![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Some of you will remember when I first posted about John and Stasi Eldredge's book, Captivating, which spoke to my heart in such a way that I was absolutely enraptured with their ideas.
Whoops.
As a reminder, the basic premise is that a woman has three major desires in her heart:
1. To be romanced/pursued
2. To be an essential part of a grand adventure
3. To unveil her Beauty, to be Beautiful
These three desires can be summed up in the simple Question, "Am I lovely?" And the only answer to this question can be found in God.
So far, so good - I can definitely say that I have a desire for all three of those things, and I can see how the Question sums up at least 2 of them (though I fail to see how being part of a grand adventure has anything to do with being lovely). And I definitely agree that the best way to answer the desires of one's heart is to look to God.
contriteWhoops.
As a reminder, the basic premise is that a woman has three major desires in her heart:
1. To be romanced/pursued
2. To be an essential part of a grand adventure
3. To unveil her Beauty, to be Beautiful
These three desires can be summed up in the simple Question, "Am I lovely?" And the only answer to this question can be found in God.
So far, so good - I can definitely say that I have a desire for all three of those things, and I can see how the Question sums up at least 2 of them (though I fail to see how being part of a grand adventure has anything to do with being lovely). And I definitely agree that the best way to answer the desires of one's heart is to look to God.
But the book goes so far beyond that. There are pages and pages about how God wants to have a romantic relationship with each individual woman. About how Song of Songs is from God to each individual woman. About how to be God's girlfriend, basically. And that, as I have come to see recently, is simply wrong. God does NOT want a romantic relationship with us, fraught with eros and sexual overtones. God does not have a hole in his heart which only I can fill, for that implies that God is not whole without me, and that's simply not true. While, in one sense, the Bible is the story of God's great love for mankind, it is not the story of God's eternal pursuit of romance with individual human beings.
Now that my eyes have been opened to it, I'm astonished at how I'm finding this theology of romance everywhere I turn! It may have started with the medieval women mystics, but it never died. We are still trapped under this false doctrine of matrimony, that each individual soul is the bride of Christ. It would be much more Biblical to say that we are God's children, and encourage a filial love toward God, but that does not seem to be what we find. The ideal of chivalry, of a knight in shining armor rescuing the fair maiden who is unable to save herself and then riding off with her into the sunset to be his wife, has become somehow intertwined with our image of God - Jesus is now the knight in shining armor who rescues us, the lost souls, from the sin which has imprisoned us, and then he puts us on his horse and takes us to his castle where we will be his bride forever and enjoy all the bounty of his land. And you can see why this is such a tempting trap to fall into, because it's so close to the truth. But do you not see that marriage implies more equality with God than we can claim? Whereas marriage consists of a partnership, in a father-son relationship there is a clear hierarchy. The father, while he loves, respects, and enjoys the company of his son, is clearly his son's superior and has the right (and, indeed, the responsibility) of guiding and disciplining his son to be the best man he can be. And is that not closer to the relationship we should have with God? Yes, there is a deep love and affection there. Yes, there may be pursuit and there may be respect. But there is not equality. We are not God's equals. We may keep trying to put ourselves in that position, but it doesn't make us right to do so.
Indeed, I can see much in this book that appeals directly to the feminist movement. It is very much about self-worship, veiled in Christian terms. The claim that Eve is the pinnacle of creation directly contradicts what is later said in the New Testament by Paul, where it is considered more important that Adam was created first, and then Eve. The idea that Christ has come to set you free to be yourself is also not true - Christ has come to call us to conform ourselves to God. We will not lose ourselves in God, not become a drop of water returning to the ocean as in some belief systems, but we will be changed, and no longer the women we were. It's not like you can just chop off the sin part as you would chop the excess fat off a cut of meat. It requires a full-on transformation. And Captivating fails to emphasize that.
So, I confess that I have been misled. I confess that I was wrong to suggest this book to others (I once helped put together a women's retreat based on this book... ouch). And I confess that I have not always been critical enough in my reading to recognize false doctrine when I see it, especially when it's something that I want to hear.
-Jaya-
Now that my eyes have been opened to it, I'm astonished at how I'm finding this theology of romance everywhere I turn! It may have started with the medieval women mystics, but it never died. We are still trapped under this false doctrine of matrimony, that each individual soul is the bride of Christ. It would be much more Biblical to say that we are God's children, and encourage a filial love toward God, but that does not seem to be what we find. The ideal of chivalry, of a knight in shining armor rescuing the fair maiden who is unable to save herself and then riding off with her into the sunset to be his wife, has become somehow intertwined with our image of God - Jesus is now the knight in shining armor who rescues us, the lost souls, from the sin which has imprisoned us, and then he puts us on his horse and takes us to his castle where we will be his bride forever and enjoy all the bounty of his land. And you can see why this is such a tempting trap to fall into, because it's so close to the truth. But do you not see that marriage implies more equality with God than we can claim? Whereas marriage consists of a partnership, in a father-son relationship there is a clear hierarchy. The father, while he loves, respects, and enjoys the company of his son, is clearly his son's superior and has the right (and, indeed, the responsibility) of guiding and disciplining his son to be the best man he can be. And is that not closer to the relationship we should have with God? Yes, there is a deep love and affection there. Yes, there may be pursuit and there may be respect. But there is not equality. We are not God's equals. We may keep trying to put ourselves in that position, but it doesn't make us right to do so.
Indeed, I can see much in this book that appeals directly to the feminist movement. It is very much about self-worship, veiled in Christian terms. The claim that Eve is the pinnacle of creation directly contradicts what is later said in the New Testament by Paul, where it is considered more important that Adam was created first, and then Eve. The idea that Christ has come to set you free to be yourself is also not true - Christ has come to call us to conform ourselves to God. We will not lose ourselves in God, not become a drop of water returning to the ocean as in some belief systems, but we will be changed, and no longer the women we were. It's not like you can just chop off the sin part as you would chop the excess fat off a cut of meat. It requires a full-on transformation. And Captivating fails to emphasize that.
So, I confess that I have been misled. I confess that I was wrong to suggest this book to others (I once helped put together a women's retreat based on this book... ouch). And I confess that I have not always been critical enough in my reading to recognize false doctrine when I see it, especially when it's something that I want to hear.
-Jaya-
(Anonymous)
God bless!
Hermann