MYSTERIES

I don’t remember the exact path of my thoughts, but it started, I think, with reflecting on my own past relationships with young women, and the ambiguous nature of most of these relationships, particularly during my college years. What made these relationships so mysterious is that I never really understood what they were about. I knew what I wanted from them: I was looking for a future spouse — someone to love, and vice versa. But it was never really clear what any of these fine young women thought of me, and whenever I thought I knew, circumstances seemed to prove me wrong. What’s more, even though I had never expressed my intent, at times it appeared that one young woman or another felt we had something going, and seemed hurt if the “relationship” was breached. It always frustrated me that there seemed to be expectations, but never clear communication (from me or them) about those expectations.

It’s worth noting that at the college I attended, being more forthright about romantic intentions could get a person put on probation or expelled. Still, even after graduation, to a lesser degree these mysteries continued. On the one hand, during the friendship stage of a relationship, the girl I was getting to know might seem to expect more than what we were; and then, not finding it, lose interest. But on the other hand, being more proactive also had the unfortunate consequence of pushing female friends away. Was I being too warm, or too cold? It was too touchy-feely for me, completely hit-or-miss, shooting in the dark. I got the sense that a love relationship required some hidden magic formula that you just had to get lucky and guess. Any attempt to negotiate or figure out the nuances of the relationship would destroy it. But I could never bring myself to shoot for such blind love, because for me relationships are always built on clear intents, and built up by degrees.

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND LOYALTY

In my mind, an emotional attachment never begins as a special relationship. A special relationship is something arrived at, and agreed upon. Emotions may start the relationship, but if it is ever to become anything “special,” there are stages to pass through. I would never consider a girl my girlfriend unless I thought that she also considered herself my girlfriend. We would have to agree on it (whether that means discussing it and shaking hands is another matter). I’ve always thought it is important to be explicit about such things. Furthermore, I would never ask a girl to be my girlfriend if I didn’t think we were already on the same terms about how a relationship should work (which would normally be deduced through casual interaction). Each stage has a foundation.

At some point I was hit with the word “loyalty.” Loyalty is very important to me. I consider myself a very loyal friend. In fact, I consider myself highly loyal even to people whom I don’t think of as friends — even with people who have become “enemies” or antagonists. As I thought about loyalty, it occurred to me that loyalty is a covenant concept. And loyalty is a critical element in any special relationship. Disloyalty, apart from forgiveness, will always destroy a relationship, or at least the emotional or social substance of it.

Loyalty does not mean anything without a clear, mutually understood relationship. A citizen of a kingdom cannot be loyal if he does not understand his relation to his ruler and his ruler’s expectations of him. A married couple has no basis for evaluating marriage loyalty apart from their vows. A child’s and parent’s loyalty to one another depends not merely on their physical connection, but on a clear understanding of each other’s expectations.

As I thought about this, I realized that all loyalty — from devotion to God to casual friendship — requires mutually agreed upon expectations. This means you cannot have a serious relationship without understanding the terms of it. The moment a relationship moves from general to special, the terms of the relationship become even more important.

Loyalty, by definition, is binding — you can’t get out of it on a whim. Loyalty in a relationship means that two people have made an agreement that they are determined to stand by. Such an on-going relationship governed by mutually agreed upon terms is a covenant, plain and simple.

The components of a covenant are so essential to a viable special friendship, that it is not possible to have such a friendship without having a covenant. In other words, forming a covenant is not something people in a special relationship do; it is the substance of what they already have. Whenever two parties move into a genuine special relationship, they always form a covenant (whether formal or not, whether conscious or not); and it is not possible to have a real relationship without a covenant.

I realize the word “covenant” may sound old-fashioned, and my statement that “it is not possible to have a real relationship without a covenant” may sound arbitrary. However, I am using the word in a broad sense. For more about my choice of the word “covenant,” please see the end of this post.

THE NEED FOR COVENANTS

Many people (myself included) have gotten into a quandary over whether they are “in a relationship” or not. However, the thought hit me that the very asking of this question is itself a negative answer. Relationships operate on mutual understanding. Without mutual understanding, there can be no assurance that the needs of either party are being met. While it is possible for two people to have secret feelings for each other, there is no basis for loyalty (relative to their expectations) without mutual understanding of the terms of the relationship. Without a basis for loyalty, there is no special relationship — nothing to be loyal to. False expectations arise. The young man may expect only from himself and his girl what he would expect from a close friendship; while the young woman may expect “something more,” and will judge the ebb and flow of the relationship based on what she thinks “something more” ought to look like. At times their expectations may correspond — after all, there is much in common between close friends and lovers. But at other times their expectations will differ, leading to frustrations and doubts.

The only stable, mature relationship is one in which both parties understand the terms of the relationship. When both parties are able to express and mutually agree on the terms of a relationship, an agreement is formed: a covenant. The terms of a covenant vary, whether it is dating, courtship, engagement, or marriage. But a covenant, formal or informal, must exist. This covenant may be simple: “We will love and respect one another. We will maintain this special relationship exclusive of all others.” It may be formally stated, or it might simply reflect the sum of lots of small exchanges of words over time. (But formally stated is safer.) If both parties do not share a mutually agreed upon relationship (a covenant), their relationship is an illusion. It is broken, even when it appears to be working.

The problem with many apparently special relationships is that there is no covenant. Neither party knows what to expect of the other. Nothing is clearly promised, nor clearly denied. The relationship simply flows through various undefined forms, which each party is at various times satisfied and unsatisfied with. The most obvious sign of such a poor relationship is the simple question: “What is this relationship that we have?” Or, “Are we a couple? I’m not sure.” It can be said with certainty that in all such cases, the terms of the relationship have never been settled; there is no covenant; there is no solidity to the relationship; what one or both parties may secretly hope for, is presently nothing more than a desire, a dream, a wish. Fond aspirations do not constitute a special relationship. A mature relationship requires mutual understanding, loyalty, resolve — in short, a covenant.

To summarize what this means for me, it is that I must be intentional in every special relationship, and clearly convey what my expectations are. I must also learn from the other person what their expectations are. Only in that way can we work through the difficulties of our relationship successfully, only then can we have confidence in the direction of the relationship, and only then can our proven loyalty to one another be the ground for deepening love.

* * *

ABOUT THE WORD “COVENANT”

I am using the word “covenant” for at least two reasons. First, it is a biblical term. Throughout the Bible we find both God forming covenants with people, and people forming covenants with each other. Examples include Hebrews 8:10; Ruth 1:16-18. Second, recently I was reading about the Protestant concept of the covenantal nature of rulership, which is a kind of relationship. In the classic Protestant view, the governing principle between rulers and people is not nationality or blood or force of arms or history, but covenants — mutually agreed upon, and mutually beneficial. The word “covenant” sounds a bit old-fashioned today, but I still like it.

According to the dictionary, a covenant is an agreement or contract. In legal or theological circles, these words — covenant, agreement, contract — are sometimes used interchangeably. However, I prefer the word “covenant” because of the connotations it carries, which are more than the mere dictionary definition or contemporary legal meaning. In my mind, the word “covenant” carries more weight than a mere agreement, and does not bear the legalistic overtones of a contract. Let’s consider each of these words, and a couple others, briefly:

AGREEMENT: An agreement is the basis of any covenant. Still, the word “agreement” by itself misses the sense of a promise or binding obligation. The word “agreement” falls short in conveying commitment. People may agree one day, and disagree another. A covenant, on the other hand, clearly expresses the idea of two people or entities pledging their fidelity to one another over time.

CONTRACT: Contracts generally are not based on loyalty, but on self-interest. Therefore they are usually enforced with legal deterrents, even threats. For example, if you choose to break your cell phone contract, you can usually expect to pay an early termination fee. A business that violates its contract with another business or individual might be sued. But a covenant is grounded in loyalty. Although there are often bad consequences for breaking a covenant, these are usually not detailed in advance or emphasized. A covenant implies personal commitments and the interest of each party in each other. A contract is something businesses do; a covenant is something friends or lovers do. (You’ve never been asked to sign a cell phone covenant, have you?)

VOW: Another word used, especially in the Bible, for binding personal commitments is “vow.” Vows and covenants share common ground. In fact, a wedding covenant is often called a vow. The reasons I prefer the word “covenant” to the word “vow” are: First, personal vows are so strongly connected to marriage that it is hard to broaden the use of the word in people’s minds. Second, non-marriage vows are often related to accomplishing a single, time-limited objective, whereas a covenant is an ongoing relationship. Third, vows are often used in a negative context (“I vow my revenge!”). Fourth, a vow is often used to mean an unconditional pledge, whereas covenants are usually based on conditions, including loyalty.

COMMITMENT: “Commitment” is a word often used in the context of special relationships. Although commitment is a big part of what a covenant is about, I have some reservations about this word. Many lovers enter into commitments (often one-sided) without ever coming into agreement on mutual terms. A covenant, in contrast, is all about mutual terms that are mutually agreed upon. Relationship advice is full of emphasis on commitment — but commitment to what, exactly? In practice, the what is often undefined (friendship? preparing for marriage?). In such cases, commitment becomes little more than commitment to be disappointed. In short, poorly defined special relationships are prone to brokenness, despite the sincere commitment of either party.

In summary, the ideas of agreements, contracts, vows, and commitments can help us understand what a covenantal relationship is. But the word “covenant,” I believe, best describes the whole.

All four articles are interviews with Dr. Scott Stanley at Focus on the Family, who is introduced in the first article below. If you are single and looking, single and not looking, married with single friends who are (or are not) looking, or just want to be more informed about singleness and how to end it successfully, read on. The articles are geared more towards single men than single women, but both may find Dr. Stanley’s points interesting and enriching to their relationships.

• Mentor Series: Crossing the Line (why do guys seem afraid of commitment? how should women relate to guys that drag their feet?)
• Mentor Series: The Boiling Pot (turning down the heat so you can make better choices)
• Mentor Series: The Burning Bush (how to know if she’s the one)
• Path to Marriage: Predestined or Freewilled? (God’s role and our role in the selection process)

The growth of single-person households is also damaging the environment. Research published in the journal Environment, Development and Sustainability found that:

One-person households are the biggest consumers of energy, land and household goods, such as washing machines, refrigerators, TVs and stereos, per capita

They consume 38% more products, 42% more packaging, 55% more electricity and 61% more gas per capita than four-person households

People living alone create 1.5 tons of waste annually compared with a ton by those in households of four or more

Boundless sums this up by saying, “Do your duty for the planet. Get Married.”

Please note that the article is not claiming less waste per household, but less waste per person, on average. Mathematically there is a HUGE difference between the two.

Of course, many of the same benefits are available to singles in other ways: by living with one or more roommates, by living with family members, by sharing resources with a neighbor. So, if you’re not ready for marriage, don’t fret. For the Christian the bigger question is, What is God’s will for me? This is not a mathematical problem, but a personal and devotional one.

Just remember the words of Genesis: “It is not good that the man should be alone.”

One of the questions was, Will there be marriage in heaven? Various answers were given. The best answer, in my opinion, was the one by Stephen Bohr. (I can’t quote him from memory, so if you missed it you’ll just have to order the DVD, or wait for a rerun.)

This is an interesting subject, one that the Bible gives us a little bit of information about, but not much. You can read the account of Jesus answering this question in Matthew 22:24-30 and Mark 12:19-25. I’m not aware of anywhere else in the Bible where marriage in the afterlife is discussed.

On the one face, Jesus’ answer is clear: “In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”; but on the other, it is a bit mysterious: they “are as the angels of God in heaven.” Now, what relationships do the angels of God in heaven enjoy? We don’t really know.

But there is a little bit more we can draw out from this. Many people are concerned that in heaven our sexuality will be stripped from us, and we will become (as they suppose) drones. As far as I know, there is no basis in the Bible for this conclusion. Some people consider angels to be sexless (and thus Jesus’ words above might be taken to imply a sexless future for humanity), but we do not know in detail what angels are like in their native forms, and the Bible does not comment on the matter. We don’t know if Jesus was even touching on biological or physiological aspects.

Consider this: It was God who created human sexuality. (Genesis 1:27.) Moreover, it says we were created in God’s image. There is nothing worldly or fallen about maleness and femaleness. Furthermore, it is God who created everything about human sexuality that makes it desirable. To think that God would take away something that He pronounced “very good” (Genesis 1:31) and replace it with something inferior does not make sense.

MARRIAGE IN THE NEW EARTH?

Some suppose that Jesus’ words apply to heaven only. That is, after the millennium in heaven, the saints will return to earth, and life will continue on with marriage and child-bearing just as before.

One problem with this view is that the question posed to Jesus was not about the millennium per se, but about how things would be in the afterlife, following the resurrection. That Jesus would give an answer that has only temporary significance (1000 years in heaven) does not make much sense.

I quote Ellen White (The Faith I Live By, 366): “There are men today who express their belief that there will be marriages and births in the new earth, but those who believe the Scriptures cannot accept such doctrines. The doctrine that children will be born in the new earth is not a part of the ‘sure word of prophecy.’ The words of Christ are too plain to be misunderstood. They should forever settle the question of marriages and births in the new earth. Neither those who shall be raised from the dead, nor those who shall be translated without seeing death, will marry or be given in marriage. They will be as the angels of God, members of the royal family….

“The Lord has made every provision for our happiness in the future life. But He has made no revelations regarding these plans, and we are not to speculate concerning them. Neither are we to measure the conditions of the future life by the conditions of this life.”

NO NEW MARRIAGES?

Some have concluded that there will be no “new” marriages, but that existing unions would continue. Unfortunately this view, while appealing to those who are already married, does not carry much weight. First, it is directly contrary to the very situation that Jesus addressed in His answer about this subject, referenced above.

Also, it is not hard to see how this would be very difficult, even unfair, for everyone who was single in this life. Why should some enjoy marriage privileges for all eternity, while others — in many cases through no fault of their own (circumstances, poor genes, or martyrdom, for example) — are required to remain single for ceaseless ages? The continuance of human sexuality that this view presupposes makes the thought even more disagreeable.

MARRIED TO CHRIST?

Some take the view that the mystical union between ourselves and Jesus, described in the Bible as marriage, takes the place of human marriage (for examples of this language, see Isaiah 62:4-5; Jeremiah 3:14; Matthew 22:1-14; Matthew 25:1-13; Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:23-32; Revelation 19:7-9; 21:2, 9). While this view carries an aura of super-spirituality, it falls flat in answering the issue at hand.

First, Jesus did not give this as His answer. He could have said, “Because everyone will be married to me!” But instead He said we will be as the angels of God in heaven. Nowhere does the Bible describe the angels as being married to Jesus.

Second, the metaphor of marriage is just that — a metaphor, just as the related language of the body of believers as the bride is a metaphor (we will not be literally one body). Along with this idea of metaphor, is the idea conveyed by many of the verses referenced above, that Jesus is married to the church, not to each individual believer (even though there are a couple verses that, taken alone, might seem to say that). Otherwise we are saying that Jesus is a polygamist on an incomprehensible order of magnitude. Over and over again the Bible personifies the body of believers as one body, one bride, married to Christ. And of course, it should go without saying that this union is not asexual union, but spiritual. Anyone who tries to say that human marriage, even among the best of Christians, is strictly a spiritual union is kidding themselves. And it seems clear that this idea of sexual union, of marital privileges, is precisely the question Jesus addressed in Matthew 22 and Mark 12, not the spiritual union of various lovers.

Those who say with an air of deep spirituality that in heaven we will be married to Christ, and that this will fill the place of human marriage, are making a grave mistake. The kind of relationship between Christ and His people does not satisfy the needs or nature of human sexuality, which is really the basis of human marriage. To Adam, the Creator did not offer Himself, but Eve. I hope I don’t offend anyone by saying that, but platonic or spiritual unions are not Christian marriage. Friendship is not marriage. Devotion is not marriage. Love is not marriage. Human marriage is all of that, combined with human sexuality. And it is a mistake to reassure someone that, no problem, with human marriage gone, Jesus will take that place. We have no reason to believe that He will.

CONCLUSIONS

1 Corinthians 2:9 says, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” The God who made us what we are, has prepared for our eternal happiness. He has not spelled out the details. He has given us some cautions so that we don’t move rashly or with false hopes. We can be sure that whatever awaits us will be worth waiting for.

Unfortunately, for many brides- and grooms-to-be, it is also a burdensome expense. Sending custom cards to hundreds of potential attendees, as well as to those you full well know will not attend but would be mad if you didn’t invite them, can cost no small sum. This started me thinking about alternatives. Not that I would use these myself (honest!), but perhaps someone will find a lifesaver here.

Aside from the obvious but in-law displeasing option of not sending cards, the clearest choice seems to be making use of the internet. One could send an HTML-formatted email, with links to a custom website designed with all kinds of glitter and glow, for nothing. For those lacking time and talent, a plain old text message could suffice. Black on white is popular for printed cards, after all.

But if we’re wanting to use the latest technology, why not skip email and websites altogether, and go straight to the summit: Cell phones. That’s right, you can send text messages instantly to all your kin. Many cell phones support multiple recipients and groups, so you could hit all your family and friends in one wireless whack. Of course, many service providers charge for this service. You can skirt that issue by using any of the various free software or website applications that let you send text messages for free. But even if you have to pay for it, a few cents a message is a lot less than the cost of postage, especially with the postage rate hikes expected this very next month.

Of course, choosing the mode of communication is only half the battle. You also have to decide what to say. With a cell phone you can’t be long winded and wordy. No one is going to have patience with your text message, “The families of Jon Dough and Jayne Smith wish the pleasure of your presence….” It’s already off the screen, and no one likes to scroll.

The trend with cell phone text messages is to be short and concise. They just need the facts: who, what, when, where. And it helps to know the lingo. Use letters to stand in for words when possible: “RU” for “Are you.” Drop vowels and unimportant letters in common words. Don’t spell out the obvious. Everyone knows JD is Jon Dough. So how could you do it? Behold the wedding invitation of the future:

JD+JS 6/24@TVILLE CH. UR CMNG? Y/N

Stop Test-Driving Your Girlfriend: Moving beyond finding “the one,” and learning to think biblically about a potential mate.

Physical Intimacy and the Single Man: Some useful considerations about the popular question, “How far is it okay to go physically?”

How Far is Too Far?: More on the same topic.

What’s wrong with a test-drive?: I presume most of my friends know better than to have sex before marriage. However, this article provides some really good arguments about why test-driving someone (sexually) before marriage is a bad idea. If you consider yourself beyond this temptation, then consider it good information to help your friends who might be struggling with this.

Myths About Living Together: More statistics and some realistic example stories illustrating why living together doesn’t work out the way couples might think.

Soul Mates or Sole Mates?: Should you be looking for a “soul mate”? It’s a popular idea, but does it really stand up to what the Bible says? (Note: Personally I like the phrase “soul mate,” though its meaning is a little different in my personal dictionary. The article, however, shows how this phrase is infused with meaning from popular culture that isn’t necessarily biblical. It’s the same kind of situation as surrounds the word “dating,” which means different things to different people.)

Myths About Soul Mates: More on this topic.

Myths about Divorce: Whoa! We’re not even married yet, and here’s an article about divorce! However, I believe thinking about divorce is part of “counting the cost” — it’s a responsible thing to do, and it’s a personal discipline Jesus recommended (see Luke 14:28-32). How you feel about divorce will affect your day-to-day married life.

The Beauty in Modesty (for women): Modesty, of course, is for everyone. But this article looks at it from a women’s perspective. Nevertheless, as a man I found it interesting, in part because — surprise! — I have female friends. The main discussion here is how a single woman can feel modest without feeling set aside or “not in the race.” Come to think of it, there are undoubtedly many Christian men who have a similar struggle.