Rejecting the "Hot Babe" Deception - Part 1 (Concluding the "Hot Babe" Series)

In the prior three posts[1] in the "Hot Babe" series, I have discussed the viewpoints and arguments of certain authors supporting, at least in general, the idea that Eve, and subsequently the female gender, are beautiful by design, and that male sexual attraction to that design is also God designed, blessed, and even mandated. Since those authors rarely, if ever, relied on scripture to back up their claims, I presented some logical counter arguments to their conclusions. But that doesn't mean that scripture has nothing to say about beauty and attraction. In the final two posts, I will give a comprehensive review of the related scriptures and propose a counter conclusion based on that review: namely that God takes a very dim view of our inclination to look at and judge people based on their outward appearance, at least in all but one specific context.

Before I go further, there is an important distinction that needs to be made. Some of the claims of the authors cited in prior posts are demonstrably correct and fairly undisputed. Men are visual, and visually, the female form pleases us. We certainly are attracted to women because of how they look. I do not deny these realities and to the extent that they are governed by hormones and brain function they seem to me to be clearly natural. But the question we need to ask ourselves is: "is all that is natural, godly?" More to the point, which "nature" is being expressed when we act on these urges and instincts: our fleshly nature or our spirit led nature. In Romans 7 and 8[2] Paul describes for us a struggle that goes on in each and every person between the competing forces of our flesh and our spirit. In a fallen world, even when we are dealing with our "design", we must ask ourselves if the current manifestation of that design is what God intended, or if, conversely, our common enemy has corrupted our interpretation and application of God's good design. It is in that spirit, and with those questions at the forefront, that I will proceed to determine what God intended in our design and where we may be deceived.

Another distinction needs to be made before proceeding and that is the difference between biblical history and biblical teaching. Although biblical history is often instructive, it is primarily so because it illustrates man in the flesh acting ungodly. Biblical teaching via the Old Testament Proverbs, Psalms, prophets, and poetic books, and the New Testament, instruct us directly regarding what God expects us to do and not to do. Nowhere is this distinction more obvious than in the bible's treatment of physical attraction.

One more note lest the reader misunderstand the kind of beauty and attraction I am talking about. The authors cited before make it clear, especially when discussing Eve and the place that physical attractiveness, and the attraction to it, hold in relationship building, that the discussion at its core is sexual. Nobody pretends that men are attracted to women's looks in the same way they appreciate the beauty of a bounding deer or a perfectly thrown curve ball. It is crucial that the reader understand that all of this talk about beauty has a sexual basis, and that when we talk about a woman being attractive or beautiful what is actually meant is that she is sexy; that she triggers in a man a sexual response even if it doesn't reach the threshold of physical arousal. (The same, of course, can be said of sexual attraction regardless of the genders of both the attractor and the attractee.)

Having said all that, let us look into God's Word.

The historical account in the bible is full of beautiful women. Many of the great patriarchs and heroes of the bible take on beautiful women as their wives. One might be tempted to say that such godly men are acting with God's blessing and manifesting God's good design in partnering with these attractive women. But a closer look reveals a disturbing trend. Every time a woman's beauty is highlighted in the biblical historical record, sinful behaviors abound and are directly associated with the focus on that beauty. A quick review:

• The first mention of female beauty in the bible occurs in one of the bible's most troubling and mysterious passages. In Genesis 6:1-2 we read - "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose." This leads to the existence of half angelic, half human offspring which in turn contributes to the debauched human condition which results in the flood.
• The Patriarchs were especially ill behaved in regards to their beautiful wives. Abraham prostituted Sarah...twice...in order to save himself[3]. Isaac repeated his father's sin with Rebekah[4]. Jacob defied culture and parental authority by insisting on the beautiful Rachel over the ugly Leah, causing not only enmity with his father-in-law but friction between the two sisters[5].
• Great heroes of the bible were not exempt either. Samson's ill advised, impulsive marriage to a girl solely because she caught his eye had tragic consequences[6]. His marriage to Delilah turned out even worse[7]. And who can forget David and Bathsheba[8]. Abigail's beauty also seems to play into David's polygamous marriage to her[9]. Even more treacherous acts occurred in the house of David because of the obsession with beauty, as highlighted by the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon[10].
• Even supposed love stories are really examples of ungodly behavior and situations salvaged by God. Esther is misused by Mordechi in a way that very much mirrors Abraham's sinful misuse of Sarah. The fact that love blossomed in the end is more attributed to God's grace (and Esther's heart) than it is to any overreaching godly plan[11].
• Lest one think this is a one way phenomenon (male looking on female), let's not forget the trouble that Joseph's good looks brought him via Potiphar's wife[12].

The pattern is absolutely clear: whenever physical (i.e. sexual) beauty is mentioned in biblical history, sinful behavior ensues. But, what about biblical teaching? The message there is absolutely clear as well: how we "see" and relate to each other should be governed by what is on the inside of a person, not their outsides.

Since the emphasis by authors such as John Eldredge and Joshua Harris in their defense of pursuing physical beauty is on the male's efforts in finding a spouse, it makes sense to begin with the quintessential bible passage on that topic. I refer, of course, to Proverbs 31 and the "perfect" wife. It is curious that these authors don't also turn to this passage, but close reading shows why they might avoid it - it totally defeats their argument. In Proverbs 31 verses 10 through 29 we are given a list of over 20 attributes which are found in "an excellent wife" that give her "worth...far above jewels". Not once in that list is her outward appearance ever mentioned. But the author of the proverb doesn't leave it to chance that we may think the list is incomplete and that beauty still is a valid consideration in finding a mate. Verse 31 sums up the advice with this well known and crucial warning: "Charm [flirtatiousness] is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (NIV). This is no trivial matter, for as much as one's heart is deserving of praise, one's physical looks are undeserving of it. We are not instructed even to make appearance a secondary consideration, but instead to disregard it all together. What a stark contrast to the advice given by so many Christian authors. No wonder they never mentioned Proverbs 31. But does the bible stop here? Certainly not!

In the New Testament, Peter echoes Proverbs 31 by instructing women that their true beauty lies within: "rather let it [your "attractiveness"] be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God" (1 Peter 3:4). And several other proverbs go on to give clues why we should not place our focus on physical beauty - namely, because it is a deception which lures us into sin. Proverbs 6:24-25 gives this plain advice: "To keep you from the evil woman, From the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, Nor let her capture you with her eyelids [another reference to flirtatiousness]". Proverbs 7 gives a more detailed illustration of how a woman can temp a man to stray, primarily using "exterior" enticements. Proverbs 5 hits on the theme again of the seductress using her "feminine wiles", i.e. her looks and charms, to lead a man into sin.

Now, none of this suggests that beautiful women are inherently evil and man-killers. The warnings are for the men, not the women. The intent is to snap men out of their fascination with the outside looks and flirtatious behaviors of women and to conversely direct their attention to what matters, a woman's heart and soul. The reality is that some women are quite striking. But to obsess over that feature in a woman, and to ignore her true value as a fellow human endowed with God's image, is a recipe for disaster.

There are further admonitions for married men found in the bible's teachings. Our contemporary authors tend to shy away from applying their approvals to married men, yet their very argument is applicable to all men. That is how men (and many women) take it, at least. Phrases such as "It is ok to look but not touch", or "that is just the way men are", are constantly thrown out to excuse married men's roving eyes. How many women have accepted with little resistance and even less concern their husband's private stacks of porn and lascivious behaviors? How many others actually invite porn into thier bedrooms under the delusion it will enhance their marriage or at least fulfill some need their husband has that they are incapable of meeting? All of this is due to the deception that since a man's attraction to the female form is "natural", such allowances are justified by and pleasing to God. Does the bible support such nonsense? Certainly not!

Jesus' famous application of the 7th commandment to the visual and mental realms should suffice to condemn any sexual looking or thinking that does not involve one's wife (which yields either adultery or fornication depending on marital status)[13]. Unfortunately, many people take a very narrow view of the type of thoughts necessary, saying that only actual thoughts of sex with another real person constitute the "lust" Jesus references. But one has to wonder if Jesus had Job in mind at the time He issues His decree. In Job 31[14], we find a striking parallel to Jesus' argument as Job, a "blameless...man of complete integrity"[15], makes a similar application to his own vision and thoughts.

At this point, and at the sake of being redundant, I need to remind the reader that looking at someone's form for purposes of attraction is inherently sexual, and strikingly so for men. As Jesus and Job discuss these issues, they are dealing with sexual immorality at it's very core, inside our brains. Although such looks and thoughts may not trigger physical arousal in our sexual members, they unavoidably trigger mental arousal in the sexual processing centers of our brain and chemical arousal in the hormonal and neurotransmission systems of our bodies. Now on to Job...

Job 31:1 states - "I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?" (NKJV). The NIV unfortunately introduces the concept of lust into their translation, solidifying the connection with Jesus but incorrectly narrowing the context of Job's visual covenant. The Hebrew word translated "look upon", or "gaze" and "think upon" in other translations, contains no implication of lustfulness. It is an innocuous word meaning simply to discern or look at with discernment. A modern translation with our own cultural idioms actually conveys the idea quite well - "I made a deal with my eyes, why then should I check out a hot babe?" Job goes on later to talk about "lurking at his neighbor's door", an idiom from his time which refers to taking secretive glances and engaging in sly flirtations with a woman who is not one's wife. Going (presumably) far beyond Jesus, Job calls such subtle and non-physically arousing behavior as "wickedness" and claims a fitting, although probably not godly, punishment for even an inquisitive glance at another woman would be for his wife to chase after and bed another man of her choice. But are Job and Jesus worlds apart, or do we just assume so because of the difference in Greek and Hebrew word choices. Job in essence calls a casual discerning look "lustful". Jesus certainly knew His Job. When Jesus speaks of looking with lust, is it not quite possible that he had Job's level of look in mind and we have simply diluted His words over time. After all, "lust" is not really the correct translation of the Greek. What Jesus really said was that if you look upon a woman other than your wife with any kind of desire, such desire is inherently inappropriate and therefore constitutes "lust" in English. Jesus never mentions anything about having mental sex with the woman.

OK - so, maybe it isn't such a godly thing to exercise and entertain our natural, sexual attraction for the form of the opposite sex when we are looking for marriage candidates, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a good idea to "check out" other people once you are married. So, if it is acknowledged that God designed these mechanisms, what are they good for, when should they be manifested, and why did He seem to set us up for failure? The bible has the answer for these questions as well, and they all revolve around "the marriage bed". I will explore that in the final post of the "Hot Babe" series.

Notes
1. The "Hot Babe" series:

• Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design;
• Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man?;
• Physical Beauty - essential for us to "be fruitful and multiply"?

2. In particular, see Romans 7:23.
3. Genesis 12:10-20; 20:2-18.
4. Genesis 26:6-11
5. Genesis 29:14-30:34
6. Judges 14:1-15:6
7. Judges 16:4-21. Although the bible doesn't say Delilah was beautiful, it is almost universally assumed because of Samson's selfish and shallow character when it came to women.
8. 2 Samuel 11
9. 1 Samuel 25. There seems little point in the mention of Abigail's beauty in verse 3 except as a pretext for David's attraction to her. It seems David was rather fond of marrying every pretty girl he came across, in direct violation of God's law against regal polygamy. Of course, David's sinful pattern was later amplified to ridiculous levels by his son Solomon (1 Kings 11:3).
10. 2 Samuel 13:1-15
11. Esther 2:1-20. Many people focus on the fact that Xerxes fell in love with Esther and that she was a beloved queen and therefore determine that this is a God ordained love story. The reality is that God is never once mentioned in the book of Esther. The book has far more to do with Mordecai's plotting on behalf of the Jews and himself and his use of Esther as an insider in the King's Court to accomplish his agenda. Although I believe it is fair to say that God intervened in the whole mess to assure the preservation of his people, there is no evidence that Mordecai was operating under some divine plan.
12. Genesis 39:1-20
13. Matthew 5:28. One should not, of course, make the mistake of assuming that Jesus' preaching here is limited to adultery. Jesus' main point is that any mental violation of the any of the commandments is as damning as a physical violation. As such, this teaching is applicable to stealing, murder, idolatry, etc. The teaching naturally extends outside of the marital realm. If such a look or thought is adulterous for a married man, it is naturally fornicative for an unmarried man. Gender is not the issue here either. Certainly, women can be just as guilty.
14. It is ironic that Job's defense of his sexual purity and marital integrity takes place in the same chapter number as the perfect wife of Proverbs 31. If a view to a woman's heart and a disregard for her beauty, at least pre-maritally, is the goal of a man seeking a wife, and if Job takes a covenant within marriage to perpetuate this view of the women outside his marriage, one might almost hold Job up as a model of the Proverbs 31 man; or at least the kind of man who abides by the Proverbs 31:30 admonition. So maybe the chapter numbering is not quite as coincidental as it may seem.
15. Job 1:1. Although Job should be considered a book about a historical figure, and there is no reason to doubt the factual reality of the events described, it is not a book that intends to chronical the history of either the human race or the Jewish people. In actuality, it is meant to be an instructive book and is therefore rightly categorized in the general teaching category of books (specifically, the poetic books) rather than the histories.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">In the prior three posts<span style="font-size:85%;">[1]</span> in the "Hot Babe" series, I have discussed the viewpoints and arguments of certain authors supporting, at least in general, the idea that Eve, and subsequently the female gender, are beautiful by design, and that male sexual attraction to that design is also God designed, blessed, and even mandated. Since those authors rarely, if ever, relied on scripture to back up their claims, I presented some logical counter arguments to their conclusions. But that doesn't mean that scripture has nothing to say about beauty and attraction. In the final two posts, I will give a comprehensive review of the related scriptures and propose a counter conclusion based on that review: namely that God takes a very dim view of our inclination to look at and judge people based on their outward appearance, at least in all but one specific context.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />Before I go further, there is an important distinction that needs to be made. Some of the claims of the authors cited in prior posts are demonstrably correct and fairly undisputed. Men are visual, and visually, the female form pleases us. We certainly are attracted to women because of how they look. I do not deny these realities and to the extent that they are governed by hormones and brain function they seem to me to be clearly natural. But the question we need to ask ourselves is: "is all that is natural, godly?" More to the point, which "nature" is being expressed when we act on these urges and instincts: our fleshly nature or our spirit led nature. In Romans 7 and 8<span style="font-size:85%;">[2]</span> Paul describes for us a struggle that goes on in each and every person between the competing forces of our flesh and our spirit. In a fallen world, even when we are dealing with our "design", we must ask ourselves if the current manifestation of that design is what God intended, or if, conversely, our common enemy has corrupted our interpretation and application of God's good design. It is in that spirit, and with those questions at the forefront, that I will proceed to determine what God intended in our design and where we may be deceived.<br /><br />Another distinction needs to be made before proceeding and that is the difference between biblical history and biblical teaching. Although biblical history is often instructive, it is primarily so because it illustrates man in the flesh acting ungodly. Biblical teaching via the Old Testament Proverbs, Psalms, prophets, and poetic books, and the New Testament, instruct us directly regarding what God expects us to do and not to do. Nowhere is this distinction more obvious than in the bible's treatment of physical attraction.<br /><br />One more note lest the reader misunderstand the kind of beauty and attraction I am talking about. The authors cited before make it clear, especially when discussing Eve and the place that physical attractiveness, and the attraction to it, hold in relationship building, that the discussion at its core is sexual. Nobody pretends that men are attracted to women's looks in the same way they appreciate the beauty of a bounding deer or a perfectly thrown curve ball. It is crucial that the reader understand that all of this talk about beauty has a sexual basis, and that when we talk about a woman being attractive or beautiful what is actually <em>meant</em> is that she is sexy; that she triggers in a man a sexual response even if it doesn't reach the threshold of physical arousal. (The same, of course, can be said of sexual attraction regardless of the genders of both the attractor and the attractee.)<br /><br />Having said all that, let us look into God's Word.<br /><br />The historical account in the bible is full of beautiful women. Many of the great patriarchs and heroes of the bible take on beautiful women as their wives. One might be tempted to say that such godly men are acting with God's blessing and manifesting God's good design in partnering with these attractive women. But a closer look reveals a disturbing trend. <strong><em>Every time</em></strong> a woman's beauty is highlighted in the biblical historical record, sinful behaviors abound and are directly associated with the focus on that beauty. A quick review:<br /><br /><ul><li>The first mention of female beauty in the bible occurs in one of the bible's most troubling and mysterious passages. In Genesis 6:1-2 we read - "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose." This leads to the existence of half angelic, half human offspring which in turn contributes to the debauched human condition which results in the flood.</li><li>The Patriarchs were especially ill behaved in regards to their beautiful wives. Abraham prostituted Sarah...<em>twice</em>...in order to save himself<span style="font-size:85%;">[3]</span>. Isaac repeated his father's sin with Rebekah<span style="font-size:85%;">[4]</span>. Jacob defied culture and parental authority by insisting on the beautiful Rachel over the ugly Leah, causing not only enmity with his father-in-law but friction between the two sisters<span style="font-size:85%;">[5]</span>.</li><li>Great heroes of the bible were not exempt either. Samson's ill advised, impulsive marriage to a girl solely because she caught his eye had tragic consequences<span style="font-size:85%;">[6]</span>. His marriage to Delilah turned out even worse<span style="font-size:85%;">[7]</span>. And who can forget David and Bathsheba<span style="font-size:85%;">[8]</span>. Abigail's beauty also seems to play into David's polygamous marriage to her<span style="font-size:85%;">[9]</span>. Even more treacherous acts occurred in the house of David because of the obsession with beauty, as highlighted by the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon<span style="font-size:85%;">[10]</span>.</li><li>Even supposed love stories are really examples of ungodly behavior and situations salvaged by God. Esther is misused by Mordechi in a way that very much mirrors Abraham's sinful misuse of Sarah. The fact that love blossomed in the end is more attributed to God's grace (and Esther's heart) than it is to any overreaching godly plan<span style="font-size:85%;">[11]</span>.</li><li>Lest one think this is a one way phenomenon (male looking on female), let's not forget the trouble that Joseph's good looks brought him via Potiphar's wife<span style="font-size:85%;">[12]</span>. </li></ul>The pattern is absolutely clear: whenever physical (i.e. sexual) beauty is mentioned in biblical history, sinful behavior ensues. But, what about biblical teaching? The message there is absolutely clear as well: how we "see" and relate to each other should be governed by what is on the inside of a person, not their outsides.<br /><br />Since the emphasis by authors such as John Eldredge and Joshua Harris in their defense of pursuing physical beauty is on the male's efforts in finding a spouse, it makes sense to begin with the quintessential bible passage on that topic. I refer, of course, to Proverbs 31 and the "perfect" wife. It is curious that these authors don't also turn to this passage, but close reading shows why they might avoid it - it totally defeats their argument. In Proverbs 31 verses 10 through 29 we are given a list of over 20 attributes which are found in "an excellent wife" that give her "worth...far above jewels". Not once in that list is her outward appearance ever mentioned. But the author of the proverb doesn't leave it to chance that we may think the list is incomplete and that beauty still is a valid consideration in finding a mate. Verse 31 sums up the advice with this well known and crucial warning: "Charm [flirtatiousness] is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised" (NIV). This is no trivial matter, for as much as one's heart is deserving of praise, one's physical looks are undeserving of it. We are not instructed even to make appearance a secondary consideration, but instead to disregard it all together. What a stark contrast to the advice given by so many Christian authors. No wonder they never mentioned Proverbs 31. But does the bible stop here? Certainly not!<br /><br />In the New Testament, Peter echoes Proverbs 31 by instructing women that their true beauty lies within: "rather let it [your "attractiveness"] be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God" (1 Peter 3:4). And several other proverbs go on to give clues <em>why</em> we should not place our focus on physical beauty - namely, because it is a deception which lures us into sin. Proverbs 6:24-25 gives this plain advice: "To keep you from the evil woman, From the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, Nor let her capture you with her eyelids [another reference to flirtatiousness]". Proverbs 7 gives a more detailed illustration of how a woman can temp a man to stray, primarily using "exterior" enticements. Proverbs 5 hits on the theme again of the seductress using her "feminine wiles", i.e. her looks and charms, to lead a man into sin.<br /><br />Now, none of this suggests that beautiful women are inherently evil and man-killers. The warnings are for the men, not the women. The intent is to snap men out of their fascination with the outside looks and flirtatious behaviors of women and to conversely direct their attention to what matters, a woman's heart and soul. The reality is that some women are quite striking. But to obsess over that feature in a woman, and to ignore her true value as a fellow human endowed with God's image, is a recipe for disaster.<br /><br />There are further admonitions for married men found in the bible's teachings. Our contemporary authors tend to shy away from applying their approvals to married men, yet their very argument is applicable to all men. That is how men (and many women) take it, at least. Phrases such as "It is ok to look but not touch", or "that is just the way men are", are constantly thrown out to excuse married men's roving eyes. How many women have accepted with little resistance and even less concern their husband's private stacks of porn and lascivious behaviors? How many others actually invite porn into thier bedrooms under the delusion it will enhance their marriage or at least fulfill some need their husband has that they are incapable of meeting? All of this is due to the deception that since a man's attraction to the female form is "natural", such allowances are justified by and pleasing to God. Does the bible support such nonsense? Certainly not!<br /><br />Jesus' famous application of the 7th commandment to the visual and mental realms should suffice to condemn any sexual looking or thinking that does not involve one's wife (which yields either adultery or fornication depending on marital status)<span style="font-size:85%;">[13]</span>. Unfortunately, many people take a very narrow view of the type of thoughts necessary, saying that only actual thoughts of sex with another real person constitute the "lust" Jesus references. But one has to wonder if Jesus had Job in mind at the time He issues His decree. In Job 31<span style="font-size:85%;">[14]</span>, we find a striking parallel to Jesus' argument as Job, a "blameless...man of complete integrity"<span style="font-size:85%;">[15]</span>, makes a similar application to his own vision and thoughts.<br /><br />At this point, and at the sake of being redundant, I need to remind the reader that looking at someone's form for purposes of attraction is inherently sexual, and strikingly so for men. As Jesus and Job discuss these issues, they are dealing with sexual immorality at it's very core, inside our brains. Although such looks and thoughts may not trigger physical arousal in our sexual members, they unavoidably trigger mental arousal in the sexual processing centers of our brain and chemical arousal in the hormonal and neurotransmission systems of our bodies. Now on to Job...<br /><br />Job 31:1 states - "I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?" (NKJV). The NIV unfortunately introduces the concept of lust into their translation, solidifying the connection with Jesus but incorrectly narrowing the context of Job's visual covenant. The Hebrew word translated "look upon", or "gaze" and "think upon" in other translations, contains no implication of lustfulness. It is an innocuous word meaning simply to discern or look at with discernment. A modern translation with our own cultural idioms actually conveys the idea quite well - "I made a deal with my eyes, why then should I <em>check out</em> a hot babe?" Job goes on later to talk about "lurking at his neighbor's door", an idiom from his time which refers to taking secretive glances and engaging in sly flirtations with a woman who is not one's wife. Going (presumably) far beyond Jesus, Job calls such subtle and non-physically arousing behavior as "wickedness" and claims a fitting, although probably not godly, punishment for even an inquisitive glance at another woman would be for his wife to chase after and bed another man of her choice. But are Job and Jesus worlds apart, or do we just assume so because of the difference in Greek and Hebrew word choices. Job in essence calls a casual discerning look "lustful". Jesus certainly knew His Job. When Jesus speaks of looking with lust, is it not quite possible that he had Job's level of look in mind and we have simply diluted His words over time. After all, "lust" is not really the correct translation of the Greek. What Jesus really said was that if you look upon a woman other than your wife with any kind of desire, such desire is inherently inappropriate and therefore constitutes "lust" in English. Jesus never mentions anything about having mental sex with the woman.<br /><br />OK - so, maybe it isn't such a godly thing to exercise and entertain our natural, sexual attraction for the form of the opposite sex when we are looking for marriage candidates, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a good idea to "check out" other people once you are married. So, if it is acknowledged that God designed these mechanisms, what are they good for, when should they be manifested, and why did He seem to set us up for failure? The bible has the answer for these questions as well, and they all revolve around "the marriage bed". I will explore that in <a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/03/rejecting-hot-babe-deception-part-2.html"><u>the final post</u></a> of the "Hot Babe" series.<br /><br /><strong><u>Notes</u></strong><br />1. The "Hot Babe" series: <ul><li><a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/10/was-hot-babe-prerequisite-in-eves.html"><u>Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design</u></a>;</li><li><a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/01/physical-beauty-essence-of-god-or-folly.html"><u>Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man?</u></a>;</li><li><a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/02/physical-beauty-essential-for-us-to-be.html"><u>Physical Beauty - essential for us to "be fruitful and multiply"?</u></a></li></ul>2. In particular, see Romans 7:23.<br />3. Genesis 12:10-20; 20:2-18.<br />4. Genesis 26:6-11<br />5. Genesis 29:14-30:34<br />6. Judges 14:1-15:6<br />7. Judges 16:4-21. Although the bible doesn't say Delilah was beautiful, it is almost universally assumed because of Samson's selfish and shallow character when it came to women.<br />8. 2 Samuel 11<br />9. 1 Samuel 25. There seems little point in the mention of Abigail's beauty in verse 3 except as a pretext for David's attraction to her. It seems David was rather fond of marrying every pretty girl he came across, in direct violation of God's law against regal polygamy. Of course, David's sinful pattern was later amplified to ridiculous levels by his son Solomon (1 Kings 11:3).<br />10. 2 Samuel 13:1-15<br />11. Esther 2:1-20. Many people focus on the fact that Xerxes fell in love with Esther and that she was a beloved queen and therefore determine that this is a God ordained love story. The reality is that God is never once mentioned in the book of Esther. The book has far more to do with Mordecai's plotting on behalf of the Jews <em>and himself</em> and his use of Esther as an insider in the King's Court to accomplish his agenda. Although I believe it is fair to say that God intervened in the whole mess to assure the preservation of his people, there is no evidence that Mordecai was operating under some divine plan.<br />12. Genesis 39:1-20<br />13. Matthew 5:28. One should not, of course, make the mistake of assuming that Jesus' preaching here is limited to adultery. Jesus' main point is that any mental violation of the any of the commandments is as damning as a physical violation. As such, this teaching is applicable to stealing, murder, idolatry, etc. The teaching naturally extends outside of the marital realm. If such a look or thought is adulterous for a married man, it is naturally fornicative for an unmarried man. Gender is not the issue here either. Certainly, women can be just as guilty.<br />14. It is ironic that Job's defense of his sexual purity and marital integrity takes place in the same chapter number as the perfect wife of Proverbs 31. If a view to a woman's heart and a disregard for her beauty, at least pre-maritally, is the goal of a man seeking a wife, and if Job takes a covenant within marriage to perpetuate this view of the women outside his marriage, one might almost hold Job up as a model of the Proverbs 31 man; or at least the kind of man who abides by the Proverbs 31:30 admonition. So maybe the chapter numbering is not quite as coincidental as it may seem.<br />15. Job 1:1. Although Job should be considered a book about a historical figure, and there is no reason to doubt the factual reality of the events described, it is not a book that intends to chronical the history of either the human race or the Jewish people. In actuality, it is meant to be an instructive book and is therefore rightly categorized in the general teaching category of books (specifically, the poetic books) rather than the histories.<br /></span></span>

Physical Beauty - essential for us to "be fruitful and multiply"? (Continuing the "Hot Babe" series)

This is the third installment in what I am calling the "Hot Babe" series of posts. In Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design I introduced the topic by illustrating what I believe is a near obsession in some Christian writing (and, I assume, some Christian teaching) with physical beauty in general, female beauty in particular, and Eve's beauty as a specific and exalted example. Next, in Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man?, I looked at one particular celebrated author, John Eldredge, and his conclusions about beauty, God, creation, and Eve. I will now address a second popular author, Joshua Harris, and his conclusion that God purposely designed female beauty, illustrated in Eve, and male attraction to that beauty as the necessary elements that would push an otherwise unmotivated male population to fulfill our divine calling to "be fruitful and multiply".
Josh Harris took the Christian world, and particularly the Christian youth world, by storm with his controversial best selling book I Kissed Dating Goodbye. Through a number of sequels and related topic books, Josh has continued to provide guidance (and occasional discomfort) to both teens and youth ministry workers in the areas of relationship, sexuality, and purity. One book that piqued my interest was the boldly titled, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is).

Now, it should be said from the outset that I agree with that premise - that sex when properly expressed within marriage is one of those "it is good" things within creation and that lust is what corrupts an otherwise godly and wholesome design. My issue with Harris in this book is not that the premise is wrong, but that he misses on defining the parameters of that premise. Specifically, I have to question his understanding of both the physiological workings of males and the scriptural definition of "lust". But that is a topic best left to another post. Staying on subject here, I will address and deconstruct his conclusions about Eve, her daughters, and the proclaimed essentiality of their physical beauty in God's design. I would like to tackle this in the same way as the last post, by answering some urgently begged questions. But first, to refresh, here is the quote from Sex Is Not the Problem:

"He [God] really knew what He was doing, didn't He? 'Be fruitful and...multiply,' he commanded mankind (Genesis 9:7). And then just in case we'd be tempted to slack off in the task of populating and subduing the earth, He made us sexual creatures and wired us with this incredible thing we call a sex drive...Isn't it wonderful how God has made men and women to interact with each other? He made men visually oriented then made women beautiful."[1]

Was beauty even a consideration in Adam and Eve's relationship?
We know two things for certain about the assessment of beauty. First, it is entirely subjective. Second, being subjective, it requires a number of subjects to compare the assessed person against to find where on the scale of beauty they fall. Put simply, the assessment of beauty involves an individual observer's opinion of how someone's looks rank against all others. So, who did Adam compare Eve to in order to determine if she was beautiful? Of course, he had no one to compare her to. Without a scale to rank someone against, the assessment of beauty becomes impossible. If Eve's beauty or ugliness was impossible to assess then it certainly was irrelevant in their relationship, especially their sexual and procreative relationship. Moreover, considering that eventually their were plenty of other women for Adam to compare Eve to, and considering he remained monogamous, and considering they continued to procreate like crazy for hundreds of years despite the unavoidable deterioration after the fall of Eve's physical appearance, it seems all too obvious that a subjective, comparative, assessment of Eve's physical beauty NEVER was a consideration in their relationship.

Is beauty essential for men to find a partner?
Many men would say yes. I suggest for balance we ask a blind man. The reality is that although beauty certainly does attract men, it is not essential for a man to find his life partner. We will dive into Proverbs 31 in detail in the next post, but suffice it to say that the essential elements in a compatible partner, the things that Adam rejoiced in about Eve, the characteristics that make for a permanent, covenantal, loving relationship, have nothing to do with what a woman looks like.

Is beauty essential to motivate men to have sex?
Again, ask a blind man. It is true that men are visually oriented and that we find the female form pleasing, but our vision is only one trigger to what is basically a hormonal process. Sex drive can be enhanced by visual stimuli, but visual stimuli are not absolutely necessary for sex drive to operate. In fact, a much greater motivator for men to have sex (and, presumably, procreate) is the purely biological cycle of fluid buildup in the seminal vesicles. Men are driven to have sex by their biology (as are women). God gave us that biology, but Harris seems to ignore it (or be ignorant of it). To him, sex drive is primarily about what we see. One wonders how anyone manages to make babies with the lights off.

Is beauty permanent; does God intend sex to be a permanent fixture in marriage?
I alluded to this earlier in talking about Adam and Eve, but it is a key point. Adoption of the stance Harris takes leads to two very tragic consequences. First of all, if beauty is necessary to motivate "coupling" which in turn motivates procreation, then where does that leave all the ugly girls in this world? Does God not intend for them also to find mates and have babies? This question always popped into my mind when I would read Eldredge's "A Beauty to Rescue" section of Wild at Heart. If men really need a "beauty" to rescue, what happens to all the ugly princesses trapped in metaphorical towers? By encouraging readers to look at and choose mates based primarily on subjective comparisons of physical looks, both authors quite literally send many men off "looking for love in all the wrong places". Marital studies have shown that "looks" based relationships are some of the most likely to fail. Not only that, but how many men and women alike have missed out on really great relationships with truly compatible and complimentary partners because the other person wasn't pretty enough to warrant their attraction?

But a second tragedy also looms because of this misdirection. By sanctioning a looks based attraction mechanism, the authors unwittingly support a "greener pastures" approach to relationships. Certainly, if a man needs a beauty to rescue, and if he needs a hot babe in order to be motivated to have sex, then once the ravages of time and gravity, or even worse, physical injury, reak havoc on his wife, he is justified in moving on to the next beauty. After all, God made him that way. Although it is no fault of his wife's, God designed him to seek beauty and therefore God blesses his actions in rejecting his no longer beautiful wife. In fact, the breakup is actually her fault because she has failed in her duty to meet his need for a beautiful wife. Of course, most men won't carry this out to the extreme (although certainly some do using that very justification). But many men believe it is a godly requirement that their wives maintain a level of beauty to keep them happy and fulfill their needs, and they make the relationship miserable if, no - when, she inevitably can't keep her body up to his standard of beauty.

I have attempted to show the error of these authors rhetorically, but mine is just another opinion without some scriptural back up. What really matters is what God has to say about beauty and its place in relationships, and He surprisingly has a lot to say. That is ground we will cover in the next post in the "Hot Babe" series.

Notes
1. Joshua Harris, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is) (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003) p. 33, 85.


<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">This is the third installment in what I am calling the "Hot Babe" series of posts. In <em><a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/10/was-hot-babe-prerequisite-in-eves.html"><u>Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design</u></a></em> I introduced the topic by illustrating what I believe is a near obsession in some Christian writing (and, I assume, some Christian teaching) with physical beauty in general, female beauty in particular, and Eve's beauty as a specific and exalted example. Next, in <em><a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/01/physical-beauty-essence-of-god-or-folly.html"><u>Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man?</u></a></em>, I looked at one particular celebrated author, John Eldredge, and his conclusions about beauty, God, creation, and Eve. I will now address a second popular author, Joshua Harris, and his conclusion that God purposely designed female beauty, illustrated in Eve, and male attraction to that beauty as the necessary elements that would push an otherwise unmotivated male population to fulfill our divine calling to "be fruitful and multiply".<br /><span class="fullpost">Josh Harris took the Christian world, and particularly the Christian youth world, by storm with his controversial best selling book <em>I Kissed Dating Goodbye</em>. Through a number of sequels and related topic books, Josh has continued to provide guidance (and occasional discomfort) to both teens and youth ministry workers in the areas of relationship, sexuality, and purity. One book that piqued my interest was the boldly titled, <em>Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is)</em>.<br /><br />Now, it should be said from the outset that I agree with that premise - that sex when properly expressed within marriage is one of those "it is good" things within creation and that lust is what corrupts an otherwise godly and wholesome design. My issue with Harris in this book is not that the premise is wrong, but that he misses on defining the parameters of that premise. Specifically, I have to question his understanding of both the physiological workings of males and the scriptural definition of "lust". But that is a topic best left to another post. Staying on subject here, I will address and deconstruct his conclusions about Eve, her daughters, and the proclaimed essentiality of their physical beauty in God's design. I would like to tackle this in the same way as the last post, by answering some urgently begged questions. But first, to refresh, here is the quote from <em>Sex Is Not the Problem</em>:<br /><blockquote>"He [God] really knew what He was doing, didn't He? 'Be fruitful and...multiply,' he commanded mankind (Genesis 9:7). And then just in case we'd be tempted to slack off in the task of populating and subduing the earth, He made us sexual creatures and wired us with this incredible thing we call a sex drive...Isn't it wonderful how God has made men and women to interact with each other? He made men visually oriented then made women beautiful."<span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[1]</span></blockquote><u>Was beauty even a consideration in Adam and Eve's relationship?</u><br />We know two things for certain about the assessment of beauty. First, it is entirely subjective. Second, being subjective, it requires a number of subjects to compare the assessed person against to find where on the scale of beauty they fall. Put simply, the assessment of beauty involves an individual observer's <em>opinion</em> of how someone's looks rank against all others. So, who did Adam compare Eve to in order to determine if she was beautiful? Of course, he had no one to compare her to. Without a scale to rank someone against, the assessment of beauty becomes impossible. If Eve's beauty or ugliness was impossible to assess then it certainly was irrelevant in their relationship, especially their sexual and procreative relationship. Moreover, considering that eventually their were plenty of other women for Adam to compare Eve to, and considering he remained monogamous, and considering they continued to procreate like crazy for hundreds of years despite the unavoidable deterioration after the fall of Eve's physical appearance, it seems all too obvious that a subjective, comparative, assessment of Eve's physical beauty NEVER was a consideration in their relationship.<br /><br /><u>Is beauty essential for men to find a partner?</u><br />Many men would say yes. I suggest for balance we ask a blind man. The reality is that although beauty certainly does attract men, it is not essential for a man to find his life partner. We will dive into Proverbs 31 in detail in the next post, but suffice it to say that the essential elements in a compatible partner, the things that Adam rejoiced in about Eve, the characteristics that make for a permanent, covenantal, loving relationship, have nothing to do with what a woman looks like.<br /><br /><u>Is beauty essential to motivate men to have sex?</u><br />Again, ask a blind man. It is true that men are visually oriented and that we find the female form pleasing, but our vision is only one trigger to what is basically a hormonal process. Sex drive <em>can</em> be enhanced by visual stimuli, but visual stimuli are not <em>absolutely necessary</em> for sex drive to operate. In fact, a much greater motivator for men to have sex (and, presumably, procreate) is the purely biological cycle of fluid buildup in the seminal vesicles. Men are <em>driven</em> to have sex by their biology (as are women). God gave us that biology, but Harris seems to ignore it (or be ignorant of it). To him, sex drive is primarily about what we see. One wonders how anyone manages to make babies with the lights off.<br /><br /><u>Is beauty permanent; does God intend sex to be a permanent fixture in marriage?</u><br />I alluded to this earlier in talking about Adam and Eve, but it is a key point. Adoption of the stance Harris takes leads to two very tragic consequences. First of all, if beauty is necessary to motivate "coupling" which in turn motivates procreation, then where does that leave all the ugly girls in this world? Does God not intend for them also to find mates and have babies? This question always popped into my mind when I would read Eldredge's "A Beauty to Rescue" section of <em>Wild at Heart. </em>If men really need a "beauty" to rescue, what happens to all the ugly princesses trapped in metaphorical towers? By encouraging readers to look at <em>and choose</em> mates based primarily on subjective comparisons of physical looks, both authors quite literally send many men off "looking for love in all the wrong places". Marital studies have shown that "looks" based relationships are some of the most likely to fail. Not only that, but how many men and women alike have missed out on really great relationships with truly compatible and complimentary partners because the other person wasn't pretty enough to warrant their attraction?<br /><br />But a second tragedy also looms because of this misdirection. By sanctioning a looks based attraction mechanism, the authors unwittingly support a "greener pastures" approach to relationships. Certainly, if a man needs a beauty to rescue, and if he needs a hot babe in order to be motivated to have sex, then once the ravages of time and gravity, or even worse, physical injury, reak havoc on his wife, he is justified in moving on to the next beauty. After all, God made him that way. Although it is no fault of his wife's, God designed him to seek beauty and therefore God blesses his actions in rejecting his no longer beautiful wife. In fact, the breakup is actually her fault because she has failed in her duty to meet his need for a beautiful wife. Of course, most men won't carry this out to the extreme (although certainly some do using that very justification). But many men believe it is a godly requirement that their wives maintain a level of beauty to keep them happy and fulfill their needs, and they make the relationship miserable if, no - when, she inevitably can't keep her body up to his standard of beauty.<br /><br />I have attempted to show the error of these authors rhetorically, but mine is just another opinion without some scriptural back up. What really matters is what God has to say about beauty and its place in relationships, and He surprisingly has a lot to say. That is ground we will cover in <a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/02/rejecting-hot-babe-deception-part-1.html"><u>the next post</u></a> in the "Hot Babe" series.<br /><br /><strong><u>Notes</u></strong><br />1. Joshua Harris, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is) (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003) p. 33, 85.<br /><br /><br /></span></span>

Physical Beauty - the "essence of God" or the shallowness of man? (Part of the "Hot Babe" series)

In the introductory post of this series, Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design, I reviewed some of the comments and conclusions of current Christian authors regarding physical beauty, especially in terms of its impact on attraction, sexuality, and relationships. In this and the next few posts, I will deconstruct those assertions and show, scripturally, why they are not only not godly but are indeed quite fleshly.

Working backwards through the positions outlined in the first post, I will begin here by dealing with John Eldredge's near obsession with physical beauty and his claim that it is "the essence of God". The next post will cover Josh Harris' claim that physical attraction is an essential, God designed and blessed component in not only the development of martial relationships but also our mandate to "be fruitful and multiply". Finally, I will cover what God really has to say about physical beauty and sexual attraction and discuss why an emphasis on it is so dangerous.

So, is physical beauty "the essence of God" as John Eldredge asserts in Captivating? He offers up "nature" to support his argument, rightly claiming that through nature we see the glory of God. But, he boldly claims that that glory of God is manifested not in the beautiful way in which nature functions (nature's inner beauty, as it were) but in the beautiful way that nature looks (i.e. its outer beauty). Does any of this make sense? Let's examine this "logic" through the series of questions that it begs.

Can the Essence of God Be Something Physical and Temporal?
The bible tells us that God is spirit (John 4:24), that God is eternal (Revelation 1:8), and that God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Nature's physical reality fits none of those descriptions. God's glory may be reflected in nature but it is a dim reflection at best. Nature gives us simply a glimpse, and a very incomplete one at that, of what God is, and tells us very little about who God is. Nature could have been constructed very differently, leading to a very different "look and feel" in terms of our interaction with it but God would not have been changed one bit - His essence would be the same. To claim the "essence" of God is some variable, temporary, physical, containable, corruptible, destructible, earthbound, created thing diminishes God in almost blasphemous ways.

Is Beauty Measurable and Objective?
The obvious answer should be "no", but why that matters is important. The bible tells us that God is a God of order and reason (Job 23:13). Put simply, God is objective and unwavering. To view God as subjective is to call him opinionated, or even contradictory and hypocritical. These are not attributes of God and certainly not a reflection of His essence.

Is Nature Beautiful?
It depends on who you ask and what part of nature you are talking about. There are certainly parts of nature we humans find beautiful (with some variation between individuals). There are certainly other parts of nature we find grotesque. But it is not important how we see nature, but how God sees it. Is the peacock more beautiful than the platypus in God's eyes? Is an agate more beautiful than a lump of clay? Closer to home, is my wife more or less beautiful than John Eldredge's, let alone Eve? Is God even capable of making such subjective distinctions? Moreover, does God place value of any kind based on physical appearance? Thankfully, the answer is "no". We will further explore the scriptural support for this in the last post of this series but certainly such a conclusion is indisputable.

Is Creation "good" Primarily Because of Its Physical Appearance (Beauty) or Because of Its Interrelational Design (Function)?
Herein lies the crux of the matter. Eldredge's position hinges on the bold statement that nature (i.e. creation) is primarily beautiful, not functional. But does the creation account support this? Did God say, at the end of each creative act, "it looks good"? Or did God simply declare that each step of creation, and the creation as a whole, was good? We all know it is the latter. But let's look closer at the creation of Eve, since Eldredge ultimately ties everything back to her. Why was Eve created? Was it so that Adam would have something sexually stimulating (or even simply pretty) to look at (more on this in the next post), or was it so that Adam would have a functional counterpart to himself to help him maintain the Garden? Did God declare he was going to make a “hot babe” for Adam to drool over or a helper suitable to him and the task at hand? Again, the answer is obviously (and quite literally) the latter.

God is a God of order, logic, and objectivity. Any reference to physical appearance, and especially physical beauty, is inherently subjective and automatically invokes a valuation scale. Eldredge himself alludes to this in his argument, stating that Eve is the "crown of creation" in Wild at Heart and "the crescendo [of creation]" in Captivating, implying she is the best of the best, the most beautiful of creation. Would God say that? I certainly would hope not; I have always been under the impression that we are all, from Adam and Eve on down, created equal.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">In the introductory post of this series, <em><a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/10/was-hot-babe-prerequisite-in-eves.html"><u>Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design</u></a></em>, I reviewed some of the comments and conclusions of current Christian authors regarding physical beauty, especially in terms of its impact on attraction, sexuality, and relationships. In this and the next few posts, I will deconstruct those assertions and show, scripturally, why they are not only <strong>not</strong> godly but are indeed quite fleshly.<br /><br />Working backwards through the positions outlined in the first post, I will begin here by dealing with John Eldredge's near obsession with physical beauty and his claim that it is "the essence of God". <a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/02/physical-beauty-essential-for-us-to-be.html"><u>The next post</u></a> will cover Josh Harris' claim that physical attraction is an essential, God designed and blessed component in not only the development of martial relationships but also our mandate to "be fruitful and multiply". Finally, I will cover what God really has to say about physical beauty and sexual attraction and discuss why an emphasis on it is so dangerous.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />So, is physical beauty "the essence of God" as John Eldredge asserts in <em>Captivating</em>? He offers up "nature" to support his argument, rightly claiming that through nature we see the glory of God. But, he boldly claims that that glory of God is manifested not in the beautiful way in which nature functions (nature's inner beauty, as it were) but in the beautiful way that nature looks (i.e. its outer beauty). Does any of this make sense? Let's examine this "logic" through the series of questions that it begs.<br /><br /><u>Can the Essence of God Be Something Physical and Temporal?</u><br />The bible tells us that God is spirit (John 4:24), that God is eternal (Revelation 1:8), and that God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Nature's physical reality fits none of those descriptions. God's glory may be reflected in nature but it is a dim reflection at best. Nature gives us simply a glimpse, and a very incomplete one at that, of <strong>what</strong> God is, and tells us very little about <strong>who</strong> God is. Nature could have been constructed very differently, leading to a very different "look and feel" in terms of our interaction with it but God would not have been changed one bit - His essence would be the same. To claim the "essence" of God is some variable, temporary, physical, containable, corruptible, destructible, earthbound, created thing diminishes God in almost blasphemous ways.<br /><br /><u>Is Beauty Measurable and Objective?</u><br />The obvious answer should be "no", but why that matters is important. The bible tells us that God is a God of order and reason (Job 23:13). Put simply, God is objective and unwavering. To view God as subjective is to call him opinionated, or even contradictory and hypocritical. These are not attributes of God and certainly not a reflection of His essence.<br /><br /><u>Is Nature Beautiful?</u><br />It depends on who you ask and what part of nature you are talking about. There are certainly parts of nature we humans find beautiful (with some variation between individuals). There are certainly other parts of nature we find grotesque. But it is not important how we see nature, but how God sees it. Is the peacock more beautiful than the platypus in God's eyes? Is an agate more beautiful than a lump of clay? Closer to home, is my wife more or less beautiful than John Eldredge's, let alone Eve? Is God even capable of making such subjective distinctions? Moreover, does God place value of any kind based on physical appearance? Thankfully, the answer is "no". We will further explore the scriptural support for this in the last post of this series but certainly such a conclusion is indisputable.<br /><br /><u>Is Creation "good" Primarily Because of Its Physical Appearance (Beauty) or Because of Its Interrelational Design (Function)?</u><br />Herein lies the crux of the matter. Eldredge's position hinges on the bold statement that nature (i.e. creation) is primarily beautiful, not functional. But does the creation account support this? Did God say, at the end of each creative act, "it <strong>looks</strong> good"? Or did God simply declare that each step of creation, and the creation as a whole, was good? We all know it is the latter. But let's look closer at the creation of Eve, since Eldredge ultimately ties everything back to her. Why was Eve created? Was it so that Adam would have something sexually stimulating (or even simply pretty) to look at (more on this in the next post), or was it so that Adam would have a functional counterpart to himself to help him maintain the Garden? Did God declare he was going to make a “hot babe” for Adam to drool over or a helper suitable to him and the task at hand? Again, the answer is obviously (and quite literally) the latter. <br /><br />God is a God of order, logic, and objectivity. Any reference to physical appearance, and especially physical beauty, is inherently subjective and automatically invokes a valuation scale. Eldredge himself alludes to this in his argument, stating that Eve is the "crown of creation" in <em>Wild at Heart</em> and "the crescendo [of creation]" in <em>Captivating</em>, implying she is the best of the best, the <strong>most</strong> beautiful of creation. Would God say that? I certainly would hope not; I have always been under the impression that we are all, from Adam and Eve on down, created equal.<br /></span></span>

Where's Gengwall???

November and December have been crazy busy and I just haven't had time to write, let alone the energy to think deep and meaningful thoughts. I will get back to blogging in January. Next up: the concluding parts to my "Hot Babe" series and the first entry in my "Riddle Me This, Darwin" evolution series.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">November and December have been crazy busy and I just haven't had time to write, let alone the energy to think deep and meaningful thoughts. I will get back to blogging in January. Next up: the concluding parts to my "Hot Babe" series and the first entry in my "Riddle Me This, Darwin" evolution series.<br /></span>

Evolution Blogging

Originally when I started this blog, I was disinclined to comment on the evolution/creation debate. Usually such discussions just spin in circles, which is just plain annoying. But I am changing my mind as I see new paradoxes in nature that evolution simply has no explanation for. So be on notice world - evolution opinions coming soon to a blog near you. <span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">Originally when I started this blog, I was disinclined to comment on the evolution/creation debate. Usually such discussions just spin in circles, which is just plain annoying. But I am changing my mind as I see new paradoxes in nature that evolution simply has no explanation for. So be on notice world - evolution opinions coming soon to a blog near you.</span>

My Love/Hate Feelings for Alec Baldwin (and others)

What can I say about Alec Baldwin? I have watched him for years on talk shows, and in comedic appearances on T.V. and movies, and the guy never fails to make me laugh. And I mean big time laugh, complete with gasps for air and "spit-takes". But then I remember his politics and it makes me want to engage in a whole different kind of spitting up. How can I love a guy so much who I so can't stand? Such paradoxes make me feal as if my head is going to explode (or at the very least I'm going to do a lot of spitting).

Baldwin's charmingly self-deprecating cameo on Saturday Night Live the other night with Sarah Palin was hysterical (only William Shatner self-parodies better, imo). His gracious defense of her SNL appearance in his blog entry on the Huffington post was quite noble. But the almost sure fact, SNL hyperbole aside, that he actually does think she is "that horrible woman" is infuriating. Alec, why can’t you just be consistently despicable so I don’t go through these emotional rollercoaster rides?

Alas, if only Alec Baldwin were alone in producing this struggle in me. Unfortunately, he is just the third leg of the stool. Shirley McClain and Barbara Streisand also drive me nuts by delivering stupendously wonderful performances in the execution of their art while simultaneously delivering stupendously horrific performances in the elucidation of their politics. What is a media loving conservative to do?
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">What can I say about Alec Baldwin? I have watched him for years on talk shows, and in comedic appearances on T.V. and movies, and the guy never fails to make me laugh. And I mean big time laugh, complete with gasps for air and "spit-takes". But then I remember his politics and it makes me want to engage in a whole different kind of spitting up. How can I love a guy so much who I <em>so</em> can't stand? Such paradoxes make me feal as if my head is going to explode (or at the very least I'm going to do a lot of spitting).<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Baldwin's charmingly self-deprecating cameo on Saturday Night Live the other night with Sarah Palin was hysterical (only William Shatner self-parodies better, imo). His gracious defense of her SNL appearance in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/palin-on-isnli-what-did-y_b_136186.html">his blog</a> entry on the Huffington post was quite noble. But the almost sure fact, SNL hyperbole aside, that he actually does think she is "that horrible woman" is infuriating. Alec, why can’t you just be consistently despicable so I don’t go through these emotional rollercoaster rides?<br /><br />Alas, if only Alec Baldwin were alone in producing this struggle in me. Unfortunately, he is just the third leg of the stool. Shirley McClain and Barbara Streisand also drive me nuts by delivering stupendously wonderful performances in the execution of their art while simultaneously delivering stupendously horrific performances in the elucidation of their politics. What is a media loving conservative to do? <br /></span></span>

Was "Hot Babe" a Prerequisite in Eve's Design

Sometime in the last couple years (I'm not so good with dates), my daughter (early 20's) and I were having a discussion about boy/girl relationships and the topic shifted to "beauty". She related to me that she had recently read in a book (direct quote forthcoming) that Eve, being the crown of creation, was the most physically beautiful of God's creations (that is what the book said, not her position). We talked a little more on the subject and then moved on, but this notion that Eve was some ravishing beauty, and even more so, that physical beauty was a necessary and purposeful element in God's design for Eve, has always bothered me.

More recently, as I have significantly increased my reading on such topics as marriage, relationships, and gender dynamics, as well as my study of the Genesis creation narrative itself, this presumption of Eve's beauty, and even the necessity for it, has appeared more than once. Here is just a sampling from some books I have read:

"The construction of the [Genesis 2] narrative highlights in this case the qualitative difference between the man and the woman on the one hand and all other living creatures on the other. 'This', cries the man - in his delight 'he names three times 'this', the beautiful creature whose presence astonishes and charms him' - ..." Henri Blocher quoting M. J. Lagrange, In The Beginning[1]

"She [Eve] is suited to him [Adam] (Gen. 2:23), and he revels in her beauty...She is a kind of crown to humanity, the most beautiful creation of God..." Rebecca Jones, Does Christianity Squash Women[2]

"Adam, seeing for the first time the curves and beauty of the naked woman, is caught slack-jawed. He is flabbergasted. He gasps." Walt Larimore, His Brain, Her Brain[3]

"Eve is the crown of creation, remember? She embodies the exquisite beauty and exotic mystery of God in a way that nothing else in all creation comes close to." John Eldredge, Wild at Heart[4]

Celebrated youth and relationship author Joshua Harris (I Kissed Dating Goodbye) extends this presumption into a prerequisite. According to Harris, physical (i.e. sexually attractive) beauty, particularly in women, is necessary for us to fulfill our mandate from God to "be frutiful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Listen to what he says in his book Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is):

"He [God] really knew what He was doing, didn't He? 'Be fruitful and...multiply,' he commanded mankind (Genesis 9:7). And then just in case we'd be tempted to slack off in the task of populating and subduing the earth, He made us sexual creatures and wired us with this incredible thing we call a sex drive...Isn't it wonderful how God has made men and women to interact with each other? He made men visually oriented then made women beautiful."[5]

Apparently, without the God created provision of sexual attraction via physical beauty in women, we men would have no reason to go and "be fruitful". I wasn't aware that my hormones were able to see, let alone judge whether or not a woman was beautiful enough to lift me off my behind to pursue her. The implication for Eve is clear. In Harris' view, had she not been "hot", Adam would not have had sufficient distraction or motivation to draw him away from his duties tending the garden to pursue her and begin multiplying at all. Thank goodness Eve was a babe or we might have never come to be.

Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Best selling author John Eldredge stretches this obsession with beauty even further. In his ground breaking work on the masculine identity, Wild At Heart, Eldredge incorporates the need for a beautiful woman into a man's core reason for living. His section titled "A Beauty to Rescue" begins with this revelation of what turned him from mere friend into boyfriend in his relationship with his future wife.

"I met Stasi in high school, but it wasn't until late in college that our romance began. Up until that point we were simply friends...Then one summer night something shifted. I dropped by to see Stasi; she came sauntering down the hall barefoot, wearing a pair of blue jeans and a white blouse with lace around the collar and the top buttons undone."[6]

The implication here is clear - had Eldridge not been triggered sexually toward Stasi because of her physical attractiveness, he would have never pursued her maritally and would have abdicated his obligation to "be fruitful and multiply". Her outer beauty was THE triggering factor in his moving from friend to lover.[7] Providing living proof of Harris' theory, Eldredge makes the beauty of Eve (and all subsequent women), not only a blindly accepted reality but a design prerequisite in order for human's to fulfill their godly mandate.

But Eldredge takes the beauty bias even further in Captivating, the companion book to Wild At Heart co-written with his wife. The authors begin their worship to the physical in the section titled "The Crown of Creation", repeating and amplifying John Eldridge's theme from Wild At Heart quoted in the opening of this post.

She [Eve] is the cresendo, the final, astonishing work of God. Woman. In one last flourish creation comes to a finish not with Adam, but with Eve. She is the Master's finishing touch. How we wish this were an illustrated book, and we could capture this, like the stunning Greek sculpture of the goddess Nike of Samothrace, the winged beauty, just alighting on the prow of a great ship, her beautiful form revealed through the thin veils that sweep around her. Eve is...breathtaking.[8]

A few pages later, in the section titled "Beauty to Unveil", John Eldredge takes the pen alone and fleshes out the thesis in full.

Beauty...That we even need to explain how beauty is so absolutely essential to God only shows how dull we have grown to him, to the world in which we love, and to Eve. Far too many years of our own spiritual lives were lived with barely a nod to beauty, to the central role that beauty plays in the life of God , and in our own lives...

Beauty is essential to God. No - that's not putting it strongly enough. Beauty is the essence of God.[9]

Lest one think he is talking about some mystical inner beauty and not the physical, outward appearance of things and people, he elaborates.

The first way we know this is through nature, the world God has given us. Scripture says that the created world is filled with the glory of God (Isa. 6:3). In what way? Primarily through its beauty.[10]

He concludes this idolatry of the physical world with one of the most absurd statements I have ever read (and remember that this is a book I generally recommend):

Nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. Stop for a moment and let that sink in...[Believe me, I did]...Nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. Which is to say, beauty is in and of itself a great and glorious good...Nature at the height of its glory shouts, Beauty is Essential! revealing that Beauty is the essence of God.[11]

In fairness, I will acknowledge that the Edlredges do eventually try to strike a balance. John speaks later on of both outer and inner beauty and Stasi dedicates a whole chapter to inner beauty toward the end of the book.

But the question remains for me, "why any focus on outer beauty at all?" Or more importantly, "what does God have to say about the subject?" You see, what I have recounted so far from the Edlredges, Harris, and all the others, amounts to opinion at best and down right ungodliness at worst if it is not backed up with scriptural teaching. So, what scriptural support do these authors offer up? The answer, in a word, is "none!" Not one "jot or tittle" is provided which justifies such a reverence for the physical or even claims that God thinks this way. And that is what makes my head just want to explode. Rather than point people to a godly view of our world, and more importantly, our most intimate and important personal relationships, they offer up worldy justifications for fleshly behaviors and attitudes.

So, does God have something to say about physical beauty, Eve, creation, nature, and the rest. You may be surprised to learn that, not only does God have plenty to say, but He says it quite forcefully. In this post I have explored the worldly teaching by well meaning but flawed human authors. In the next two posts I will further examine two of these authors and their conclusions: John Eldredge and Joshua Harris. In the final posts of this "Hot Babe" series I will highlight the godly teaching on these same issues from the inspired authors of the bible.
______________________________________________

Notes
1. Henri Blocher (English translation by David G. Preston), In the Beginning (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), p. 98. Lagrange quote: M. J. Lagrange, 'L'innocence et le péché', RB 6 (1897), p. 349.
2. Rebecca Jones, Does Christianity Squash Women? (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Homan Publishers, 2005), p. 170.
3. John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001), p. 217.
4. Walt Larimore, MD, and Barb Larimore, His Brain, Her Brain (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan, 2008), p. 191.
5. Joshua Harris, Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is) (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003) p. 33, 85.
6. J. Eldredge, p. 215.
7. Of course, Eldredge may have found another "beauty to rescue" had his future wife not "tickled his fancy". The point is that outward physical appearance was the tickling agent. Rather than be stimulated to pursue her because of her inner beauty, which we assume he was well aware of because of their long-standing friendship, Eldridge seems to completely disregard the inner beauty until after the outer has taken hold of him. Only then, after being startled by the outside, does he consider her heart and how she may compliment him as wife.
8. John Eldridge and Stasi Eldredge, Captivating (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), p. 25.
9. ibid. p 34.
10. ibid.
11. ibid. p 34, 35.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">Sometime in the last couple years (I'm not so good with dates), my daughter (early 20's) and I were having a discussion about boy/girl relationships and the topic shifted to "beauty". She related to me that she had recently read in a book (direct quote forthcoming) that Eve, being the crown of creation, was the most physically beautiful of God's creations (that is what the book said, not her position). We talked a little more on the subject and then moved on, but this notion that Eve was some ravishing beauty, and even more so, that physical beauty was a necessary and purposeful element in God's design for Eve, has always bothered me.<br /><br />More recently, as I have significantly increased my reading on such topics as marriage, relationships, and gender dynamics, as well as my study of the Genesis creation narrative itself, this presumption of Eve's beauty, and even the necessity for it, has appeared more than once. Here is just a sampling from some books I have read:<span class="fullpost"><blockquote>"The construction of the [Genesis 2] narrative highlights in this case the qualitative difference between the man and the woman on the one hand and all other living creatures on the other. 'This', cries the man - in his delight 'he names three times <em>'this'</em>, the beautiful creature whose presence astonishes and charms him' - ..." Henri Blocher quoting M. J. Lagrange, <em>In The Beginning</em><span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[1]</span><br /><br />"She [Eve] is suited to him [Adam] (Gen. 2:23), and he revels in her beauty...She is a kind of crown to humanity, the most beautiful creation of God..." Rebecca Jones, <em>Does Christianity Squash Women</em><span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[2]</span><br /><br />"Adam, seeing for the first time the curves and beauty of the naked woman, is caught slack-jawed. He is flabbergasted. He gasps." Walt Larimore, <em>His Brain, Her Brain</em><span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[3]</span><br /><br />"Eve is the crown of creation, remember? She embodies the exquisite beauty and exotic mystery of God in a way that nothing else in all creation comes close to." John Eldredge, <em>Wild at Heart</em><span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[4]</span></blockquote>Celebrated youth and relationship author Joshua Harris (<em>I Kissed Dating Goodbye</em>) extends this presumption into a prerequisite. According to Harris, physical (i.e. sexually attractive) beauty, particularly in women, is necessary for us to fulfill our mandate from God to "be frutiful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Listen to what he says in his book <em>Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is)</em>:<br /><br /><blockquote>"He [God] really knew what He was doing, didn't He? 'Be fruitful and...multiply,' he commanded mankind (Genesis 9:7). And then just in case we'd be tempted to slack off in the task of populating and subduing the earth, He made us sexual creatures and wired us with this incredible thing we call a sex drive...Isn't it wonderful how God has made men and women to interact with each other? He made men visually oriented then made women beautiful."<span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[5]</span></blockquote>Apparently, without the God created provision of sexual attraction via physical beauty in women, we men would have no reason to go and "be fruitful". I wasn't aware that my hormones were able to see, let alone judge whether or not a woman was beautiful enough to lift me off my behind to pursue her. The implication for Eve is clear. In Harris' view, had she not been "hot", Adam would not have had sufficient distraction or motivation to draw him away from his duties tending the garden to pursue her and begin multiplying at all. Thank goodness Eve was a babe or we might have never come to be.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Best selling author John Eldredge stretches this obsession with beauty even further. In his ground breaking work on the masculine identity, <em>Wild At Heart</em>, Eldredge incorporates the need for a beautiful woman into a man's core reason for living. His section titled "A Beauty to Rescue" begins with this revelation of what turned him from mere friend into boyfriend in his relationship with his future wife.<br /><br /><blockquote>"I met Stasi in high school, but it wasn't until late in college that our romance began. Up until that point we were simply friends...Then one summer night something shifted. I dropped by to see Stasi; she came sauntering down the hall barefoot, wearing a pair of blue jeans and a white blouse with lace around the collar and the top buttons undone."<span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[6]</span></blockquote>The implication here is clear - had Eldridge not been triggered sexually toward Stasi because of her physical attractiveness, he would have never pursued her maritally and would have abdicated his obligation to "be fruitful and multiply". Her outer beauty was THE triggering factor in his moving from friend to lover.<span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[7] </span>Providing living proof of Harris' theory, Eldredge makes the beauty of Eve (and all subsequent women), not only a blindly accepted reality but a design prerequisite in order for human's to fulfill their godly mandate.<br /><br />But Eldredge takes the beauty bias even further in <em>Captivating</em>, the companion book to <em>Wild At Heart</em> co-written with his wife. The authors begin their worship to the physical in the section titled "The Crown of Creation", repeating and amplifying John Eldridge's theme from <em>Wild At Heart</em> quoted in the opening of this post.<br /><br /><blockquote>She [Eve] is the cresendo, the final, astonishing work of God. Woman. In one last flourish creation comes to a finish not with Adam, but with <em>Eve</em>. She is the Master's finishing touch. How we wish this were an illustrated book, and we could capture this, like the stunning Greek sculpture of the goddess Nike of Samothrace, the winged beauty, just alighting on the prow of a great ship, her beautiful form revealed through the thin veils that sweep around her. Eve is...breathtaking.<span style="font-size:85%;">[<span style="POSITION: relative">8]</span></span></blockquote>A few pages later, in the section titled "Beauty to Unveil", John Eldredge takes the pen alone and fleshes out the thesis in full.<br /><br /><blockquote>Beauty...That we even need to explain how beauty is so <em>absolutely essential</em> to God only shows how dull we have grown to him, to the world in which we love, and to Eve. Far too many years of our own spiritual lives were lived with barely a nod to beauty, to the central role that beauty plays in the life of God , and in our own lives...<br /><br />Beauty is essential to God. No - that's not putting it strongly enough. Beauty is the essence of God.<span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[9]</span></blockquote>Lest one think he is talking about some mystical inner beauty and not the physical, outward appearance of things and people, he elaborates.<br /><br /><blockquote>The first way we know this is through nature, the world God has given us. Scripture says that the created world is filled with the glory of God (Isa. 6:3). In what way? Primarily through its <em>beauty</em>.<span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[10]</span></blockquote>He concludes this idolatry of the physical world with one of the most absurd statements I have ever read (and remember that this is a book I generally recommend):<br /><br /><blockquote>Nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. Stop for a moment and let that sink in...[Believe me, I did]...Nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily <em>beautiful</em>. Which is to say, beauty is in and of itself a great and glorious good...Nature at the height of its glory shouts, <em>Beauty is Essential!</em> revealing that Beauty is the essence of God.<span style="POSITION: relative;font-size:85%;" >[11]</span></blockquote>In fairness, I will acknowledge that the Edlredges do eventually try to strike a balance. John speaks later on of both outer and inner beauty and Stasi dedicates a whole chapter to inner beauty toward the end of the book.<br /><br />But the question remains for me, "why any focus on outer beauty at all?" Or more importantly, "what does God have to say about the subject?" You see, what I have recounted so far from the Edlredges, Harris, and all the others, amounts to opinion at best and down right ungodliness at worst if it is not backed up with scriptural teaching. So, what scriptural support do these authors offer up? The answer, in a word, is "none!" Not one "jot or tittle" is provided which justifies such a reverence for the physical or even claims that God thinks this way. And that is what makes my head just want to explode. Rather than point people to a godly view of our world, and more importantly, our most intimate and important personal relationships, they offer up worldy justifications for fleshly behaviors and attitudes.<br /><br />So, does God have something to say about physical beauty, Eve, creation, nature, and the rest. You may be surprised to learn that, not only does God have plenty to say, but He says it quite forcefully. In this post I have explored the worldly teaching by well meaning but flawed human authors. In the next two posts I will further examine two of these authors and their conclusions: <a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/01/physical-beauty-essence-of-god-or-folly.html"><u>John Eldredge</u></a> and <a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/02/physical-beauty-essential-for-us-to-be.html"><u>Joshua Harris</u></a>. In the final posts of this "Hot Babe" series I will highlight the godly teaching on these same issues from the inspired authors of the bible.<br />______________________________________________<br /><br /><strong><u>Notes</u></strong><br />1. Henri Blocher (English translation by David G. Preston), <em>In the Beginning</em> (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), p. 98. Lagrange quote: M. J. Lagrange, 'L'innocence et le péché', <em>RB 6</em> (1897), p. 349.<br />2. Rebecca Jones, <em>Does Christianity Squash Women?</em> (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Homan Publishers, 2005), p. 170.<br />3. John Eldredge, <em>Wild at Heart</em> (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001), p. 217.<br />4. Walt Larimore, MD, and Barb Larimore, <em>His Brain, Her Brain</em> (Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan, 2008), p. 191.<br />5. Joshua Harris, <em>Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is)</em> (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003) p. 33, 85.<br />6. J. Eldredge, p. 215.<br />7. Of course, Eldredge may have found another "beauty to rescue" had his future wife not "tickled his fancy". The point is that outward physical appearance was the tickling agent. Rather than be stimulated to pursue her because of her inner beauty, which we assume he was well aware of because of their long-standing friendship, Eldridge seems to completely disregard the inner beauty until after the outer has taken hold of him. Only then, after being startled by the outside, does he consider her heart and how she may compliment him as wife.<br />8. John Eldridge and Stasi Eldredge, <em>Captivating</em> (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), p. 25.<br />9. ibid. p 34.<br />10. ibid.<br />11. ibid. p 34, 35.<br /></span></span>

Sarah Barracuda vs. Crazy Uncle Joe

The hype was certainly there...and the manipulation of expectations. But overall, I think each candidate stuck primarily to their game plan and pulled it off pretty well. I scored this one close to even, with the slight nod to Gov. Palin simply because she didn't deflect and criticize Sen. Obama quite as much as Sen. Biden deflected and criticized Sen. McCain, and inexplicably, Pres. Bush. (Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't running and nobody wants to claim him for their "side".)

Anyway, the rest of those gathered with me for our debate party extravaganza were quite differing in their scores. Some graded it very close while others found it to be a Sarah Barracuda Biden-fish chompin' runaway. The only consistency was, whether close or no contest, everyone scored it a Palin victory. And yes, we did have some traditional Democrats in the group.

Most of all, it was very fun. I have always liked Joe Biden because he is kind of like that crazy uncle in every family - you just never know what he might say. Uncle Joe kept it pretty close to the vest last night but he still chalked up a few "derangement" debits from our pundits. And you can't help but like Sarah Palin, with her "aw shucks" down home approach to weighty issues. She even got a few resounding "oh snap!" bonuses the couple of times she gave that little wink and then skewered good old Joe.

There may not have been any issues resolved, or any voters swayed by last night's main event, but it was a good helping of American politics without the acid reflux causing biterness we often devolve into. So a resounding "good show" to both candidates. Now we wait to see what the rest of the country thinks. The hype was certainly there...and the manipulation of expectations. But overall, I think each candidate stuck primarily to their game plan and pulled it off pretty well. I scored this one close to even, with the slight nod to Gov. Palin simply because she didn't deflect and criticize Sen. Obama quite as much as Sen. Biden deflected and criticized Sen. McCain, and inexplicably, Pres. Bush. (Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't running and nobody wants to claim him for their "side".)<br /><br />Anyway, the rest of those gathered with me for our debate party extravaganza were quite differing in their scores. Some graded it very close while others found it to be a Sarah Barracuda Biden-fish chompin' runaway. The only consistency was, whether close or no contest, everyone scored it a Palin victory. And yes, we did have some traditional Democrats in the group.<br /><br />Most of all, it was very fun. I have always liked Joe Biden because he <em>is</em> kind of like that crazy uncle in every family - you just never know what he might say. Uncle Joe kept it pretty close to the vest last night but he still chalked up a few "derangement" debits from our pundits. And you can't help but like Sarah Palin, with her "aw shucks" down home approach to weighty issues. She even got a few resounding "oh snap!" bonuses the couple of times she gave that little wink and then skewered good old Joe.<br /><br />There may not have been any issues resolved, or any voters swayed by last night's main event, but it was a good helping of American politics without the acid reflux causing biterness we often devolve into. So a resounding "good show" to both candidates. Now we wait to see what the rest of the country thinks.

The (Real) Feminine Mystique (for Women)

Books to help you revel in your femininity. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)

Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is women, that does not mean that men wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.

"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Woman" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "female", why God designed her that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Manly Men list)

"The New Eve: Choosing God's Best For Your Life and Receiving God's Blessing" by Robert Lewis with Jeremy Howard. Dr. Lewis has shown thousands of men the way to "authentic manhood" through his Men's Fraternity program. Now, he takes a look at womanhood using the same stringent biblical approach. With wit and insight, he shows women the "bold moves" they need to make to become a 21st century Eve.

"The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture" by Mary A. Kassian. With this updated edition to her best selling "The Feminist Gospel", Mary Kassian follows feminism both inside and outside of the church from antiquity right into the 21st century. Where does feminism, either secular or biblical, jive with a scriptural portrait of femininity? This and other relevant issues are discussed with clarity backed up by extensive research.

*******************

For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.

Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.

And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)

I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.

<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">Books to help you revel in your femininity. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is women, that does not mean that men wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Purpose-Power-Woman-Munroe/dp/0883686716/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217514308&sr=8-3">Understanding the Purpose and Power of Woman</a>" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "female", why God designed her that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the <a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/09/manly-men-for-men.html">Manly Men</a> list)<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Eve-Robert-Lewis/dp/0805446877/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222280798&sr=8-1">The New Eve: Choosing God's Best For Your Life and Receiving God's Blessing</a>" by Robert Lewis with Jeremy Howard. Dr. Lewis has shown thousands of men the way to "authentic manhood" through his Men's Fraternity program. Now, he takes a look at womanhood using the same stringent biblical approach. With wit and insight, he shows women the "bold moves" they need to make to become a 21st century Eve.<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Mistake-Radical-Feminism-Culture/dp/1581345704/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222281212&sr=1-2">The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture</a>" by Mary A. Kassian. With this updated edition to her best selling "The Feminist Gospel", Mary Kassian follows feminism both inside and outside of the church from antiquity right into the 21st century. Where does feminism, either secular or biblical, jive with a scriptural portrait of femininity? This and other relevant issues are discussed with clarity backed up by extensive research.<br /><br />*******************<br /><br />For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships. <br /><br />Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one. <br /><br />And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19) <br /><br />I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.<br /><br /></span></span>

Manly Men (for Men)

Books to help men be all that they can be. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)

Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is men, that does not mean that women wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.

"Understanding the Purpose and Power of Men" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "male", why God designed him that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the Feminine Mystique list)

"Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul" by John Eldredge is, of course, the standard bearer for the new masculine identity. It should be noted that I differ with Eldredge on some minor points (see notes below), but all in all, this is a book every man should read to rediscover the "wild heart" that God placed in all of us.

"No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice Instead of Good Hurts Men, Women and Children" by Paul Coughlin, and "The Samson Syndrome: What You Can Learn from the Baddest Boy in the Bible" by Mark Atteberry. I recommend these two books together as they somewhat balance each other. I disagree with Paul Coughlin on some points the same as I do with Eldredge, but the Sampson book helps balance those perspectives by showing where manliness can turn into destructive machismo.

"The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage in a World of Chaos", by Dr. Larry Crabb, Don Michael Hudson, and Al Andrews. Simply a great book. Helps to explain the fall's influence on maleness.

"Point Man: How a Man Can Lead His Family" by Steve Farrar. Simply the best guide I have ever read on manly husbandship and fatherhood.

"Every Man's Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at a Time" by by Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey (Editor). There are a great many books I have on my future reading list regarding the struggles we face as men and the strategies to conquering them. None of those books would be possible without this groundbreaking work. Simply a must read for every male over the age of 14.

Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:

xxxChurch - I know, it sounds bad. They even bill themselves as the "#1 Christian Porn Site". Trust me, it's all a "bait and switch". They are actually the #1 Christian porn recovery site. Includes a news letter, blogs, forums, and other resources. A great first stop for any man who is struggling with sexual immorality. WARNING - this is not a topic for the faint of heart. Although the site moderators keep a good control over explicit expression, the issue itself is explicit enough.

*******************

For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships.

Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one.

And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19)

I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.

<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">Books to help men be all that they can be. (This post will grow as I add books over time. Check back often.)<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Before I proceed, it should be noted that although the audience for these books is men, that does not mean that women wouldn't gain insight from reading them. I encourage each gender to "read up" on the other to get a better understanding of the opposite gender's struggles and strengths.<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Purpose-Power-Myles-Munroe/dp/0883687259/ref=pd_sim_b_7">Understanding the Purpose and Power of Men</a>" by Dr. Myles Monroe brings us all the way back to the Genesis creation account to explore how God originally designed "male", why God designed him that way, and what that means for gender interactions within our marriages and our churches. Be forewarned - this is challenging material. Dr. Monroe makes a strong, scripturally based argument which undoubtably will be considered "traditional" (in it's negative connotation) and therefore dismissed by many before they read the full text. My recommendation is that one reserve judgement until they have finished the book. (See also the companion book to this in the <a href="http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/09/real-feminine-mystique-for-women.html">Feminine Mystique</a> list)<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Discovering-Secret-Mans/dp/0785287965/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211207979&sr=8-2">Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul</a>" by John Eldredge is, of course, the standard bearer for the new masculine identity. It should be noted that I differ with Eldredge on some minor points (see notes below), but all in all, this is a book every man should read to rediscover the "wild heart" that God placed in all of us.<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/More-Christian-Nice-Guy-Nice-Instead/dp/076420369X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222277961&sr=1-1">No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice Instead of Good Hurts Men, Women and Children</a>" by Paul Coughlin, and "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Samson-Syndrome-Learn-Baddest-Bible/dp/0785264477/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209655083&sr=8-1">The Samson Syndrome: What You Can Learn from the Baddest Boy in the Bible</a>" by Mark Atteberry. I recommend these two books together as they somewhat balance each other. I disagree with Paul Coughlin on some points the same as I do with Eldredge, but the Sampson book helps balance those perspectives by showing where manliness can turn into destructive machismo.<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Silence-Adam-Dr-Larry-Crabb/dp/0310219396/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209655223&sr=1-1">The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage in a World of Chaos</a>", by Dr. Larry Crabb, Don Michael Hudson, and Al Andrews. Simply a great book. Helps to explain the fall's influence on maleness. <br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Point-Man-How-Lead-Family/dp/1590521269/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209655796&sr=1-1">Point Man: How a Man Can Lead His Family</a>" by Steve Farrar. Simply the best guide I have ever read on manly husbandship and fatherhood.<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Every-Mans-Battle-Winning-Temptation/dp/1578563682/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222278248&sr=1-1">Every Man's Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at a Time</a>" by by Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey (Editor). There are a great many books I have on my future reading list regarding the struggles we face as men and the strategies to conquering them. None of those books would be possible without this groundbreaking work. Simply a must read for every male over the age of 14.<br /><br />Online: Not all great reading is in books. There are websites that contain a wealth of written info regarding marriage and relationships. Please also consider a visit to these worthy resources:<br /><br /><a href="http://xxxchurch.com/">xxxChurch</a> - I know, it sounds bad. They even bill themselves as the "#1 Christian Porn Site". Trust me, it's all a "bait and switch". They are actually the #1 Christian porn <em>recovery</em> site. Includes a news letter, blogs, forums, and other resources. A great first stop for any man who is struggling with sexual immorality. WARNING - this is not a topic for the faint of heart. Although the site moderators keep a good control over explicit expression, the issue itself is explicit enough.<br /><br />*******************<br /><br />For full disclosure, I should note that there are two general issues around which I disagree with the solutions proposed by almost all authors I have read. Those issues are confrontation (with bullies, primarily) and the priority of female attractiveness in relationships. <br /><br />Specifically, I do not agree with the proactive, violent, thrashing out approach most authors support as the "manly" response to bullying, physical threats, and protection of the weak. I truly believe that such an approach returns evil for evil and violates the "turn the other cheek" directive of Christ. That does not mean that I don't think men should exhert their power physically in those situations if required. But my personal approach is always a defensive and negotiative one, not an offensive one. <br /><br />And although I agree with most authors in the reality that physical attractiveness is a priority for men, I don't believe that it has to be or that such a priority is godly. As such, I bristle at any suggestion that maintaining attractiveness is some kind of requirement for a woman to be godly or that there is any justification for men to discard their women because they don't maintain some standard of beauty. Scripture makes it clear not only that beauty does not last forever (Proverbs 31:30) but that we are to adore and be captivated (to turn an Eldredge phrase) by our wives at all times, regardless of the natural degradation that time, gravity, and physiology inflict on their bodies (Proverbs 5:19) <br /><br />I just had to add that lest one think that I agree with absolutely everything every author writes. But by and large, these are really excellent books and these few quibbles do not prevent me from recommending them highly.<br /><br /></span></span>