The Larger Story: Encouraging a man to commit

I think that all of us single men who have been desired by a woman at some point have faced the question: "Will he commit [to marriage]?" I understand that, completely.

So, for those of you single women who are involved or want to be, here's a little tip. Just follow the "Golden Rule" -- "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you."

In other words, if you want him to commit to you, you need to commit to him.

Now, that's a little more problematic than it sounds. It's more than simply cooking his favorite meals and accepting his friends, family and faults, though those certainly help. You see -- and this is especially the case for Christians -- a man needs to know that his woman is behind him.

So why do I say this? Well, the most important thing for a man is understanding his vision and finding his ultimate purpose on this earth, and a man who doesn't have one simply isn't worth a woman's time as it is -- and I'm not just talking about making a lot of money, either. So, frankly, she should ask him what that is and what steps he has taken toward it. If it seems plausible and reasonable, she can proceed.

Basically, it's what John Eldredge calls the Larger Story. All such relationships have to have an overall context or theme; when God calls a couple together it's always for a specific reason. Some are called to pastor churches; others to the mission field; others do music together. And that theme is what will keep the marriage together when things threaten to fall apart (as things eventually will).

But what if that "vision" doesn't square with your hopes and plans? Well, you have a choice to make -- either bend to that or leave the relationship. That may sound cruel, but it really is the best way because the man does have the responsibility of being the leader of the family.

I know that from painful experience. My last girlfriend, who occasionally complained about my unwillingness to "commit," nevertheless pretty much planned out our entire future together but without even once asking me where I felt God was leading -- and, in retrospect, it completely conflicted with her agenda. Most importantly, she expected me to attend her church, which God Himself told me from the outset not to do, giving me three specific confirmations in the process. Eventually, I had to leave when she refused to listen. (And she's probably still resentful toward me, even after over eight years -- proof that breaking it off was indeed the right thing.)

My late stepfather was a man who knew who he was, what he was about and where he was going (well, not so much the last because he retired just before he married my mother). That's the kind of man that every woman needs and every man needs to be, because a man who cannot commit to his Larger Story has no business committing to a woman.

Spiritual warfare

While talking with a couple who visited my church today -- they're both musicians I've worked with in the past -- we got to talking about the anti-Obama campaign waged right now across this country. She actually brought up something I had considered but not said publicly, and I think she's right.

This is not simply a political or ideological fight and, at bottom, not really about President Barack Obama. When you get right down to it, this is spiritual warfare due to a situation where people fear what they consider upcoming cataclysmic change that is completely out of their control because, basically, they have lost their trust in God. And when that happens, well ... people get irrational. When I see all these "tea parties" complaining about overreaching government, hear about Obama being denounced as a Communist or read about pastors praying for his death, I detect more than political posturing; I will even go out on a limb and say that this campaign is the work of the Enemy. If that sounds harsh or presumptuous, did you notice that they never give any alternatives to what they say is "bad government" or considered that the policies they actually subscribe to just didn't work? At this point they're just making accusations -- and keep in mind that the term "Satan" means "accuser."

I'm a student of the civil-rights movement, and similar phony charges were made against Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, much of the opposition to him was based on his use of the Federal government to overturn state and local laws that codified the racial discrimination he was trying to destroy. And in the same way, people became nutty, saying that he was making a mint through his civil-rights work, in league with Moscow or visiting white prostitutes, none of which were true, in order to de-legitimize him. (I wonder what Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck would say if they were on the air back then.)

And therein is the reason I believe this to be spiritual warfare: Before we can deal with sin it has to be exposed and recognized as such, and that's precisely what King did with his nonviolent demonstrations -- he correctly surmised that the racist power structure would act up and thus make a fool of itself. And since God is not the author of lies, hatred or conspiracy, only one other entity can come up with that.

In one section of the book Wild at Heart, John Eldredge mentions that his wife Stasi had been under spiritual oppression, specifically with daily dizzy spells. So, after a time of prayer, they commanded that oppressive spirit to leave her -- but it initially got worse before it finally did, permanently. Eldredge says that such a spirit will not usually leave willingly but, when discovered, put up a fight.

Of course you remember that Bill Clinton in the 1990s was accused of all kinds of things, to a point where there was a new "scandal" every few months. However, the machine that was making all those accusations was exposed right around the time of the impeachment -- it turned out that when Hillary made that complaint about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" she actually had the goods -- and the gossip stopped. Today Obama's enemies have no such cover; they just went right after him without pretense. And that to me is a sign that they're going down. Hard. And very soon, never to rise again.

And that is why, even though things may look crazy today, I'm actually rejoicing in seeing the LORD about to work; after this is over -- or even perhaps beforehand -- we may very well see a spiritual awakening in this country. The Sunday after last year's general election my senior pastor had all us African-Americans stand and the rest of the congregation lay hands on us, saying that "a spiritual stronghold has been broken."

You think for a second that the devil would take that lying down?

None of this is to say, of course, that Obama's actual policies are beyond scrutiny; I certainly don't agree with his stance on, say, legal abortion. And I will not say that the opposition to Obama is based primarily on his race, though it is a factor. But that's the point -- after the rancor ends we can certainly address those differences with clarity and honesty and not with this wild, mostly non-factual charges. I'm looking forward to that day.

Moving toward -- ?

In an early chapter of his book The Way of the Wild Heart, John Eldredge describes several ways that men react to their fathers. One sample, which closely correlates to mine, was the following: "An evil man. May God deliver me from his legacy."

At a 12-Step recovery meeting I attended earlier tonight, I realized something: I've spent much of the past four decades running from my father. (Never mind that he's been dead for over 15 years.)

In retrospect, that started early. He derided Martin Luther King Jr. because of his commitment to the Christian faith; I became not only a Christian myself but also an admirer of King and supporter of his attitude of nonviolence. He resented the white race; meanwhile, most of my friends are -- and almost all of my dating partners have been -- white. He wanted me to study engineering; when that didn't work out I turned to writing, which displeased him.

But even my conversion, nearly 30 years ago, and subsequent discipleship were driven in large part by not wanting to be like him. I received Christ as Savior and LORD the day after he informed my brother and me that my mother had threatened to leave -- and I knew why. Just over four years later, when she made good on that threat and I moved out with her, I went into counseling and entered 12-step recovery because of a specific situation that showed me that, even though I was a believer, I had not changed sufficiently to be able to live effectively on life's terms. (The Program, based on Alcoholics Anonymous, has actually helped me to be a better Christian.)

Basically, I understood how not to live. But -- what's the alternative?

I think that illustrates one of the problems with the way Christianity is "sold" in this country -- primarily as a way to avoid eternal punishment. While that is certainly a fringe benefit of "salvation," I'm no longer convinced that doing so represents God's intent. He created ancient Israel to separate a people for Himself to live by His law in order to glorify Himself and bless the rest of the world; He sent his Son Jesus for the same ultimate purpose. In other words, His intention was always positive.

That's the challenge that I -- and every serious Christian -- face. When Paul instructs believers to "crucify the flesh," he was referring to the process of suffocation that eventually brought death to a physical body. That said, the "flesh" has to be replaced with something else rather than just killed. Which is why spiritual discipline is so important.

I'm not sure what that means exactly in my present state. I know only that a "negative" view won't help me personally, let alone help to establish the Kingdom of God as far as I have influence. May I -- and we -- live more positively.

Tribute to a real man

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the passing of the Rev. Dr. James Kelly Jr. The name might mean little or nothing to you, but part of the reason I'm writing this is because of him.

In his not quite 79 years of life he was a pastor, civil rights advocate, counselor, college administrator and very much a stand-up guy with the number of degrees he earned approaching double figures, including two doctorates. He ended his active career in 1985 as the dean of the school of education at my college alma mater, the University of Pittsburgh; he was the first African-American to serve in that capacity.

One other thing -- just after that, he married my mother. And that relationship proved good for both of us in the long run.

For openers, after she retired in 1994, they traveled all over the world -- England, Ireland, Thailand, even Africa. During their married life he did all the cooking. He introduced her to his circle of friends, who represented many of the movers and shakers in Pittsburgh of all races, and did quite a bit of entertaining. He took care of her quite well, which was an issue after she left my father due to his alcoholism and abuse. He also readily welcomed my brother and me into the family; he referred to me as his "main man." I don't think he realized that I needed to hear that. Or maybe he did and I didn't realize it.

Yet, from what I could tell, he never took pride in his status; rather, he regularly used his authority to help others, occasionally waiving tuition for students who were having financial problems. I was one of those he helped, pulling strings to get me back in school after I flunked out in 1983. And believe me, I appreciated it -- by the time I finally graduated in 1997 I regularly made the Dean's List. Even though his own health was failing, he was determined to get to the arena to see me wear that cap and gown, and when we got back home that afternoon he had me put on one of his academic robes. (I think he was trying to drop some hints.)

However, it was only after reading John Eldredge's "The Way of the Wild Heart" did I understand his essence. The book refers to the numerous stages of a man's life -- "Beloved Son," "Cowboy/Ranger," "Warrior," "King" and "Sage," and Eldredge mentioned that he had met very, very few sages. I can tell you that "Doc" was one of those, according to the book, because he came across as a man who always knew who he was and what he was about and was willing to share that with others. Eldredge also said that the influence of a sage should increase in his final years; folks are still talking about my stepdad.

Of course we all miss him, and now that he's gone I am more than proud to represent part of his ongoing legacy. Several years ago Mom gave me his Pitt watch as a birthday present, knowing that I would appreciate it.

But the most precious piece of jewelry I own is the ring I wear on the fourth finger of my right hand; at his viewing the former dean of the university's evening school came to pay his respects (he had signed off on the papers allowing me back into school) and I shook his hand -- and then showed it to him. He responded, "None of the people I've helped out has ever left me down!" -- telling him that "Doc" had judged my character correctly. And that's why I appreciate him so much; he believed in me to an extent that he was willing to stake his position to see me go somewhere in life. I would hope that, were I in his shoes, I would do some of the same things.

Barack Obama -- truly 'Wild at Heart'?

Over the last couple of years I've become a fan of John Eldredge, author of the runaway best-seller "Wild at Heart," whose subject is Christian masculinity. Eldredge's primary premise is that men need to be "initiated" -- trained, tested and readied for battle -- in order to become real men. Having done so, the truly Godly man, in his view, takes the reins of power not primarily for his own benefit but for others'.

After rereading the sequel "The Way of the Wild Heart," and especially the chapter referring to the "King" -- that sequel actually discusses the numerous specific phases of a man's development -- I think I now have a better idea of how and why now-president-elect Barack Obama was able to win the 2008 election. It's not simply that he ran a near-flawless campaign or that he simply wasn't George W. Bush -- in comparing the two men, I notice very different life stories.

Obama, the namesake son of a Kenyan economist and whose mother was a free-spirited white woman, certainly had his challenges, but even with his globetrotting -- his mother eventually remarried and moved them to Indonesia -- I think he was forced to find a sense of his own identity (one of these days I'll read his books, then I'll know for sure). Of course, we all know he graduated from Columbia University and, later, Harvard Law School; but instead of going to a posh law firm he moved back to Chicago to become a community organizer, eventually also teaching Contitutional law at the University of Chicago before entering politics.

While in Chicago he began laying that foundation by cultivating allies, first in the city's South Side and including Marquette Park, the scene of race riots 30 years ago (which I found impressive). All the while, by many accounts, in every instance he took the the time to listen to people, even those he didn't agree with. I see a maturity and security in that approach simply because life is that way, and he built that career while avoiding much of the notoriously seamier side of Chicago politics. That maturity connected with much of the public, which was convinced that he "has what it takes" to run a country -- and that cool will serve him well next month when he's inaugurated. I also see his foreign policy as progressive and even-handed, eventually regaining the trust of allies on virtually every continent. In short, with apologies to the campaign of John McCain, he is ready to lead.

On the other hand, when I consider George W. Bush, the current president, I see just the opposite -- an "unitiated" man who became president to try to prove himself as a man but eventually failed. And in fact, he's been pretty much a failure at whatever he's done -- a mediocre record at Phillips Academy, Yale University and Harvard Business School; part-owner of the Texas Rangers; governor of Texas (which has little real responsibility or power). Today we know that his priority No. 1 was to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in part because of a failed assassination attempt on his father when he was president, in my book an abuse of his office, and we are now witnessing the fruit of that flawed decision.

His advisers, furthermore, were little more than "yes-men" who uncritically subscribed to their common right-wing ideology and refused to consider other ideas. Eventually he was done in by his botched response to Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the Gulf of Mexico region, specifically New Orleans. All in all, Bush wanted the power and perks of the office but wasn't fit to take on the responsibility that came with it -- and, in the process, he has taken down the Republican Party and the conservative apparatus that runs it, not to mention besmirched the name of Christ (because he identifies himself as an evangelical Christian).

None of this, of course, is to say that Eldredge endorsed Obama -- I'm certainly not aware of Eldredge's political leanings or even whom he voted for (if he even voted at all). But I do see Obama as having gone through the necessary process of growth, which means admitting mistakes and correcting course when needed, that Eldredge has spelled out. I can't say the same for Bush, who seems to have everything handed to him and, at least during the first six years of his presidency, refused to admit he made errors.

In short, it could be that Barack Obama is truly "wild at heart."