Taking the Name in Vain

At this point in time, there are so many different and convoluted versions of Love in effect everywhere you look. The other day a question popped into my mind- "Can you ever have too much love? We can be underloved, and just plain loved, but has anyone ever felt they were overloved?" The answer is, of course not. It's true that love can feel smothering at times -familial love can seem to hold a person back like bondage, for example.

Marriage has become a seriously flawed institution as well, in more than just governmental policy. The understanding gap between men and women has widened more and more as we live in this decaying world. I have come to a resolution, in my own mind. I have come more and more to believe there was great wisdom in the scripture that says “it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). I believe marriage is only a necessity because of the world we live in. Marriage must provide posterity, stability, and companionship here on earth. You see, the only reason we have any kind of “burn” is because we live apart from God. In His presence there is complete fulfillment. My thought is that marriage was put into place after sin entered the world, along with clothes and painful childbirth, because God knew just how pronounced the flaws would become. Certainly, we’re seeing the desperation now. This is why many people don’t believe marriage will exist in heaven, in that “perfect world”.

The thing is, none of this is True Love, and we know this because we have a constant example of what Love -real, true, pure love, the only actual love, as a matter of fact- IS. God is Love, and God is also Good and Pure and Peace. All of these other things -the hurtful, the damaging, the abusing, the misleading, the doubting -are all perversions, in one degree or another, of Love. As I'm sure you're now recalling, that's what 1 Corinthians 13 is talking about. Excellent chapter, btw. It's amazing when the Bible is a lot like poetry. Everything just falls into place when you're reading it from the right place, from the right perspective. Verse 10, for example, says "But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end." (And it's absolutely wrong to take a verse out of context, so I'm expecting you all to go read the whole thing yourselves, understand?) I read that now as referring to a time when nothing will stand in the way of the Church knowing God's Love -when we will no longer have need of the earthly version. The earthly version: which has grown rotten with the decaying earth, but was meant to be a living example of the Christ/Church-as-Bride relationship (Jesus' parable, Song of Solomon; 2 Corinthians 11: 1-4 also). The whole idea of this used to disturb me -I struggled with the idea of no hope for "a man to love" in Heaven (Heaven seems like the best shot for finding true love, does it not?). From this POV, it's obvious I was looking at it all wrong -it won't be needed!, but there are things about God that are just too big for our earthly minds to wrap all the way around.

Here are some common phrases about love that really raise my defenses:

"You can't choose who you love!"/"I didn't mean for it to happen, it just *did*. I didn't *want* to fall in love with you/him/her!"

"Fell in love" in any combination.

"I love you, but I'm not *in* love with you."

Love is a choice, but love is a spirit-given character trait. Sounds like a contradiction. It isn't. There are just too many things covered by that word "love". I'm not going to try to sort them out into little boxes, because I'm not writing this to limit love at all. I will, however, be refering to "romantic love" or "sexual love", meaning the kind of love we are used to seeing in dating relationships. In any other case where the word "love" is used, consider it boundless love.

While we're clearing up terms, you know what? There *is* such a thing as chemistry.

It's one of those things nobody really understands- that you never know what kind of reaction you yourself will have to certain people. You don't know what will bring it out, and not only is the person a huge variable, but whatever the situation is at the time makes a difference, because obviously even the smallest action or reaction, seen in another person, can trigger a different response in yourself at different times or in different moods... or, with different people. Not quite an exact science. That's where all the talk about a "spark" comes in, you know? Chemistry between two people. There's "chemistry" (of some sort) between everybody, even though we really only hear about it when it comes to love. True friendships take as much chemistry as romantic relationships, and love is usually involved in both. What makes the difference when it comes to picking or recognizing what "spark" with another person means romantic love? There's really no getting around the fact that the sex of the person has to have something to do with it. Unconsciously or not, when a member of one sex meets a member of another, there is an instant opportunity presented. Not so with two members of the same sex (at least not in the natural way): there's the potential for friendship (no matter whether the next second nullifies it), but nothing more.

I heard once that every relationship is set in the first 5 minutes. Whatever happens in those first 5 minutes, that's the dynamic between the two forever. It's not just about chemistry. It's not just about first impressions. But how can we hope to be our best and to respond the correct way to the correct person, and be ready for that every minute of every day? Well, we can't. But God's favor will carry over to give us favor in the sight of others.

And how can we keep from getting into trouble, seeing how we have these opportunities, and sometimes we just want to grab for something? Well, that's where a whole other issue with getting your needs fulfilled from God inside you comes in. Of course, if people did that, a whole lot of problems would be solved before chemistry ever became such an issue, now wouldn't they.

That takes us back to being "whole" people. That takes us back to family, or the lack of family in the world today. I have had an extremely strong, stable home life. I'm not apologizing for my good fortune, because that's the way it was meant to be. Those who don't have what I have, however? Grow up with their ideas about intimacy -physical, mental, and spiritual- all mixed up. These are lonely people. Loneliness is in everybody's peripheral vision on this earth. "Arms wide open" acceptance is one thing, and desperation is another. Most people are looking for distraction, because they can't find their answers. Most people just want a connection with real, live people. Understandable, especially if that person has no one in his/her life to depend on.

As for chemistry? Like Audrey Hepburn's character in Charade, who said "I already know an awful lot of people and until one of them dies I couldn't possibly meet anyone else", I find it necessary to feel a great deal of potential with someone before initiating that "grueling process" of testing the waters of a new relationship. Whether it's being "in love" or not, I do give a part of myself to people when I'm close to them, and you can only do that with just so many people before ...well, insert obvious "you only have so many pieces" joke here. Then again, maybe some people can do that, because they have more of a trading-status going on: a circle of nourishment where they're holding pieces in return and somehow it all works out. But the way it is for me, and the way *I* look at it is, I don't want just anybody to have a part of me. You have to trust the person to hold 'it' and take care of 'it' for you, for one thing, and my parts are pretty valuable to me. I do need people to go through a grueling process to earn the privledge before I give it up. Sort of like the pre-GLADwear trial and pledge period.

Many people can create a position to fill, making the place they're needed the position which they are filling in a kind of circular logic. Is this true function, or an instable sheen, like a mirage?

Perhaps the last time you are accepted for nothing is when you're a child at home. (Again, ideal home: very rare thing.) Small wonder why so many women have a very basic, instinctive desire to lead their own family. A mother is the whole world to a family, and her place could never be denied. Children are safe, but a mother brings safety. Children depend, a mother assures -both them and herself.

Plus, one who didn't have a good family as a child has a need to make a better one. Because everyone, and especially women, has a very intrinsic need for a family. That place where you don't have to try to be loved. And every woman has an inner picture of how that's supposed to work, whether they've seen it in real life or not.

Teen years are hard because the closer you get to the end of your childhood, the more you wish you could stay at that status. Those who are too realistic to wish for times gone by are in a big hurry to start their own family: have their own safe, even status.

Our society doesn't have a use for the single or elderly status, because they are basically unnecessary in this cycle. It's a sad, has-to-be-wrong, cycle because people are not invalid (neither are they purposeless) when functioning "outside" a working family -indeed, people are never without a family, and perhaps therein lies the problem: that in this society, a child is unceremoniously dumped from the inner family circle by age 21 and more often around age 18, and that the child, in return, dumps the parents once on their own. Yes, it's cyclical, and once again comes down to bad parenting, and a bad concept of family. If that's what is expected, that is what is sown for the child's entire life (think "Raising a child is a constant process of letting go."), that is what will be reaped. The child will, indeed, be lost.

When did family stop being the most important thing in the world?

Because, really, can you think of anything more important?

For years, I've identified myself as not wanting children. For awhile I tried to reconcile that understanding with still getting married, but it never really seemed to work in my own mind. I know, because the concept was originally startling to me as well, that sex isn't seen as a something needing a purpose, but if you say it outloud- "sex isn't a goal", it's true, isn't it? Other than sex, what is marriage? Companionship? I don't go looking for companionship, because I already have it.

I'm a very rare case in this day and age. But I don't have to be. My mom grew up completely the other way. Her life was changed when she was born again, and the anti-family cycle was halted. I'm closer to my mother than any other daughter I know, but not so close that I feel I'm her clone. With God's help, my mother (and family) somehow raised me to be a unique, Spirit-filled person, with God-given wisdom of my own (I hope).