Not Rape but Restoration (Exodus 22:16&17)

INTRODUCTION

If you would’ve read the Midway newspaper on a certain morning, under the police report, you would have read that he Midway Police Department issues Kasity Roberts’s citation to shut down her business or else face fines and even imprisonment. At first glance, it may not seem like a big deal, but it will all the sudden become a big deal when you learn that Kasity is girl in elementary school. The business she was illegally running? A lemonade stand. Upon receiving the news, Amy Roberts, Kasity’s mother, marched down to the police station, demanding to know the reason for the citation. Kelly Morningstar, the Midway chief of police, sat down with Amy and kindly explain that the state laws regarding food safety in food service are meant to protect its citizens from unsafe and unhealthy food and drink. The police didn’t know who made the lemonade or what the lemonade was made with, and therefore needed to shut down the operation until the business was deemed to safe to serve. Amy reluctantly agreed, but she still felt a bit baffled. After all, different police officers from the Midway Police visited the lemonade stand the previous day, bought lemonade, and then complimented Kasity for choosing to make lemonade from fresh lemons instead of a powdered drink mix. You think that’s bad?

It gets worse. In Scottsdale, Arizona, Dr. Reed Turozi received a citation and fine breaking Scottsdale’s “nuisance of property maintenance” law. His crime? He was growing an illegal tree in his yard. The fine was for $2,000, and for every day he did not cut it down, he would receive another $2,000 fine. if he could not pay, he would face imprisonment. Reed was baffled. That tree has been growing at that house for all 10 years he lived in it, and nobody said a thing. In fact, he recalls that part of the reason he bought the house 11 years earlier was that it came with that tree. He marched down to City Hall to look through all the laws, and sure and off he found out that his tree was not approved by the city of Scottsdale. He still decided to take it to trial. In his defense, he pointed out all his neighbors grew the same tree in their yard. The authorities replied, “just let us know, and we’ll cite and fine then, too!” Needless to say, Reed is not a friend with his neighbors anymore.

It gets even worse. Abner Schoenwetter ran his own seafood importing company. For 13 years, he ran his buisness the exact same processes and procedures, and every time he cleared both customs and FDA regulations without any problems. Then, one day, in his 14^th year of business, he wakes up to hear a knock on his door. There’s 13 FBI agents on his deck. They proceed to arrest Abner. His crime? He transported the lobsters in plastic bags, not wooden crates. What makes this so interesting is that a Honduras law, not a United States law. Since Abner transported the lobsters from Honduras, he had to follow Honduras law. Since the United States did not want to ruin relations with Honduras, they had to arrest Abner. A judge sentenced Abner to 8 years in prison. After 6 years in jail, Abner appealed the ruling. He spent thousands of dollars on a attorney, who got a Honduras government official to testify that no such law ever existed in Honduras. By then, it was too late. Out of business for 6 years, Abner and his family went broke, and it broke apart the family.

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, this is the worst. Jack and Jill (no joke, that’s their real name) wanted to build a new house on their property. The county government came down to inspect the foundation, and they approved the building of the house. There was only one problem. A drainage ditch, owned by the state government, was clogged with logs. Jack ass the state government to fix their drainage ditch. That’s the government admitted that they were six months backed up, so it would at least take half a year to get to his problem. Jack volunteered to do it himself. State government, not wanting to have to pay more money, gladly agreed to give him permission to clear out the clog with his backhoe. Shortly after clearing the clog and building the house, the federal government handed Jack and Jill a felony citation for building on a wetland, which is protected by federal law. Yes, the clogged drain flooded the ground, which gave the appearance of a wetland, and the EPA stepped in protect it. Jack dug an 8-foot-deep hole to prove no water ever existed there prior to the flooding, yet the EPA wouldn’t listen. They still brought him to court. A jury did find Jack not guilty, but at a price. Jack had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an attorney to prove his innocence. They had to sell their home to prevent bankruptcy. They now live in a trailer in a trailer park, and they miss their farm dearly.

Laws, am I right? We all know we need laws. Laws exist to keep the citizens in a society safe and to protect their rights. The laws I mentioned do seem to fall under that purpose. Midway Chief of Police Kelly Morningstar did have a point. I should be eat or drink at any restaurant, rest assured it’s safe and healthy, not worrying who made or how they made it. Perhaps the tree Dr. Reed Turozi had in his yard is an invasive plant species that would have taken over Scottsdale, Arizona like a weed. Maybe marine biologists and animal activists determined that it was cruel to transport lobsters in plastics bags. And wetlands deserve protection. As much good as these laws intended, how could they miss the mark, criminalizing people who aren’t criminals.

THE PROBLEM WHEN CHRISTIANS READ OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Honest Christians might admit that they feel the same way about God’s Laws found in the Old Testament. They have all read Psalm 19:7-11. They have all read the positive impact God’s Laws had on David, and they rush to the Pentateuch to gain the same benefits. When Christians read these laws in the Torah, however, they struggle to reap the reward David received for reading them. They find the laws repetitive, boring, harsh, confusing, outdated, obsolete or irreverent. Therefore, most Christians end up marginalizing or neglecting the laws found in the Pentateuch. When these laws surface, people end up belittling or vilifying the law, they end up spiritualizing or allegorizing the law, or they abuse the law, like pushing a political agenda.

Paul doesn’t seem to help the Christian here. Just look at what Paul says in the book of Romans alone. On the one hand, Paul informs Christians that they are “not under the law but of grace” (Romans 6:14) and “released from the law” (Romans 7:6). Furthermore, Paul reminds Christians that “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4). On the other hand, Paul describes the law as “holy and righteous and true” (Romans 7:12), as well as “spiritual” (Romans 7:14). As matter of fact, Paul encourages Christians to uphold the law (Romans 3:31)! What gives, Paul?

THE SOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS READING OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Fortunately, Paul did provide a hermeneutic for how Christians living in the New Covenant on how to exegete Old Testament Law. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul appeals to the church in Corinth that pastors deserve pay. Paul adds many proofs to his thesis, but one stick as odd. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. Deuteronomy 25:4 reads, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading the grain.” Any reader, either back then or now, might think, “What does that have to do with anything?!” Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 9:10, “Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.”

From 1 verse, Paul has made a 6-point hermeneutic. First, Paul reminds believers that law came from the Word of God. Second, since the law comes from the Word of God, it reflects God’s heart and mind. Third, since the law has come from the Word of God, it has more authority than humanity authority. Fourth, God spoke the law into existence with humanity’s sake in mind. Fifth, this law, originally, spoken to the young nation of Israel before the time of Christ, still has relevance to Gentile Christians in the 1^st century A.D. Sixth, all God’s laws have relevance to New Covenant Christians, not just the 10 Commandments. Some Christians try to solve Old Testament law problem by claiming that only the 10 Commandments have significance in the Christian’s life, and all other laws in the Old Testament have no importance. On the contrary, Paul would disagree, as he quotes a law which many Christians would call obscure.

From those 6 principles, Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, has created a 4-step hermeneutic for interpreting Old Testament Law. His hermeneutic modifies Dr. David Dorsey’s “CIA” hermeneutic, adding in Cristocentrism at the beginning and the end. I have adopted a very similar hermeneutic, which, being the good Cristocentric Mennonite I am, further strengthens the Cristocentrism aspects.

First, back-read the law from the New Testament context. Does the New Testament reference it? What does the New Testament have to say about the law? Whatever New Testament has to say trumps the actual law in the Old Testament. For example, Leviticus 21:7 forbids anyone to marry a prostitute, and in 1 Corinthians 6:15, Paul states that a Christian should never unite with a prostitute because a Christian is united with the Lord Jesus. Since the 1 Corinthians 6:15 command repeats the Leviticus 21:7 command, Christians should keep the command in its present form. Leviticus 11 lists the unclean animals which Israelites cannot eat. In Acts 10, however, a sheet drops from heaven, full of unclean animals, and a voice from heaven tells Peter to kill and eat. When Peter objects, calling the animals unclean, the voice from heaven reprimands Peter for calling something God made unclean. Therefore, Christians can conclude that God now allows Christians to eat meat once considered unclean.

Second, examine the law in its Old Testament context. Old Testament laws did not come from a timeless and spaceless vacuum. They came from a history, a geography and a culture. They had a context. This step requires Christians to understand what the author meant and how the original, intended audience would have understood the text. This step requires Christians to understand when the text is historically, where the text is in geographically and what the text is culturally.

Third, theologize the law to its universal context. At this step, the Christian does not look for a what but a who. The Christian does not look for a principle but for a person, that is, God. The Christian asks, “What does this passage reveal about God?” This truth might include God’s attributes, his character, his thought, his feelings, his priorities or his morals. Furthermore, a Christian should ask, “How does this law point forward to Christ? How did Christ fulfill this law? Did Jesus live out the law, so Christians must also live out the law, or did Jesus live out the law, so Christians don’t have to?” From these universal truth, the Christian can move on to the next step.

Fourth, apply the law to the current context. If the New Testament referenced the law in step 1, whatever commandment that came with the New Testament reference gets carried over to step 4. In step 4, the applications come from the truths about God in step 3, not necessarily the understanding of the law in step 2. The application may look exactly like the commandment found in the Torah, but the application might also look nothing like the commandment in the Pentateuch. Just like step 2 brought about understanding in the history, geography and culture of back then and there, step 4 should bring about understanding about the history, geography and culture of here and now.

A CASE STUDY OF EXODUS 22:16&17

Of course, you know me. I don’t let you off easy. Of course, I picked an awkward, uncomfortable and controversial (in the sense in might cause offense) law I could find. My pick, however, comes with good reason. This law can serve as an apologetic. Many anti-Christian atheists will use this law to attack God’s holiness and righteousness. They will read this law and say, “Just look at your God! This poor girl gets raped, and your God commands the girl and the rapist to marry, and the rapist only has to pay a fine?! How can you call your God both holy and loving when he treats young women like that?!” Did God really say that? Did he really command that? If so, how do Christians follow that command in their everyday life? Let’s BETA test it!

Step 1: Back-read from a New Testament Context

Back-reading from a New Testament asks the Christian to first seek what the New Testament has to say about this law. Indeed, the New Testament remains silent on this Old Testament law. The New Testament neither repeats the law with instructions to follow it, nor does the New Testament teach something contrary to that law. Therefore, the Christian can’t assume that the Christian, in the New Testament should continue to follow the law or cease to follow the law. The Christian needs to move on to the next steps, so the Christian can understand the verses in its original context, what the law teaches about God and how the Christian can apply it.

Before moving on, however, I want to remind us of 2 things. First, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes like shifting shadows. Therefore, this law reflects the character and nature of God, which was true back in Exodus and is true in the 21^st century. Second, Jesus has come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. As the fulfillment of the Law, this individual, specific law, found in Exodus 22, will somehow point forward to Jesus.

Step 2: Examine the Law in its Original Context

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible did not originally come in English. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Since this law appears in the Old Testament, the Israelites originally heard it in Hebrew. Anyone multilingual will tell anyone else that translating words into different languages does not always have a one-to-one correspondence. Therefore, some of the words in this law need more careful attention.

Seduce (v.): פָּתָה (pātâ). The root of this word means to be open. The full word means to allure, beguile, coax, deceive, entice or seduce. The Hebrew language might have went from the root to the full word is because a young, immature youth might easily be open to enticement or seduction, without thinking about the ramifications. The full word, in this context means “to convince someone to engage in coitus through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience.” The Contemporary English Version provides a good translation: “talks her into having sex.” The New Century Version also provides both a good interpretation: “tricks her into having sexual relations.” The persuasion could have come about as result of coaxing, charming, flirting or deceiving, but it’s definitely not by force, so it’s definitely not rape.

Virgin (n.): בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh). The בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) has three qualifications. First, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is a young woman, even as young as adolescence in age. This points back to our original point of פָּתָה (pātâ) about taking advantage of the inexperience and immaturity of youth. Second, the בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) is someone who has never engaged in sexual activity. Third, Old Testament Hebrew usually reserves בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) for an unmarried person. Now as we see in our Exodus 22 passage, בְּתוּלָה (bĕtûlâh) can also refer to someone not yet married, as in betrothed or engaged. The law in Exodus 22:16-17 probably refers to a woman in any or all qualifications. It refers to a young woman who has never had sex, whether that young lady is single, engaged or married.

Bride-price (n.): מָהַר (mohar). In English translations מָהַר (mohar) most often receives the translation dowry or bride-price, although the latter sounds a little deceiving. The מָהַר (mohar) is most definitely not the groom buying a bride. As part of the engagement, the groom-to-be agreed to pay a מָהַר (mohar). According to the traditions formed by the rabbis, on average, the מָהַר (mohar) equaled 50 shekels of silver, but the actual מָהַר (mohar) varied from woman to woman. Factors affecting the מָהַר (mohar) included the man family’s social standing, the woman’s family’s social standing, the number of possible future husbands, the woman’s attractiveness and the woman’s virginity. Anything less would result in a lower מָהַר (mohar). The man would pay the מָהַר (mohar) to the woman’s father, and the father would gift the מָהַר (mohar) to the bride on her wedding day. The מָהַר (mohar) was never considered the woman’s father possession before marriage or the husband’s possession after marriage. The מָהַר (mohar) is always considered the woman’s possession. The מָהַר (mohar) had a few functions in the Ancient Near East. First, it displayed the suitor’s dedication to the woman. The מָהַר (mohar) was not cheap. A man would have to save up a while to have enough. This demonstrated the man could earn, save and afford to bring in the young to his home and take care of her. Second, it would provide the young couple financial stability. If hard times arose, the young couple would have a “nest egg” on which they could fall back. Third, if the woman ever found herself widowed or divorced, and she had no family to fall back on, the מָהַר (mohar) would work as life insurance today, giving her money until she could remarry or some other means of income.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, let me create my own paraphrase by inserting the definitions into the verse. “If a man approaches a sexually-inactive, unmarried, young woman and convinces her to engage in sex through taking advantage of immaturity and inexperience, either by charm or deception, he must give the full, customary engagement gift and marry her. If the young woman’s father forbids to give the man the young woman in marriage, however, the man still has to go through paying the engagement gift.

Now that terms have been carefully defined, and we have a more clarified verse, let’s look at how the situation might play out in life. Imagine, if you will, Joe and Jane are 2 Israelite teenagers or 2 Israelites young adults, madly in love with each other. Only one problem arises. Jane has already been betrothed to John. One day, while the young couples grieves that they will never be together, Joe gets, what seems to him, a good idea. “Wait,” Joe says, “In your betrothal, your father promised you as a virgin, right?” “Yeah, so?” Jane answers, not putting one and one together. “That’s it!” Joe exclaims. “If you are a virgin no longer, John will no longer want to marry you. The betrothal will become null and void. Then we can get married! It only makes sense. We want to get married one day. I mean, I do love you. Don’t love me?” Jane thinks about it. She does love Joe. Not only does he look attractive, he’s always so nice and kind to him, always giving her a warm smile and a hearty laugh. She wishes she could marry him. If they did marry one day, they would consummate the marriage. Why not do it sooner? With no objection coming to her mind, Jane agrees. One day, when Joe and Jane know they will be unsupervised, they sneak off and have sex. Afterward, Jane does ask Joe to hold off saying anything, to which he agrees. Jane wants to wait for the “right time” to her father and John and to figure out a way to put them down nicely, without hurting their feelings. Besides, they still have time before the planned wedding. Soon, however, Jane finds out she doesn’t have as much time as she thought. Jane finds out she’s pregnant. This makes Jane uneasy, but it makes Joe feel even more easy. Joe felt ready to become a husband, but he did not feel ready to become a father. Now Joe plans to back out of his own plan. After all, only Jane heard Joe’s plan. With no witnesses around, Joe’s word would have more a say than Jane’s word.

Before moving on to our next section, our theology about God, I want close this section about the doctrine of sin. We commonly think of sin as the sinner committing the sin directly on a victim. Sin has bigger consequences than that. Sin victimizes everyone. Take a look at the possible scenario I gave and see how it turns everyone into a victim.

Obvious, the young woman is a victim. Because of what happened to her, she has become extremely vulnerable. In most Ancient Near East societies, the father, the fiancé or the future father-in-law could have the girl put to death, either legally or illegally, because of her fornication. In any other Ancient Near East society, despite the sex that went between the man the woman, since the man never officially got engaged with the woman, he never has to go through with marrying her. At the same time, her fiancé has every right to exit the marriage because she broke the contact Now the woman will find it harder to marry because she is not a virgin. Even if the man involved, or any man for that matter, agrees to marry her, she will get less or an engagement gift, if any gift at all.

The young woman’s father is a victim. The father loves his daughter very much. All he wants is for his daughter to have a happy life. As any loving father, his deepest concern is that someone will love and take care of his daughter for the rest of her after he passes away. He has raised her to become a godly wife. He took the time to pick out a husband suitable for her, and her arranged for her to receive the perfect dowry. Now, because of his daughter’s sinful act, the daughter has brought down disgrace and humiliation upon her father’s name as head of the household. The daughter has disrespected the father’s careful choosing of a husband. He might have to have the awkward and embarrassing conversation with the fiancé and his family about his daughter breaking the engagement vow. The father will have a hard time arranging another marriage. If he can arrange another marriage, or even if the fiancé chooses to go through with the marriage, the father would collect a very small (if any) dowry price. All in all, whatever security the father planned for his daughter now will no longer happen.

The fiancé is a victim. Just because the woman loved another man does not mean the fiancé did not love his fiancée at all. As a matter of fact, the fiancé did love his fiancée very much, and he probably began preparing himself to become a husband. He might have learned the family trade, so he could earn an income of his own. He possibly either built his own wing right off his father’s house, or possibly built a house on his father’s property, so the newlywed couple would have a home where they could live. Most importantly, being the good Israelites he was, the fiancé had remained sexually pure until marriage, ready to present his virginity as a gift to his bride. Upon hearing his bride-to-bear gave up her virginity to another man, the fiancé now suffers from a broken heart. He had spent so much time and effort showing how much he loved her by preparing a future, especially remaining sexually pure, and she in return has done nothing for him. Now the fiancé has a tough choice to weigh out on his mind. If he chooses to marry her, he will have to live with the fact he shared her with another man (and has to deal with the gossip about it), or he can leave, despite loving her so much.

Even the man who seduced the woman is a victim. Back in the Ancient Near East before the time of Christ, a man who committed such a crime could face castration or even death. Even with Israelite law forbidding, the woman’s family and friends still might face the temptation to take matters into their hand and castrate or execute the man, no matter what the law says. If the man does not end up marrying the woman he seduced, he has reduced the likelihood of finding another woman to be his wife. A good Israelite woman would only seek out a man who has remained sexually pure. By become sexuality active, he has great reduced the number of women who would consider becoming his wife.

Step 3: Theologize the Law to Its Universal Context

God’s Law reflects the character and nature of God himself. Before diving into what this law specifically says about God, pause and take the time to appreciate how this law, like all the other laws, reflects God’s justice. God has compassion for the victim. His heart breaks when someone becomes a victim of a sin, and he mourns with the victim. When God administers justice, he rules in an equal, fair, rational and satisfying way. In his omniscient wisdom, God knows that unequal, unfair, irrational and unsatisfying ruling will only make things feel worse, causing more hurt among all those victimized. Now, let’s move on to the specifics of Exodus 22:16&17.

First, God has a very high reverence for all women. He wants all women to enjoy life to its fullest, having a happy life, a healthy life and a holy life. Because God makes every woman in his image, God sees all women as valuable, even when the people around her don’t. Therefore, even when a woman sins, makes the wrong choice or brings shame upon herself, God still loves her and has compassion on her. The Lord still offers her his protection and help.

Second, God expects men to keep his libido in check. Men should withhold from having sex until marriage. If a man does have sex with a woman, he should take responsibility by pursuing the relationship through to marriage, with her family’s blessing. If her family forbids it, the man must find a way to demonstrate he has truly repented.

Third, God truly loves the sinner and hates the sin. God hates the sin the sinner committed, and he expects the sinner to take responsibility. At the same time, God demonstrate his love for the sinner by finding a way for the sinner to reconcile with his God, the victim and the community.

Fourth, God is a God of culture. God speaks to people within their culture. God asks all his people to examine their culture in light of his principles. God only calls people to reject the parts of their culture which stands in stark contrast to the culture, and if they can fix any part of their culture to keep it, they should do so.

As for how this law points forward to Christ, during his ministry, Jesus encountered women who had questionable sexual history, like the sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50 and the adulterous woman in John 7:53-8:11. In both of the instances references, Jesus held the women in high reverence. He forgave them of their sin, so they be reconciled, but he also requested that they put their sinful life behind them.

Step 4: Apply the Law to the Present Context

In general, this law falls under the category “love your neighbor as yourself.” More specifically, this law falls under the subcategory, “do not commit adultery.” Together, God calls all Christians to honor and respect those of the opposite gender, putting their self-esteem and well-being above sexual desires.

Christian men, as sons of the Most High God, respect all women as the daughters of God they are, made in the image of God. Just as God wishes all his daughters to have a healthy, holy and happy life, a godly Christian man also desires that all women, especially their sisters in Christ, will have that healthy, holy and happy life. Therefore, Christian men should pursue every women’s well-being over their own sexual desires. Good Christian men should not take advantage of women, especially young or immature women. Those who do will have to face God on the judgment throne.

Christian women, believe that the Lord values you as worthy of him. You are daughters of Yahweh, the king of king and lord of lords! As daughters of the king of heaven, that makes every Christian woman a heavenly princess! Therefore, God calls Christian women to think, speak and act like heavenly princesses. Do not surround yourself with men who only want to take advantage of you and your body. Instead, surround yourself with men who concern themselves with your happiness and who will keep you accountable as your pursue holiness. Respect all men, especially your brothers in Christ, as you want to be respected.

If anyone here, men or women, sinned and fell short of God’s expectations for you in life, remember your God loves you. God does not hold you accountable because he hates you. God holds you accountable loves you. He wants you to confess and repent because he wants to pour out forgiveness on you, and he wants to reconcile you to your original value and worth.

CONCLUSION

In Psalm 119:47&48, David wrote, "For I find my delight in your commandments, which I love. I will lift up my hands to your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statues." Let the words of David become your prayer. I pray that you will find the same love and delight of the Old Testament Law that David found, and I pray it will encourage you to study the Torah more.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I an eternally grateful to Dr. Timothy R. Valentino, Pastor at Fleetwood Bible Church and professor of Biblical Studies and Practical Theology at Evangelical Seminary, for fleshing the Christian approach to Old Testament Law in his paper "Imitators of Christ: A Theocentric Approach to the Christian Preaching of Old Testament Law," which can be found in Evangelical Journal Vol.32 No.2 (Fall 2014)

I also appreciate Joshua D.Jones, pastor of Therfield Chapel in Cambridge, England for his article "Does the Bible Encourage Rape?" on his blog Sanity's Cove (September 26, 2016).

I also consulted the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Robert Harris, Gleason Archer and Bruce Waltke (1981) for the Hebrew definitions.

My Theology on Video Games

Introduction

I have gained entrance to five difference dance clubs by showing off my moves to five different dance crews. I also was a back-up dancer for the Black Eyed Peas. I played my guitar to become part of a world famous band, I played my guitar to unite rival gangs in a city, I played my guitar to set free a demigod, and I played my guitar to stop zombies from invading a city. I tested a teleportation device for a science company. When the tests succeeded, the company tried to trap me to prevent their secret from escaping, and when I tried to escape, they tried to kill me. I helped detain an asylum when a few inmates tried to take control of the asylum in a coup. I accidentally killed my father in the utopian society he attempted to erect, and then went after the man who made me kill my father. All of this is possible through the world of video games.

Video games have evolved over the years in many aspects. They have evolved graphically. Video games have gone from eight-bit graphs to 1080p graphics. Video games have evolved in game play. Video games have gone from linear games, jumping from platform to platform, to games where players can explore worlds and make choices. Video games have also evolved in storytelling. Video games now have cut scenes, with animation and voice actors. With this evolving have come new worlds, new choices and new decisions. With new worlds, choices, and decisions, video games have earned a second glance.

Probably the most tell-tale sign on how much video games have evolved is how much time is spent examining video games. If someone attempted to study video games a mere decade ago, that person would come up with very little resources. When video games grew in popularity, however, and when video games clearly became a part of culture, video games had to be re-analyzed. Naturally, when the secular world analyzes something, the Christian must analyze it as well. In the past, when Christians analyzed video games, they seemed to take the five ways American Christians have handled culture, according to Andy Crouch in his book Culture Making. Christians have condemned video games, refusing to play them because they are sinful. Christians have critiqued video games. They willingly watched video games, but only saw their faith as conflicting with the video game world. On the other end, Christians have consumed video games, not even thinking about what video games have done to their faith. Christians have copied video games, making their own video games, and yet still missing the point. This paper will argue that none of those methods work the best. Instead, the best method is the method that examines the morals in the game, compare and contrast them to Christianity, and when possible, make the Christian choice within the video game. But first, in order to see why this is the best method, all other methods must be examined to see where they fall short.

Gaming is Culture

Video games cannot be denied as part of the culture. Surveys show that eighty-seven percent students in grades four to twelve play video games. These students will play video games for at least an hour a day. Video games cannot be limited to a single culture, either. In India, fifty-three percent of children who have access to a computer play video games. In China, people aging under twenty-five spend most of their computer time playing games. In Australia, children spend a fourth of their computer time playing games. These statistics demonstrate the gaming spans across different cultures over different countries and different continents. While gaming may not favor a race, it may favor a gender. In the United States, ninety-six percent of video games players are boys, leaving only four percent to be girls. In Canada, four-fifths of video games players are boys, and one-fifth of video gamers are girls. While Canada comes closer to a balance, both statistics may hint that video games fit men more than woman. Still, when combined with the surveys displaying how many people play video games, video games can be understood as important part of culture. Therefore, Christians must decide on how to appropriately react to them.

Critiques and Condemnation

If the fundamentalists would have a doctrine on video games, they would declare them evil and avoid them at all costs. If neo-evangelicals wanted to analyze video games, they would watch from a distance and criticize them for all the times that the game disagreed with their faith. The commonality between these two views lies in their negative outlook. The negative bias against video games is nothing new to anyone involved in video games, the makers and the players alike. This section of this blog will look at some of the complaints about video games and will show that they are merely criticism and condemnation is not the appropriate answer to video games.

Escapism

The Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines escapism as “habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine.” In terms of video games, a video gamer commits escapism when he or she uses video games in order to live out life in a fantasy world instead of facing reality. Escapism has negative effects to the human psyche. First, escapism can cause denial when video games won’t face what’s happening in reality, but try to live out their fantasy world in reality. Second, escapism can lead to self-hatred. Gamers hate their real self, wishing to be their fantasy self. The worst effects of escapism hurt Christian gamers the most. Escapism can cause players to refuse to recognize any sin or evil in the world. The players rather escape to a world of happiness and perfection than rather deal with the sin of the suffering of the world, locally or globally.

Recently, studies show video games might not provide escapism as people thought. Instead, video games further equip the player for the real world. Educational video games help children advance in school. Math Blasters teach children math, Where in the World is Carmen San Diego teaches children geography, and Oregon Trail teaches history. Education video games help children so much in school that businesses look into making job training into games in order to train employe3s effectively. Even the military has taken advanced of this “gamification.” They created a video game out of basic training because they realized the best performers at basic training were those who played first person shooter games, such as Halo and Call of Duty.

If video games do have any escapism, it can be positive. In other words, video games can provide psychological needs video games might not receive in the real world. People need to feel like they are in control, and video games can put a person in charge of a person or a bunch of people. People need to feel successful at something. When a gamer completes a game, a feeling of satisfaction comes over a person. People also need to feel like they belong to a common community. Massive multiplayer online role playing games create a community of video gamers playing the same game, working together for the same goal. So video games might not simply be a tool to escape from the real world, but rather a tool to dive further into the real world.

Violence

Research hasn’t always been consistent on the correlation between video game violence and violence in real life. One study has saw that when people played violent video games, the part of the brain associated with anger and hatred becomes very active. On the other hand, many surveys have shown that in past years, the popularity of video games have increased, while violence has decreased in general. Those supporting video games credit video games as a healthy method to releasing anger, just like punching a pillow, while those against video games, claim the statistic is a mere correlation fallacy. A better interpretation of the studies and statistics conclude that while violent video games can fuel the rage within a person, the video game itself cannot induce a person to violence.

No one should shun video games because of violence. First of all, not all video games have violence in them. The ERSB rates games, taking into consideration the amount of violence within a video game. Games rated EC, E and E10 rarely have violence. If they do, the ERSB describes the violence as “mild violence” or “fantasy violence,” which is similar to the violence in Loony Tunes. Even games rated T and have violence keep the violence fairly mild, maybe not using blood. When games become rated M, then games become violent, but the M stands for “mature” and is not intended for an audience below the age of seventeen. Second, just because a game has violence available as an option, it does not mean violence is the only option. Players can actively choose a non-violent method. In fact, games like Mirror’s Edge and Call of Duty Black Ops give out pacifism achievements, which are rewards for not harming a single player. But even if a video games has violence, and makes the gamer participate in violence, don’t throw it out into the trash. These violent games can open the door for discussion on Christians and their views on just war and justifying violence. A good game to bring about such conversion would be the original God of War trilogy. In the first God of War game, the violence has an opportunity to be justified, as the god kills to avenge his fallen loved ones and seek repentance in his own wrongdoing. When the series progresses into God of War 2 and God of War 3, the mood changes. The god kills merely for revenge and to satisfy his own anger. This game alone not only opens a door for just violence among humans, but also can lead a discussion about the times when Yahweh is “violent” in the Bible.

 

Sexual

The first question anyone needs to ask when it comes to video games is, “Why is there sex and nudity in video games?” First, sex indeed sells. People will indeed buy video games just to see nudity and sex. Video game creators will take advantage of this market, making games like Leisure Suit Larry and Duke Nukem Forever, because the creators will know people will buy the game just for the sexual content. Second, when the creators see their games as forms of art, they put nudity in their games to demonstrate their artistic advance. Medieval and Renaissance artists did this in their painting and sculpting. In a time before photographs, artists painted and sculpted nude bodies to demonstrate how realistic they can portray bodies. The same philosophy stands true for video games. Back in the days of eight-bit graphics, the difference between a male torso and a female torso was rectangle torso for males and triangle torso for females. The nudity allows the game programmers to show off every curve of the human body. Third, the medium of video games is still young, and thus is immature. Film went the same direction early in its life. Early movies contain scenes of random nudity, men and women dressing and undressing, fully exposed to the camera, for no reason at all. The best explanation any film analyst would attempt to give is that film, in its youth, tried experimenting with what it could get away with in society. Video games might be participating in the same experiment, seeing how people respond to their use of nudity and sexuality. Fourth, and most importantly, video games use sexuality to show dynamic relationships. In the game Heavy Rain, if the player chooses for Ethan Mars to engage in sexual intercourse with Madison Page, Ethan forgives Madison and they remain together for the rest of the game. If Ethan and Madison do not have sex, the two characters separate and create a totally different ending to the story. In Mass Effect 2, the hero, Commander Shepherd, can choose to have sex early or later in the game. If Shepherd has sex early in the game, Shepherd destroys the relationship with the woman, but if Shepherds hold off on sex, the relationship with the girl flourishes and blooms. Sex can communicate relationships and character development in a story.

The appropriate response to sex in video games has much similarity to the response to violence in video games. First, video game ratings take into consideration sexual content. Games with EC, E and E10 ratings will have no sexual content, or even nudity. Games rated T will have revealing clothing at the most, but no sexual acts. Only the games rated M will have sex in them. People who want to enjoy games without sex should then avoid M rated games, as well as pursue caution in T rated games. Second, just because a game has sex does not mean the player’s character has to engage in sex. For the games with the most explicit sex scenes, gamers have to go out of their way to find these scenes. For the games that present sex up front, players have the option, most of the time, to turn down sex. Either way, players do have a say in their character’s sexual life. Third, and most importantly, allow sex in video games to open the door for theological discuss and try to create a theology of sex in video games. Christians should discuss with other Christians if sex in video is both permission and beneficial to the Christian. Christians should ask themselves what the sex signifies, and if the creators could have communicated the message in a better way. Once Christians have developed their philosophy, the Christian video gamer should attempt to live this out in his video game life. If the game chooses to live a life of celibacy, he should try to get his character to live the same way. If he cannot make his character live this way, maybe he shouldn’t be playing the game. As long as Christians properly deal with sex in video games, the excuse to not play video games because of sex should cease to exist.

Addiction

Critics of video games have often tagged video games as addictive. Even teenagers playing video games admit that they have spent too much time playing video games while they should have been doing homework. Indeed, video game players may not be good stewards of their time if they use a lot of their playing video games. At the same time, while video games can be addicting, video games themselves are not addicting. Unlike drugs, nothing in video games draws the human to need to play video games. With self-discipline and self-control, any person can fight off a video game addiction.

Humanity in Video Games

In newer video games, players don’t have to pick a character already made for them, but can make their own character and play as that character. It doesn’t matter what kind of game, for even music video games, like the Rock Band franchise, utilize a character creator. These character creators would like to get their players to believe humans can have a perfect body, with the tweak of a bar on the game screen. The character creator reflects the culture’s attitude of the body. For example, in Rock Band and Rock Band 2, when a player increases “weight,” it does not add pounds to the body. For men, their muscle mass increases, and for women, their breast size increases. While players can use character creators to make the character look similar to themselves, most do no. Most gamers choose to make their character how they want to. One person recalled that his character in Rock Band started to look like himself, but as the game progressed and he unlocked new clothing and makeup, he ended up looking like a member of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band with a ZZ Top beard. Character creation can leave a gamer unhappy about their bodies and their personalities. They could think that God made them incorrectly, which could lead them to deny any image of God in them altogether.

At the same time, perhaps video games help players experience the image of God even more. The image of God puts titles on both God and man. God is the creator and mankind is the creation. In the image of God, God gives humans the ability to create. When players make an avatar in their game, they have become the creators, and their avatar the creation. Gamers who make avatars get to share in the experience of creating, just like God did when he created man. Humans also experience the image of God when in community. In community, humans get relationship just like God gets in the trinity. Video games with multiplayer provide a chance to enhance community with other players locally and globally. While video games can give Christians a bad view of humanity by distorting the image of God, video games can help the Christian enhance the image of God in life.

Consummation

Opposite of condemning and criticizing, Christians can consume video games. Consummation of video games means playing video games and taking in everything about the video game, without filtering anything from the video game. Consummation of video games sees video games as mere entertainment, so video games shouldn’t be examined deeply or filtered for any reason. Consummation could also mean finding any good in video games, and that good would outweigh any kind of evil video games could contain. Therefore, liberal Christians would probably take the consummation side when it comes to video games. Other Christians should not jump quickly to consummation. Despite all said above, video games do indeed have escapism, violence, sex, addiction and bad views of humanity. These issues in video games should not stop a Christian from play video games, but a Christian should not ignore them either. If Christian gamers intake these issues the wrong way, they could fall into temptation and sin. Christians still need to guard themselves from temptation. Consuming video games blindly does not protect the Christian from the temptation they need to guard themselves from.

Copying

When it comes down to Andy Crouch’s views on how to handle culture, two remain to be discussed: copying and creating. When it comes to video games, copying and creating have become one and the same. Every time Christians attempt to make video games, they become a direct copy of a secular game or become a game similar to a secular game in the same genre. An early example would be Exodus, a game for the Nintendo Game Boy, created in 1991. Essentially, Exodus copied Pac-Man. Instead of Pac-Man, Moses marches through a maze. Instead of ghosts, Moses avoids Egyptians. In game play, Exodus only differs from Pac-Man by making the player answer questions about the book of Exodus. Exodus, simply, was a Christian Pac-Man. Many games would follow suit. When Guitar Hero and Rock Band become popular in 2008, Guitar Praise came out the same year. Virtually, Guitar Praise played just like Guitar Hero, except the players played Christian praise and worship songs. Once again, the game merely mirrored a secular game in a Christian way.

While not all Christian video games copy secular games by mirroring them and Christianizing them, Christian video games have tried to be unique by copying a video game genre. Catechumen, released on the PC in 2000, is a good example. The game starts out with an archangel declaring the Romans as pagans and demon-possessed. The archangel gives the player in the game a literal sword, which he calls “the sword of the spirit,” to fight the Romans. The game ultimately becomes a first person shooter, as the player, from the first person point of view, shoots blue beams from his sword to convert the Roman. While this game tries to provide an alternative to violent video games by replacing blood and bullets with beams, this game ends up giving a metaphorical view of Christianity. No Christian wields a literal sword to evangelize the gospel. Even in metaphorical terms, the game does not produce a positive message about Christians.

Left Behind: Eternal Forces attempted to become a unique Christian game in 2006. Tim LaHaye fully funded the game based off his book, hoping to turn Christians from secular video games to a more Christian video game. While LaHaye might have thought the game was a good idea, both pastors and video game critics found faults with the game. The game starts out with the goal to convert followers of the Antichrist to Christianity. To tell which characters are Christian, antichristian, or neutral, a “health bar” appears the head of every character. Christians get green bars, the neutral get gray bars and those who side with the Antichrist get red bars. In order to convert a person to Christianity, the player must lower the red bar or gray bar. First, no one should turn converting people to the Christian faith a game. The world contains millions of people suffering in their sin, needing to know Jesus. Second, even if evangelism became a game, no one can measure a person’s spiritual life with a health bar. Naturally, after evangelism comes discipleship. The game provides five roles for the player and the characters he has converted: evangelist, soldier, builder, healer and worshipper. In the original game, however, women could not become evangelists or soldiers. Tim LaHaye, coming from a fundamentalist Baptist background, believed strongly that women should not become leaders in the church or state, even if it meant becoming an evangelist or a solider. Later patches of the game allowed women to become all five occupations, but by that time, the game already damaged its reputation in the country. While Christians can debate on women leadership, they should not bring the debate into the secular community. When the soldiers mature spiritually, their job becomes fighting the Antichrist’s army, in the form of the police. Now the Christians understand that the “police” here represent the minions of an evil man bring evil upon the earth, like Hitler and the Nazi party. In the secular mind, however, the non-Christian simply sees another game like Grand Theft Auto, teaching children to fight and mistreat the police. Once again, this game makes sense in the Christian community, but fails in the secular community.

Not all Christian video games merely copy a game or copy a game genre. Bible Champions: The Resurrection created a video game which cannot easily be placed in a category. Players choose either a boy character or a girl character. The character becomes a citizen of first century Israel. They follow Jesus around, watching animated Bible stories, and exploring the 1^st century towns and cities. While the game play stands as unique, the theology still suffers. Since the game creators aimed to have a child audience, and the game creators didn’t want to incorporate graphic violence in a children’s game, the story skips over the Crucifixion, going from the Last Supper to the Resurrection. Also, the game tries to put a quantity on faith and love. Most people wouldn’t measure faith and love in quantity. Even the best attempts to create a unique Christian video game end up with theological problems.

When Christians try to copy video games, either quite literally or merely the genre, problems occur, as listed above. Therefore, most Christians resort to simply making Bible trivia video games. The video game simply asks the player questions on the Bible, and the player tries to answer correctly. The Bible Game, created for the Play Station 2 in 2005, stands above the rest as an exceptional example. Not only does the game include Bible trivia, but also fun mini-games that incorporate Bible stories with contemporary Christian music.

Creating Video Game Theology

Christians shouldn’t condemn or criticize video games because every game has a silver lining. Christians shouldn’t consume video games blindly because video games have escapism, violence, sex, addiction and bad views of humanity, which can corrupt a Christian who is not on guard. Christians try to create their own games, but every time, they end up becoming mere copies of secular video games. Therefore, none of these approaches work. Instead, Christians should try less to put their theology into video games and should develop theology that comes out of video games. Instead of video games and the Bible clashing, the Bible should correlate and correct what video games teach in their stories. The correct process first looks at what the video game teaches, then compares it to the Bible. In the places the Bible agrees with the video game, the Christian should support it, but then when the Bible disagrees with the video game, the Christian should be cautious about it. This process can be best done through the stories and the moral choices presented in games.

Most Games Have Narrative

Not all games have stories. Most games that do not have stories usually are quiz games or puzzle, but being a puzzle game or quiz does not automatically mean a game does not have a story. Puzzle Quest, a simple puzzle game, has a fantasy story. Most games do have stories. With the advance in technology, such as cut scenes, video game stories have become more obvious in video games. This does not mean older video games did not have stories. The original Super Mario Bros., created in 1985, tells a story about a plumber trying to save a princess while he survives in a changed world. The 1980 game Missile Command tells a story about defending the home country from a nuclear war. As simple as these stories are, these games still have stories, and the stories enrich the game.

Not an Allegory

When a Christian wants to make a theology about a video game, he may be tempted to make an allegorical interpretation. In an allegorical interpretation of Pac-Man, Pac-Man represents the Christian, the maze represents life, and the dots represent the days of that life. Just as Pac-Man munches down on the dots, Christians chomp by at the days that go by. The ghosts represent demons, both literally and metaphorically for the demons in life each person faces. The power-up dots represent the spiritual high because they can help fight off demons and only last a short time. While this allegory might seem to work, it ignores a serious hermeneutical rule. In Bible hermeneutics, the Christian reading the Bible needs to consider the author’s original intent in the Bible book. In the same way, Christians should not force a theology into a video game that the video game creator did not intend. A correct video game hermeneutic looks at how the creator viewed the game, and then compares to Biblical theology.

Types of Narrative

Video games tell narrative not only through cut scenes, but also through game play. The type of narrative depends on how the game tells its story through game play. Video game narrative can be placed in three categories: linear, binary and embodies games. Linear games have a set story from beginning to end, with little to nothing that the player can do to change the story, such as the Call of Duty games. Binary stories give the player two choices. The game already determines the good choice and the evil choice, and the player merely chooses good or evil. Good choices bring about a good ending, while evil choices bring about an evil ending. A binary game, as the name hints, gives a game narrative only two endings in the narrative. Bioshock and Dragon Age II are a couple binary story games. The most endings come in embodied games. Embodied games give players multiple choices. The game does not tell the player which choices are good or evil, but lets the player decide for himself. The game, in turn, has multiple endings. Endings do not get labeled “good” or “evil.” Endings simply change based on choice. While binary stories are better than linear stories, embodied stories are the best stories because the game personally connects with the player. What makes a narrative so great is the choices the gamer makes in the game, especially moral choices.

Most Games Have Choices

Not all video games have moral choices, but more games might have moral choices than a person thinks. Even the oldest video games have choices. The original Super Mario Bros. makes player choose between the short term goal of surviving each level and the long term goal of saving the princess. Missile Commands makes players choose which cities to defend. Players can focus all their defense on one city, or they can choose to split their defense power on all cities. Good games have choices, but the better games have moral choices. Players would play Missile Command differently if the game told players one city was a penal colony, the second city was a rehab for those addicted to drugs and alcohol, and the third city was a shelter for abused and neglected women and children. Video games have utilized this moral decision making for its benefits. In Bioshock, every level has a “little sister,” a girl with special powers. The player can choose, to rescue the little sister, freeing her from her powers and the plagues that come with them, or the player can harvest the little sister, killing her. While freeing the little sister is the right thing to do, the right choice doesn’t come without temptation. Players who harvest little girls get a lot of special power, while those who rescue little sisters only get a little power. The game separates the adjectives “moral” and “beneficial” in its game choices. Many of the best video games do so.

The Fable Trilogy

The Fable trilogy harnesses moral choices the best for a video game. When Peter Molyneux set out to make a video game, he concentrated on making his video game have moral choices. In the first Fable game, players made moral choices through their quests. For example, helping raiders attack a caravan would be an evil choice, but defending the caravan from raiders would be a good choice. The choice didn’t matter in terms of game play, for either way, the game rewarded the player the same way. On the positive side, players could make moral choices without the game swaying their decision on mere game play. On the negative side, by not giving a game play lean towards the evil side, players had no temptation to go to the evil, unless they wanted to be evil for the sake of being evil. Fable II fixed that problem, or so they game thought. Fable II provided plenty of temptation by giving advantages for going to the evil side, such as more money or more experience points, for example. Fable II forces the player to truly consider moral choices. The player must realize that sometimes being the good guy does not get a person ahead in life. While Fable II made the moral choices closer to the heart, the game still missed it by a bit. While watching test audiences, the game creators realized that some gamers would choose the evil choice merely because it gave a game play advantage. When the sequel came around, the creators set out to fix it once more, and their idea was genius. In Fable III, players play as a member of the royal family seeking to become king. Instead of merely measuring actions by good and evil, the game also measured acts as “popular” and “unpopular.” Good acts could be both popular and unpopular, and evil acts could be both popular and popular. In this way, both good and evil acts had separate yet equal advantages in disadvantages. By the end of this game, the game leaves the player asking if they truly did the right thing, despite the how popular their character was in the Fable world.

Conclusion

Indeed, video games are becoming part of the culture around world. Since video games are a part of culture, they penetrate the lives of all people as individuals. Because of video games, people can live out different lives in worlds foreign to them. With video games impacting the people in the world so strongly, Christians need to analyze video games and synthesize a doctrine theology about them. Christians shouldn’t condemn or criticize video games, for when they do, they cannot see the good in video games. Christians should blindly consume video games, for when they do, they will be caught off guard by temptation and sin. Christians shouldn’t attempt to create Christian video games, for when they do, they create bad video games and bad theology alongside it. Instead of creating video games, Christians should create a theology about the video games. When a Christian plays a video game, the Christian should first think about what messages the game conveys to the player. Then, the Christian needs to ask himself if those messages agree with the Bible. If they do, the player should use the game to engage discussion with both the unsaved and the saved, for both evangelism and discipleship reasons. If the games does not agree with the Bible, the player should figure out what the Bible says is the right thing to do in that situation. Either way, the Christian should try to live out a Christian life in the game that they play. If the game does not provide any chance to live out that Christian life with good Christian morals, then maybe the Christian should avoid playing that game. Sex, violence, addiction and escapism do not make a video game bad. What makes a video game bad is a game that forces a player to sin. What makes a video good is a good story is the narrative, and the choices that come within the narrative.

February holiday reflection

I was going through some of my early notes on Facebok, and it helped me realize two things. First, it made me realize how much I use to like blogging reflections, where I can just talk about what's on my mind. In the past years, due more homework and more friends than high school, I haven't been able to blog as much I can. This past summer I set up a vlog, or video log, to try to achieve the same reflective process without the time-consuming writing. But it seems like the medium doesn't matter. Either way, both take time, and I've had problems to find the time. So now that I have found a little time, let's talk. The second realization I came to while reading my old Facebook notes was what month we're in: February. A few of my earliest notes were about Valentine's Day and dating. Ok, I know this is a big "duh" but Valentine's Day happens every February. Thus, February becomes a hard month for me because it seems that no matter what my relationship status has been in the 6 months before, I always end up single by that day. So a month that has a holiday that glorifies couples is hard on the single man. I praise God that quizzing in during February because quizzing takes mind off of the holiday less and put it on quizzing more. But still, February is always the hardest month, and leads to a lot of reflection on the subject of relationships. So between reading my old blog, and thinking about how I feel now, there's a lot on my mind.

When I last time had a serious sit-down reflection time, I only had two ex-girlfriends, one from a 1-month relationship and another from a 10-day relationship. As weird as this sounds, that was when things were simple (and I use this term loosely). Why do I say things were "simple" back then? Because from that point on, things got complicated quickly. After my second ex-girlfriend dumped me, I then went a couple dates with another girl, but we stopped things before we got into a relationship, realizing both of us were still attached to our ex-es. Shortly after, my second ex-girlfriend and I tried to get back together, only to fail trying to pick things back up from where we left off, leading to us ending it permenantly (she would find a new boyfriend in a week). After that, I found myself taking interesting and flirting with two non-Christian girls over the summer, with both of them overlapping for a short time. With each one we tried to work things out, and I even went on a date with one of them, but when summer ended, so did any relationships with them (more about that later). Because four times with 4 girls (including the 2nd ex trying to get us back together) turned out a disaster, it gave me bitterness in my heart for women. All hope seemed lost until I started talking to a facebook friend I hadn't talked to in a while. We started talking more often, starting texting, and she really helped get rid of those bitter feelings about girls. We hit it off, and soon after the fall semester, we started dating. This 3rd girlfriend would last longer the second one, but not as long as the first. I considered the relationship ended when the year ended because that was the last time we really saw and talked to each other. It dragged out another 2-3 months, with me trying to win her back and her pushing away. It wasn't until late February or early March that everything ended. She said the break-up was "kinda mutual" but I feel like she wanted to dump me, but didn't have the guts to do it, so she pushed me away until I forced to do it myself, possibly so she could pose as the victim who was dumped. But that's not the issue. The issue is that 2-3 months in limbo with a "complicated relationship" (whatever that means, facebook) ended up giving me more bitterness towards women, added to 2 other ex-girlfriends and 3 girls who were something between "friend" and "possible girlfriend" (maybe that's what facebook means with "complicated relationship"). This scarred me enough to not have any interest in women at all for a couple months (aesexual, not homosexual). And then in August, something happened to me that has not happened since April 2006: I was rejected when I asked a girl out. And relationship-wise, I feel like innocence is lost, in terms of optomistic hope.

Why do I mention this to you? Why go through a somewhat embarrassing history of the relationships I've been through? Because all the questions that go through my mind have been caused by these past relationship. The first question is more an attack on Calvinism, or pre-destination in general. If you Calvinists, or anyone who believes in predestination say God has planned everything in our life, and if you believe every good thing is from God, and that God does not create evil, then has God planned, designed and predestined me to be in failed relationships? Does God predestine breakups? Does God want me to go out with girls, well-knowing it won't last and will end in a painful breakup? See, I can't say that because I don't believe it. Partially because I believe a girl and I have chosen each other when we date, but more because I believe God cannot be the cause of any evil, which includes the depression that comes with the break-ups. But I also believe that God can, and does, take an evil, and make good come out of it. God does not want me to be in failed relationships, but when he allows me to do so, he has made sure I've learned a lesson to prevent further hurt in the future. Let me tell you.

The first lesson is that the faith is not worth giving up for girls. This will give me time to explain the sumer of the non-Christian girls. After a disaster of my second girlfriend (who was Christian) dumping me, a failed attempt to start a relationship with a Christians girl, and then my second girlfriend trying to restart our relationship, only to leave again, not only made me upset about girls, but upset about Christian girls. To me, it seemed these Christian girls were not acting Christian in the areas of flirting, dating and breakups. And it got me wondering, "Why is it a big deal to make sure I'm dating another believer if she's just going to act like a non-believer? Might as well date a non-believer. At least I can say she doesn't know better." Another lure was the fact that these non-Christian girls liked things that most typical Christian girls don't like (not saying they are sinful activities; just something not sinful that it seems like Christian girls aren't interested in). The one girl liked football. The other girl liked video games. It's hard enough find a girl who likes football or video games; it's even harder finding a CHRISTIAN girl who likes video games or football. The fact that they had something in common with me that was hard to find among the Christians is what enticed me. I knew what the Bible said about uneven yoking, but I went hoping that I would convert them to Christians through dating them, also known as evangedating. But by being a witness, I got two different reactions. The one girl was indifferent. When I told her about my faith, she said she had no experience with the church or the faith, but she said, and I quote, "I'll try for you." That quote is what stuck with me, resonated with me, and led me to ending things. If she attempted to be a Christian, it was for the wrong reason - me. Her faith would never be genuine. I ended things, and prayed a true Christian would truly win her over to the faith. The second girl was much different. She wasn't just non-Christian, she was an atheist. She didn't believe in God. So it started out with (and these are all paraphrases of long conversations) "well, you can have your beliefs, and I have mine", which went to midway"you can be religious in work and at church, but not when you're around me" which went to "it's either God or me". Praise be to God this is when he smacked me across the head by pointing out that obvious warning sign. We ended it. Through both reactions, I learned that summer that my faith could not be separated from my dating. In the long run, dating a non-Christian will never work out; it would cause conflict later on. Also, being a man whose head is always in the Bible, I realized how much I missed being able to have conservations about the Bible, theology and doctrine. I could never have that with a non-Christian. Besides, in the future, it would cause raised eyebrows by future employers and church pastors/elders, and could hurt finding a job or a ministry if they know I am married to a non-Christian.

Side note on that. When I look back on my "dating history" I am reluctant to show the embarrassing failed relationships. I do wonder how they make me look. It's not out of a selfish concern over my self-image; it's a concern over my witness of Christ. As a Christian, Jesus calls be to bear His image. When people see me, they should see Jesus. Do I represent Jesus well 3 ex-girlfriends and 3 complicated relationships, with the longest serious relationship lasting no more than a month? The time factor makes it worse. If someone were to know that I had 2 ex-girlfriends and 3 complicated relationships within 14 months, what does that make me look like? Does it make me look like I'm girl crazy? Does it make me look like a pimp or man-whore? With my closest friends I have explained what happened so this image doesn't come across because it's simply not true. Before graduating high school, I only had one girlfriend. In between the serious girlfriends, at least a year has gone by (that pattern is still continuing - 14 months since my last girlfriend). Why so much time? I don't easily get over girls, it takes me a while, because I care about them as people. I feel like I might possibly making the mistakes most people make whne they start dating in high school. Because I really didn't date in high school, I might be making those critical mistakes in college. But that's another point; let's keep going in order.

The second lesson is that the ministry is not worth giving up. This one was learned with my second girlfriend. She told me about her dreams of living in New York City, with her two children and her 2 dogs, as a veterinary assistant. But I know from previous experiences (which was verified to me during missions week this year), that I am to stay put in Pennsylvania, and not go any further out of state than Ohio. This was an obvious conflict that I knew about, even before we officially started dating. But silly me was so enraptured by the thought of finally having a girlfriend after so long, my hopes were similar to that of the non-Christian girls I liked: over time I hoped I could convince them to leave their plans for me. Looking back, I know the thought was stupid, but my dreams were too loud to listen. Even when things didn't work out the first time around, when I had a glimmer that she was coming back, I ignored the different future plans factor and went back to her. It's not until the following fall I learned that this lesson. That's why I was so sure girlfriend number 3 was the one- our futures didn't collide, but meshed well. And today I can tell you that I have learned that lesson. During the Israel trip I took an interest in a fellow student who was also part of the trip. She studied abroad the fall semester and when she was back in the spring, I was glad to see her. But talking to her, I learned God has given her a heart to serve in Europe. Far be it to me to steal her away from her calling, nor should I rebuke my calling for her. God has wonderfully equipped us and specially called us all for His workmanship in the world, which we will be rewarded for in heaven. Why give it up for marriage, which is temporary? Why give it up for one spouse, while with another spouse, we could have both?

The third lesson I've learned is to learn from my mistakes. As I have already pointed out, mistakes include attempting to date girls with different faiths and different ministries and different future plans. But I've also learned more than that. I'm a guy who needs closure. When a girl breaks up with me, I need to know why. What did I do wrong? Is there anything I could do better? The first girlfriend ended it because while I listened well, I didn't talk enough, and thus it seemed like I was uninterested in her and her life. The second girlfriend told me that while we talked enough about her, she really didn't hear about me a lot. She even said, "You sound like an interesting person, but you never took the initiative to tell me about yourself." The third girlfriend told me that I wasn't social enough for her, especially around her friends. Not keep these all in mind. Did ex-gf no. 2 complain that I was too quiet and didn't talk to her enough or I didn't seem interested in her? No because she could not. I made sure I keep the conservation going, especially asking how her life was going. Did ex-gf no. 3 complain that I was too quiet around her, that I didn't seem interested in her, nor did I not talk about myself? No, no, and no. I made sure that I kept the conservation alive, balanced between talking about herself and myself. See I have learned from my mistakes. I sometimes imagine that one day my first and second ex-girlfriend meet, and somewhat realize the common connector is that they dated. As they talk about their experiences, the first ex-gf says, "yeah, but i broke it off because he never talked enough, and I didn't know if he was really concerned about me" and the second ex-gf replies, "what are you talking about? He was always talkative, especially about me." The 1st ex-gf, instead of waiting for me to change, decided to give up instead, and missed out on a possible improved relationship. Now ex-gf 2 and ex-gf 3 meet. Once again, they talk and find out they both dated me, and start talking about that. All of a sudden, ex-gf 2 says, "yeah, but I broke it off because he never talked about himself enough" to which no. 3 replies, "What are you talking about? Graham was talked about himself, just as much as me. Our conversation was a healthy balance between the two." Ex-gf no.2 missed out on an improved relationship because moving on was better than waiting. And now if I ever find another girlfriend, if my 3rd ex-gf were to dare complain that I wasn't social around her friends, the new girlfriend would reply, "What are you talking about? He's good friends with my friends, too." I even told my 3rd ex-gf that, but she was done waiting, and just moved on. And it hurt when I found out she didn't want to wait. It's like I said above, since I didn't date during high school, I'm still working out the "bugs" that someone usually has when he starts dating. I'm learning lessons, I'm learning what works and what doesn't, and I'm waiting for the woman who will accept that.

Yet while I have learned those 3 helpful lessons, still more questions pop into my head. While I'm learning what works and what doesn't, I'm still clueless. I'm still asking myself, "What worked? What didn't? What needs to change? What should stay the same?" The worse part is that it seems like the in the case of either/or, neither works. Neither the girl I know well nor the girl I hardly know works. Neither the girl with many similarities nor the girl with few similarities work. Neither the girl with many friends nor the girl with few friends work. Neither the girl with many common friends as I nor the girl who doesn't know any of my friends work. Neither the desperate-for-a boyfriend nor the happy-single work. Neither the popular, nor the artistic, nor the intellectual, nor the preppy, nor the skater, nor the spiritual, nor the girly, nor the tomboy, no the sportsy, nor the musical, nor the dramatic, nor any girl from any clique works. I'm almost at the point where I might just try to talk a girl into working into building a relationship from nothing but the basis of that we're both Christian. But on the other side of that, I sometimes wonder if relationships, both serious and complicated, failed because of stumbling on one point; they were unwilling to accept me for who I was on one point. Do I change that? If I do, I might cease to be me, and thus become uncomfortable with myself. If I don't, I have to better accept when I lose a girl. I do have a list of 8 things that I look for in a girl. That alone leads to questions: Are these in stone or flexible? Do I need all reached, or will half reached or a quarter reached be good enough? This all seems self-centered, which leads me to a second question...

What do I have that I can offer girls? This might seem like a simple question, but it's harder than you think. I struggled with this every Valentine's Day, like I did in my last Valentine's Day blog. Sure I can say, "I'm a good Christian" but there's tons of guys who are. What do I have? I'm not athletic nor artistic. I don't have good looks or a fit body. I'm barely paying through college, so I don't have money, in the present and near future. I got nothing that attracts girls. In fact, sometimes I feel like I have more detering factors that I do helping factors. For the most part, I am introverted, while most girls are extraverted. I like keeping to myself, while most girls like being social. Girls want someone who is social with them, not keeps to himself. Girls like costly gifts, I can barely afford to pay bills, nor spend money on myself. Girls like strong men who can save them and I am weak and have problems with practical issues. Girls are emotional, and I'm more intellectual. Girls like things like proms, formals, and banquets, and I feel uncomfortable at those events. After thinking about these, I feel like I got notihng. Don't get me wrong, I like who I am because I recognize this who God made me to be. That's not the issue. The issue is if the girl likes me for how God has made me.

I also can't help but ask if the failed relationships is a sign that God wants me to be single, and by attempting to date, I am holding a high hand against him and sinning against His Will for my life. Once against, I know that sounds like a little but of Calvinistic predestination, but it might have some truth. I cannot go fully on free will on this issue. For example, let's say by my free will I choose that I want to get married and have a family. What if no one wants to marry me? Then my free will is being violated. My choice to be married is denied, and it is out of my control. But I know God is control. So can he plan for me to be married, which sounds a little more like Calvinism. Either way, we need to recognize that God has commands for everyone of every relationship status, whether single, dating, engaged, marrried, divorced or widowed. I can spout of Bible passages. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells us it is better to be single than to be married. In Luke 20, Jesus says that in the new heaven and new heart, there is no marriage. In Matthew 19:11-12, it even sounds like God has predestined some to be single. Those verses all seem to be supporting singlehood over marriage. But there is still some "on the other hand..." Maybe Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, while favoring singlehood, is trying to get across the message, "whatever your relationship status is, use it for the glory of God." And if you look closely at the Matthew 19:11-12 passage, it uses the term "eunuch" as in "God has made some eunuchs" If that is true, then if God has predestined people to be single, it sounds like those predestined single people have no sex drive at all. There is not attraction to the opposite sex at all. Where am I in that mix? While sometimes annoyed at women enough that I want to be single, my heart sometimes still longs for a girlfriend and hopefully one day a wife. But as I have been reminded this week, sex itself is not evil, but it can lead to evil things. Maybe I'm suppose to be resist any attraction to the opposite sex and focus on being single to increase the ministry. But the same time, more doors might be opened to me for ministry as a married because most churches seek couples to lead ministry, for that balance of male and female. Maybe I was suppose to be only dating girls for a time, so they can be edified somehow through our short term lesson and move on to bigger things and to a good husband.

It sometimes seems that way, no lie. Fact: starting with my first girlfriend, all my ex-girfriends, those 3 girls I was in complicated relationships with and even the girl I asked out last summer all have boyfriends. As a matter of fact, the first complicated relationship is actually married. But yeah, my first girlfriend is moving in with her on-and-off boyfriend of 1-2 years (please pray for her, as she is spiritually wayward). My 2nd girlfriend has been dating the guy she started dating a week after ending it the second time with me for 2 years in April. My 3rd ex-girlfriend has been dating the guy she started dating a month or two after we were done for 11 months. They'll probably get married once he's out of the military. Both the non-Christian girls have boyfriends, too, both over half a year. I can't help but feel like Good Luck Chuck. For those of you unfamiliar with the plot line for the movie Good Luck Chuck, every time Chuck sleeps with a woman, she finds her true love with another guy. Ok, not a perverted, but it seems like all my ex-es find true love after going through me (I should almost make this a service). Maybe it just helps them realize they're not as desperate as they thought they were, maybe it helps them realize more what they want or don't want in a boyfriend and find it in the next guy. Whatever the cause, it seems like my ex-es do better than I do. And another thing, they seem to rebound faster than I do. I takes me a year to fully get over it and be brave enough to take an interest in another girl. The girls seem to find a new guy in less than a month, a matter of weeks. I take so long because my past relationships meant something to me. Did our relationship ever mean anything to her?

But the biggest question that I have to ask myself is "why is this an issue?" If you remember from my blog my freshman year, I said that I was finally satisified being single when I had friends, especially ones who were also satisfied being single too. I can't help but think that my insecurity in relationships comes from the insecurities living here at my dorm. This is probably the first semester, and maybe even the first year (this semester and last semester) that I did not want to be in my dorm or on campus. It's tough for me living in my quad. In one dorm I got a legalistic pastoral student who puts down anyone who doesn't share his exact beliefs, including his own roomate. In the other dorm, I got a guy who always thinks my music is too loud, especially on Guitar Hero, when I play it nowhere as near as loud as I do at home. In my whole section altogether, it seems like they spend hours playing Super Smash Brothers Brawl in a loud, obnoxious fashion. I know this might sound selfish, but it makes it so hard to do homework or sleep. Plus, playing the Wii is a huge stress reliver for me. But it seems whenever I might have the small chance to play Wii, they always are playing their 50th round of Brawl. I also got a section who likes open dorms to allow girls to come in. My dorm and my quad is my "manctuary," where I can get away from girls and couples. I feel like my "mantuary" is breeched and defiled when they enter. Every time I feel like I have leave my safe haven. Even my own roommate sometimes gets on my nerves. From his anger issues to crazy ideas, I have found myself frustrated with him. I've been spending more times at Lou's place. It's gotten so bad that I actually enjoyed being home winter break. Not the fact that I was at home, but rather I just wasn't in this quad for a month. I don't mean to point any fingers of blame at people, because I'm not. What I'm really doing is pointing the finger back to myself. Have I really become intolerant of people's views, feelings and actions that I can no longer live with them too long? I once heard that parallel living with someone during the college years was to prepare me for living with a spouse for the rest of my life. I seem to be failing. It's been 2 years and I'm having problems with my roommate, even to the point he keeps asking me if I want to "divorce" him. On one night when I was open to him, I had to ask him, "If it wasn't an issue of money, and if we had known each other sooner, would you have roomed with me all 4 years?" which led me to ask "Am I someone that another person can live with?" Sadly I am at the point where I have to answer "no." I easily get sick of being around too long. Combing intolerance of the guys I am with now, and the short term relationships, both serious and not, I was in, I have this utter fear that even if I get married, my wife will be demanding a divorce in a year or less because I have become unable to live with anymore. That is my fear.


See, the problem is I have is two contradicting fears: the fear of people and the fear of being alone. The fear of people is an intellectual fear - I'm always thinking that people are judging me, so I withdraw so they have nothing to judge. The fear of being alone is an emotional fear. My heart longs for emotional intimacy with someone of the opposite gender. The funny things is that the emotional fear is contradicted by the intellectual, but the intellectual fear is defended by the emotional. Intellectually, I realize I am happier by myself, and it is the emotional side that is just saying I hate being alone. But both my heart and my mind tell me to withdraw to avoid judgment. (But even more ironic my mind is starting to think by withdrawing I'm bringing that same judgment on myself.). This also isn't helping my dating life. Because of my fear of people and rejection, I withdraw and spend little time with people, and even less time with girls. If I don't even hang around girls, what's the odds of finding a girlfriend? Slim to none.


I think another contradiction is that while I want a girlfriend, I have a problem with women. Between my short relationships, show-off couples, and dimishing female friendships, I really don't like girls anymore. Now let's make sure you understand what I am saying. I am aesexual, not homosexual. When I say I don't like girls anymore, that doesn't mean I like boys instead. I do not like either, hence aesexual, meaning "without sexual desire". It is funny, though. Twice in my life I was accused of being gay. The first time was in middle school and the underclassmen years of high school. Because I spent more time with girls than boys, and that I was never flirty around the girls, but just their friends, and girls in 6th-10th grade spend a lot of time talking about boys, others assumed that I hung around them because I was gay and liked talking about boys, too. On the contrary, I was very interested in girls, had many crushes, and would talk to these female friends about these girls just as much as I listened to them talk about boys. The second time was my freshman and sophomore year of college. When some saw that I hung around guys all the time, spent little to no time with women, and when I was around girls, I wasn't openly flirting with them, they concluded I must be gay. This is a horrible assessment because I had two girlfriends during those years. What I find wrong with both of them is the expectation that if a man is talking to a woman, he must be fliriting with her, for there is no other reason to for a guy to talk to the opposite gender. Can't a boy and a girl merely be friends? Apparently not. That brings up another issue why I'm not too fond of women right now. It seems like that every time a female friend of mine gets a boyfriend, she stops talking me to and cuts off any friendship. It has led me to conclude either she is flirting with me when single and I am too stupid to recognize it, or that when these girls starting dating a guy, their boyfriend expects them to cut off all relationships with any guy who is not related to her. I don't know the cause, but I do know the effects. As my female friends find boyfriends, they dwindle down. So not only do I not have a girlfriend, I don't any friends who are female. Without any kind of connection like that, I am doomed to remain single. Excuse me for going on a tangent with that, back on subject. Like I said way above, when the Christian girls would act like non-Christian girls pre-dating, dating and post-dating, I became upset with them. When girls around campus are openly flaunting their relationships, I get angry at that girl (funny thing is I never get angry at the guy. I see him more as a victim of her.). Whenever a female does talk to me about her relationship issues, I automatically side with the guy, no matter how little I know him. I even sometimes slip with my tongue and call a woman a "ho" instead (never to their face or in public, but when referring to them privately around guys). How can I want to date when I get upset with woman? Because there is a very small glimmer of hope in my heart, that one day I will stop meeting "hos" and meet a woman. Yet don't get me wrong, my frustration with women is a mere relationship thing. I reject any of these views for women in the church, in the ministry, in the classroom and in the workplace. I treat them with respect and honor and with equality.


But still sadly I've become cold to relationships. I take bets on how long a relationship will last. I don't know what to say to people about relationships. When my sister announced to my family when her last relationship ended, I said, "Lasted longer than I thought." When two of my friends got engaged, the best that came out of my mouth "Ok." OK?? At least I didnt do what was on my mind: say to the bride-to-be, "Congratulations!" the said to the groom-to-be, "Terribly sorry." To me I see guy with a girl and think, "Game over." Back in high school I was jealous of guys who had girlfriends. Now I find myself feeling betrayed by them. I feel like they betrayed mankind (as in guys, not humankind) for a girl. I think it goes back to see the guy as the vicitm of the girl. There's this one girl is half my classes I can't stand. She is freshman girl ENGAGED to a freshman guy. She is the worst of the show-off couples And for some reason she has to tell everyone in every class how the process is going. Hello?! Not eveyone cares. Personally, I don't give a crap. I'm pretty sure that someone else who has relative dying is more important than finding your perfect wedding cake. The worst part concerns my third ex-girlfriend. Her boyfriend is in the military. I wanted her back so bad that at sometimes I had the uriah and bathsheba idea in the back of my head. I wanted to call the military and tell them to station her boyfriend in the front line at the worse places in Falleujah. It's when you hit the bottom that you finally realize how bad you are. That wouldn't make her come back, and even if it did, I would have gotten her in the wrong way, just like I did the first time. To hate couples is wrong. It would be better to tunnel vision and not see them instead of wanting the worse to happen them.

See, I told you I haved a lot on my mind. So where does this leave me? Good question. When seeking advice about it, I get the answer "Pray about it." This answer has Biblical principles, but it also seems like the automatic, generic Christian response. I can say "Pray about it" for jobs, ministries, girlfriends, best friends and other troubles. What specific advice is for this specific trouble? At least they could be a little more specific than "pray for God's will" or "Pray for a girlfriend." And that answer doesn't help either when I feel guilty for praying for what I think is a selfish reason, when there are people in the world without food, water or homes. What more can someone give me? Something that did help was a book I borrowed from a friend. It is Sex God by Rob Bell. Don't get confused by the title; the book and chapter title is just to get your attention. Only a third of the book is really about sex. Another third is about our gender in relation to God and the other third about male-female relations in general. In the book, Rob Bell looks at those Matthew 19, Luke 20 and 1 Corinthians 7 passages about singleness and compares them to passages about marriage and married couples. Rob Bell makes many statements, but three consecutives statements about my singlehood stuck out to me. First, I am not missing out. Second, God is not holding me back. Third, God has something better planned. Those "pro-single" verses (I use that term loosely) make marriage kind of belittles marriage (I also use that term loosely so it doesn't sound like I'm giving thumbs up for sexual promiscuity. I'm not). Thus, I can't be missing out on something in marriage. Therefore, no one, including myself, should look down on my because I am single. I am nothing less, with or without a girlfriend. God is not using my single status as a curse. There is no curse in being single. In fact, Paul says the being single is easier than marriage (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). So God is not to be blamed for being single. Paul also mentions that those who are single can use the benefit of being single to glorify God by being more flexible for God's plans in the ministry. I can see truth in that already. Remember what I said all the way up top? What did I say made Valentine's Day easier for me? I was quizzing. Everyone who knows me how much my heart is in quizzing. I know that sometimes quizzers who have boyfriends/girlfriends the same time they have quizzing come upon a dillema. They have to find a way to please the boyfriend/girlfriend and meet the quizzing standards. Their interets are divided (another 1 Corinthians 7 quote, lol). I had no such problem, and I put my focus into quizzing for the Lord. And with all my faith in the Lord, I believe it will be true for the rest of my life. If I remained unmarried and single for the rest of my life, God will take the time, money and love I would put forward to a wife and children and put to good use, maybe with quizzers, students or someone I'm mentoring, or even a church or ministry as a whole. Intellectually, in my mind, I know it's true. It's a head truth. Now it's a matter of making it a heart truth: a truth that is emotionally true in my heart. I was struggle with that. Sometimes when I see couples, or even just starting thinking about how single I am, I have to close my eyes, plug my ears, and repeat those 3 statments over and over again. The problem is never that I'm thinking too much, but that I'm not thinking about the right things. I take my thoughts off of God and put it on being single. This is when my walls are down, and Satan tempts me to leave the Lord and the ministry for girls. But I've learned my lesson, that neither God nor the ministry is worth giving up for a girl. So I have to patiently wait for a woman where I am not put in a place to decide either God or girl. Because every time God will win, and the girl will lose. Sometimes I feel like crying out to Jesus what Peter once said to Jesus (in a totally diferent context), "I have left everything to follow You!" and Jesus replies somewhat the same as he did to Peter, "You left that relationship for the kingdom of God" Sounds like a fair trade off to me.

Thank you for putting up with me in so many ways. And if you don't like what I have to say, I'm going to make the same defense my roomates says: "Don't pay any attention to anything I say after 1 in the morning" :-P