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.

Love and confusion

My most recent book purchase was "Loves Me, Loves Me Not: The Ethics of Unrequited Love" by Laura Smit; I was interested because I'm personally quite acquainted with that extremely painful subject -- mostly on the receiving end. And as I read, I was reminded of some of the horrendous mistakes, not just in commission but in attitude, that I've made over the years in trying (and generally failing) to date.

I haven't read through the entire book, but one thing I see missing: Hope.

As virtually everyone knows, dating is difficult at any age; nearly 30 years ago the then-girlfriend of a fraternity brother nailed it when she called it "depressing." It's not clear to me so far who Smit's target audience is or what she wants it to learn; I hear from her, "When in doubt, don't." That may be fine for persons from their teenage years up to their 30s.

Of course, I'm nearly 50, would like to be married and have peers, including my younger brother, who are grandparents. And part of me today really does feel immature because I don't have the responsibility of a spouse and children, and it's really tough to come to and leave church alone.

But here's the issue: We men are supposed to be the pursuers, the initiators, the leaders; paradoxically, often we don't have much of a clue when a woman is interested or simply naturally kind. And I think that leads to the misunderstandings that often happen when folks get their wires crossed. Such a situation was the catalyst for my leaving my last church (although God was clearly calling me out), and with my last major heartbreak nearly three years ago I was depressed for nearly three weeks!

Going further, I've recently been reminded of God's great love for His children and how we nonetheless often ignore him (and I confess that I'm guilty of such). During that time of admitted self-pity three years ago I got a message from Him, "Now you know how I feel." And the Scripture reminds us that we didn't choose Him; rather, He pursued us. (Indeed, from the time I first heard the Gospel to when I actually received Christ was about eight years.) Now, I realize that the comparison cannot be taken too far because He's divine and we're not; still, we're not supposed to sit on our butts and wait for "her" to show up.

And therein lies the confusion over Smit's thesis. I understand and accept that she has committed herself to singleness. However, building a relationship requires risk; while I think realism is necessary, so is vulnerability. Besides, if your goal is simply "possessing" another person, which is less and less the case with me, you ought not to be in a relationship in the first place.

The 'teddy bear' gives up -- for now

Yesterday I made a decision. I'm suspending my six-year search for a spouse, at least for the time being.

This is not to say that I've given up on marriage, even at my advanced age (48 next week) because I still believe I have something to offer a woman. But I was reminded earlier this week why I don't see myself doing things in the normal way. So I won't be going on any Internet introduction sites or approaching a woman I'm attracted to but don't know.

What happened? Well, I took a Facebook quiz, "What do people think of you at first sight?" -- and came up with a shocking answer, "You are cute," complete with a photo of a kitten with its head cocked to the side, indicating vulnerability. That may not sound like much until you consider my relationship history.

Weeks after I entered the fifth grade in a Christian academy in suburban Pittsburgh, a first-grade girl, apparently starved for attention, became very attached to me and treated me like a teddy bear (and never having experienced that, I didn't know how to respond). And she was not the last one to do that -- over the years dozens of women, mostly younger, have similarly demonstrated that they felt extremely, extremely safe around me. Cheerleaders fawned over me as an eighth-grade basketball player; during my senior year as an otherwise unpopular member of the high school band I won a school instrumental award and the first people who gave me a standing O were younger majorettes; once while having dinner in Pitt's dining hall during my junior year a freshman woman I had not previously met invited herself to sit with me. I've got stories galore about those kind of experiences.

Yet all that attention has rarely translated into dates -- it's almost as though I'm not a normal guy supposed to be attracted to women. One other woman I met during my immediate post-college days in the mid-1980s who would sleep with someone else at the drop of a hat loved curling up with me but said that she would slap me if I "tried anything." Even to this day women I'm friendly with display some surprise when I ask them out -- even as an escort for just one evening.

So what do I plan to do? Well, nothing, and that's the point. I think there's a message in it for me -- that, even with my frustration, I'm still obligated to treat women as princesses. After all, they are created by God in his image and not my toys to be thrown away when I'm done with them. I could be actually ahead of the game when it comes to marriage, which does require warmth, tenderness and communication -- all of which I do well.

Kissing dating goodbye? Not so fast

I recently had reason to remember the controversial book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" by Joshua Harris, which I had received it as a gift a number of years ago. I was reminded why I had issues with it.

I think I understand what he was trying to say -- that people don't exist for our selfish purposes and we ought not to use them. But he wrote from the perspective of a very sheltered Christian upbringing with a strong family and church community that met his emotional needs, and thus the book doesn't speak to probably most Christian singles, which is to whom it was "sold."

Take me, for example. I'm a convert that didn't come from a Christian home and thus didn't have that kind of backup. My late father was an alcoholic and control freak who, in retrospect, never wanted me to leave home for reasons I won't get into here. I bring that up because I made a commitment to Christ due to the dysfunction in my family, specifically my mother's threat to leave him (and she would eventually make good on it).

However, I learned that people, especially men, who come from that kind of background are often shunted aside. In the fellowship I attended at a large secular university, the "strong" guys (most of whom came from Christian families) were chased by the girls and the weak guys were ignored. On top of that, I knew of at least six people who had attempted suicide (fortunately, none succeeded). Thus, Harris' "audience" has little connection in the real world -- it assumes a context that many of us cannot relate to.

A sequel, "Boy Meets Girl," that I paged through a number of years ago deepened my feelings of alienation. It focuses on a fantasy I had years ago -- asking the father of a "prospect" for the right to court his daughter. (I had that opportunity only once, and though he was OK with it she wasn't interested.) Besides, I've never met the fathers of the women I've dated; indeed, in only one case were any of them even living! And at my age, pushing 50, it's more likely that I will end up with someone who was "single again" and thus no longer under Dad's authority.

And then -- what about those occasions where people could use an escort? I never went to my high school prom and often had trouble getting dates for fraternity formals because in many cases the girls I asked often were so focused on "Will this result in marriage?" to a point that even if they had gone they wouldn't have enjoyed the evening. That's not fellowship.

Bottom line, most Christians, especially if they don't find someone before graduating college, do need to date, in large part because in the working world you don't have the time to "hang out." Not even a church, or even a singles ministry, offers that kind of bonding. Men especially need the opportunity to take women out so that they can learn to "take responsibility," and men learn to do things generally by actually doing them.

Since last year I've been privileged to develop a somewhat healthy relationship with a woman friend of nearly five years. I actually asked her on a date the second time I saw her but she resisted for a number of legitimate reasons; only a year-and-a-half ago did she finally say yes. It's worked out well; she has more responsibility than I at work and church, so when we go out together every few months I make it a point to take care of everything. Call it "dating" if you will, even though neither of us believes we'll be married -- at least to each other -- but it's mutually beneficial. And isn't that what Christian relationships should be about?