple")
<\/a>A guest post by Molly<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\nPart II of\u00a0An Open Letter to Joshua Harris<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n A note for readers: Molly is a progressive Christian who is looking at Harris\u2019 book and teachings through that lens. Please bear this in mind as you read this installment and be respectful with your responses. \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Dear Josh,<\/p>\n The last time we parted ways<\/a> I left you with a quote from Julia Feder<\/a>, an author featured at Women In Theology:<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em>sexual intimacy is only one form of relational intimacy\u2014emotional intimacy, intellectual intimacy, and spiritual intimacy are others. In healthy (and ethical) relationships, sexual intimacy should never outpace these other \u00a0 forms of intimacy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n All of the types of relational intimacies Feder describes are dynamic<\/em>. While I know you intend to whisper, \u201cI can\u2019t wait to see you when you\u2019re fifty\u201d in the ear of your new bride, the person you marry at twenty-five is not the same person you\u2019ll be married to at fifty (Harris 186). I\u2019m not talking just about the aging process. [1] Twenty-five years of living\u2014with all of life\u2019s unpredictable joys, sorrows, successes, and failures\u2014shape a person physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually in ways that cannot be imagined.<\/p>\n Your three methods of predicting your partner\u2019s future character are based on how she relates to God, how she relates to others, and how she disciplines herself in the present<\/em> (176-181).\u00a0 In particular, your description of spiritual intimacy seems static<\/em>\u2014you write that \u201ctime can only add to [your future wife\u2019s] true beauty. Of course, the signs of age will emerge, but the spirit that lights up her sparkling eyes will still be young, vibrant, and alive\u201d (186). This suggests that relationships contain no space for spiritual growth\u2014the Christian one is at age 25 is the same Christian one will be at 50\u2014yet in reality our faith is constantly tested and sometimes deepened: by the death of a parent, a miscarriage, a car crash, towers collapsing in New York.[2] I believe (and I think you\u2019d agree with me) that the best method of ensuring a couple matures and grows together is to develop solid lines of communication early on in the relationship. While much of I Kissed Dating Goodbye<\/em> concerns one\u2019s own individual relationship with God, spiritual intimacy isn\u2019t a 1:1 ratio of believers to God. Spiritual intimacy is a communal effort\u2014hence the existence of the Church\u2014and I believe that you would agree with me that it is a duty<\/em> of Christian couples to support one another in their walk with God. That being said . . .<\/p>\n Serving others is rarely sin, but your motivations could be<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cInstead of making God the object of our longing, we wrongly direct these feelings toward another human. We become idolaters, bowing to someone other than God, hoping that this person will meet our needs and bring us fulfillment\u201d <\/em>(144).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Josh, I believe that part of Christian living is to see everyone (not just believers) as imago dei<\/em>\u2014made in the image of God\u2014so it initially struck me as strange that you seem to be saying that \u201clonging for another person\u201d and \u201cmaking God the object of our longing\u201d has to be mutually exclusive. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s wrong to long for people when the desire is motivated by wanting the best for them, seeing them prosper, praying they don\u2019t come to harm, and seeing them with hope and a future (Jer. 29:11). I see service to others as<\/em> service to God; we attend to one other and love one other as we love ourselves, as Christ commanded (Mk 12:31).<\/p>\n But I do believe you\u2019re onto something with that last part\u2014it is, to borrow a phrase from my Hebrew professor, high-handed sin<\/em> to serve another person if one is motivated solely by the guarantee that one will be rewarded financially, sexually, or emotionally by that person <\/em>at some future time. You\u2019ve used Christian terminology to describe what\u2019s frequently called Nice Guy syndrome, <\/em>which blogger Augusta Christensen described<\/a>\u00a0as the belief that one\u2019s crush is some type of machine that \u201cyou can put friendship tokens into until sex falls out.\u201d That sense of entitlement doesn\u2019t build relationships with God, and it poisons relational intimacy with other people. In a roundabout way, I agree with you on this point, Josh. Healthy relationships are based on unforced reciprocity.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not letting you off that easily, however, because . . .<\/p>\n Christian objectification of women is still objectification<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cWhen I stopped seeing girls as potential girlfriends and started treating them as sisters in Christ, I discovered the richness of true friendship\u201d <\/em>(21).<\/p>\n \u201cAt this point in her life, Mom has been a Christian for only a year. She\u2019s still a bit headstrong and independent. At nineteen [her] conversion to Christ has disrupted her ambitions for a professional career\u201d<\/em> (205).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Josh, remember how we talked about seeing everyone as made in the image of God? I do<\/em> genuinely appreciate men who remember women were also created in imago dei<\/em>, but I think maintaining a dichotomy between \u201csister in Christ\u201d and \u201cpotential girlfriend\u201d lulls both you and your potential crushes into a false sense of security. While I certainly don\u2019t object to you elevating the status of the women in your life, it shouldn\u2019t come at the cost of rendering them sexless, emotionless, mindless servants of God\u2019s kingdom. Benevolent objectification is still objectification, and even when rendered as \u201csisters in Christ,\u201d women still bear the burden of policing a man\u2019s sex drive. This is ironic, given that men are supposed to be leaders and patriarchs of their future families, and yet . . .<\/p>\n \u2018Lead me not into temptation\u2026\u2019 (but if I am tempted, it\u2019s your fault!)<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPlease be aware of how easily your actions and glances can stir up lust in a guy\u2019s mind\u201d (99).<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cYes, guys are responsible for maintaining self-control, but you can help by refusing to wear clothing designed to attract attention to your body\u201d (ibid).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Josh, as my mother is fond of saying, \u201cI didn\u2019t say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you.\u201d Holding women accountable for the degree a man succumbs to his libido is not only unfair to women\u2014note the frequency of the \u201cshe was asking for it\u201d defense in rape and sexual assault cases\u2014it\u2019s downright insulting to men because it denies them agency and accountability. As Libby Anne has written here<\/a>, modesty can frequently be a positive thing, \u201cbut not when it\u2019s used to absolve an entire gender of the responsibility for their own sin and instead places the responsibility for that sin on the other gender.\u201d<\/p>\n A recent post<\/a> on the forum Gentle Christian Mothers <\/em>points out that babies raised in complementarian households are frequently disciplined to not act on what they see. \u201cIf what they see (i.e. Mom\u2019s glass vase) causes them problems, they should be taught to simply not act on their urges. Nothing should be hidden to protect them from stumbling.\u201d\u00a0In contrast, adult men should be \u201cprotected from seeing things that make them stumble. If what they see (i.e the female shoulder or knee) causes them problems, it should be hidden from them.\u201dJosh, you\u2019re not a baby, and neither are the Christians you\u2019re writing to. When you quote 2 Timothy 2:22\u2014\u201cflee the desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart\u201d\u2014you\u2019re ignoring that it\u2019s nearly impossible to isolate yourself from the temptations of sexualized secular culture (128).<\/p>\n I recognize that hamartiology\u2014articulating the cause of and solution to humanity\u2019s sin\u2014is a large part of Christian theology, but I believe there\u2019s a huge (and damaging) distinction between telling people that they\u2019re born with sin\u2014and that\u2019s its own conversation\u2014and telling them to fear their bodies, that they\u2019re not in control of their own actions, and that they should feel personally attacked by (and despise) women who violate biblical modesty. [3] Instead of running from temptation, why not face it down? As James 1:2-4 explains, you should consider it \u201cpure joy\u2026whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.\u201d<\/p>\n If you find the way someone dresses, speaks, or carries herself offensive or tempting, it\u2019s up to you to face it with maturity and conviction<\/em>, not her. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:11, \u201cwhen I was a child I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.\u201d Taking responsibility for your own impulses is the best way to \u201cgrow up\u201d in faith.<\/p>\n Respond to God\u2019s grace with action rather than passivity<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em>\u201cDo you believe that God knows best? Then place your life\u2019s calendar at His feet and allow Him to handle the scheduling of your relationships. Trust Him even if it means not dating when other people think you should. When God knows you\u2019re ready for the responsibility of commitment, He\u2019ll reveal the right person under the right circumstances\u201d (86).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don\u2019t believe that \u201ctrusting God\u201d equates to \u201cdenying one\u2019s own ability to impact their environment\u201d and it seems like purity culture frequently tries to employ what feminist author Jessica Valenti calls the ethic of passivity <\/em>in her book The Purity Myth<\/em>:<\/p>\n Staying \u201cpure\u201d and \u201cinnocent\u201d is touted as the greatest thing we can do. However, equating this inaction with morality not only is problematic because it continues to tie women\u2019s ethics to our bodies, but also is \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 downright insulting because it suggests women can\u2019t be moral actors. Instead, we\u2019re defined by what we don\u2019t do (25).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While God may \u201creveal the right person under the right circumstances,\u201d I feel like this trust may lead to complacency\u2014not pursuing opportunities for relationships (of any variety) out of the conviction that God will initiate all of your needed social contact with no outreach effort on your part.\u00a0This, to my mind, isn\u2019t\u00a0trust<\/em>. It\u2019s laziness. It\u2019s demoting Jesus from personal savior to personal secretary.<\/strong>\u00a0Even though you frame this passivity as a way of trusting God, it\u2019s clear to me that one of your underlying motives for letting God schedule your social calendar is to avoid the risks you associate with emotional intimacy.<\/p>\n Molly<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n Gentle (and Not-So-Gentle) Readers: Come back soon for Part III<\/a> of I Hugged Dating Hello<\/a>, where I will\u00a0write about \u201cemotional purity,\u201d whether or not love is a finite resource, and why it\u2019s horrifying we even need to debate the latter.\u00a0<\/em>~ Molly<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/em><\/p>\n Notes:<\/p>\n [1] Though you advocate looking at a girl\u2019s mother as a projection of what she\u2019ll look like in 25 years (187). To quote my mother: \u201cSorry.\u201d Love you, Mom!<\/p>\n [2]\u00a0As noted in the documentary\u00a0For the Bible Tells Me So<\/em>, \u201cThere\u2019s nothing wrong with a fifth-grade understanding of God as long as you\u2019re in the fifth grade.\u201d<\/p>\n [3] And we already talked about the hazards of using the \u201cbiblical\u201d label in front of controversial terms back in part one.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n Molly grew up in southern Louisiana and, after spending college partially\u00a0(emotionally and physically)\u00a0frozen in Iowa, somehow ended up in seminary where she\u2019s cuddling her inner demons by moonlight and wrestling her faith by daylight. She likes bellydance, historical combat, 80s cartoons, Pema Chodron, and wants to use her M.Div to found the Bene Gesserit sisterhood.\u00a0She doesn\u2019t have a blog yet, but maybe Libby will be generous enough to provide trackbacks when she does?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A guest post by Molly<\/i>. While God may \u201creveal the right person under the right circumstances,\u201d I feel like this trust may lead to complacency\u2014not pursuing opportunities for relationships (of any variety) out of the conviction that God will initiate all of your needed social contact with no outreach effort on your part. This, to my mind, isn\u2019t trust. It\u2019s laziness. It\u2019s demoting Jesus from personal savior to personal secretary.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":845,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,12],"tags":[361,484,129],"class_list":["post-12606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-evangelicalism-fundamentalism","category-purity","tag-guest-post","tag-josh-harris","tag-relationships"],"yoast_head":"\n