In 2009 Crossway published a book by Voddie Baucham called What He Must Be…If he wants to marry my daughter. The idea behind this book is to let Christian men know what they must be before they can date, engage, and marry someone’s daughter – written from the father’s perspective. Baucham sets high but realistic standards for Christian men. In this blog I want to flip the focus. That is, I want to set forth a paradigm of what a Christian woman MUST be before a Christian man should date, engage, or marry her.
The first paradigm for what a Christian woman should be can be found in Proverbs 31:10-31. While women often and rightly look to this text for what they should be, we must remember that this section of Scripture is written directly to men (Proverbs 31:2). That is, men are to read this section of Scripture and use these verses as lenses by which they view those women they are interested in, or as they decide if they should even have interest in them. The characteristics include honesty (v. 11), good-willed (v. 12), hardworking (v. 13-15, 19), discerning with her money (v. 16), strong (v. 17, 25), prepared for the future (v. 18, 21-22), caring for the poor (v. 20), able to work (v. 22, 24), dignified (v. 25), optimistic (v. 25), wise biblically (v. 26), kind with her words (v. 26), enjoys her tasks (v. 27), busy (v. 27), and praised by others (v. 28-29). All Christian men should want these characteristics in a woman. These characteristics, however, are fairly general. How do we know precisely what this looks like today?
These characteristics can be seen in several ways. The following list is something I personally consider before dating or even considering being interested in a woman. The fact that she is a Christian is assumed, as Paul makes clear that Christians must date and marry only other Christians of the opposite sex.
1. She MUST be completely honest – that is, she avoids telling even so-called “white lies.”
2. She MUST be good with her money rather than blowing it all. She must also save some of her money rather than spending it all on whatever.
3. She MUST be a hard worker (makes good grades in college, graduate school, etc.). She must also have a job or is actively seeking employment, if she has lost her job because of the bad economy.
4. She MUST be strong emotionally. Even when hard times come she is ready. She must not be controlled by emotions either, such that God’s will is determined by her ever-changing emotions.
5. She MUST be a prepared person rather than putting everything off to the last minute.
6. She MUST demonstrate her care for the poor in some tangible fashion – by serving, helping, giving, etc.
7. She MUST be dignified. She should be someone that is above reproach.
8. She MUST take care of her body; this doesn’t mean she looks like a supermodel. Nevertheless, she exercises and eats healthily as a steward of her body.
9. She MUST be optimistic – no “Debbie-downers.”
10. She MUST read her Bible (not some devotional book in place of the Bible) often, if not daily. This also includes reading her Bible intelligently (=reading verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book rather than simply opening up the book at some random spot each day). She must have also read most of the Bible if not the whole thing. Essentially, she must love the Word of God because she loves the God of the Word.
11. She MUST be kind with her words rather than cutting people down.
12. She MUST enjoy her work rather than complaining about it all the time.
13. She MUST be praiseworthy.
14. She MUST attend, be a member, and be involved in a ministry of a local church.
15. She MUST be good at resolving conflicts. Most people tend to gravitate to two extremes when conflict arises – fight or flight. She, however, must be wise, such that she avoids choosing one of these two options.
16. She MUST also be open to admitting her sin rather than thinking and acting like she is perfect.
17. She MUST have a heart for the lost, such that she evangelizes them regularly.
18. She MUST agree with the Bible that sex is to be reserved for married couples only. Surprisingly, I have met several “Christian” women who claim that it is legitimate for Christians to have sex before marriage – I wouldn’t make this up.
Clearly, more could be written on this list; perhaps those reading this blog could add more characteristics in the comments on this blog. But, this list seems like a reasonable set of requirements for Christian men to look for in single Christian women. For the Christian men reading this blog, you should want a woman like this. For better or for worse, you will be stuck with the woman you marry for the rest of your lives. Make certain she is a good woman rather than just merely a good-looking woman. I personally have dated all across the spectrum of looks – from smoking-hot to plain-looking. One thing I have realized is that regardless of her looks, if a woman fails to meet the aforementioned requirements of what a woman MUST be, then she is not worth it. Physical beauty will fade. Find someone – and don’t settle for anything less – who fits the Proverbs 31:10-31 paradigm and you will likely be a happy man for the rest of your life!
Here is my “She must be….” for guys that I talk to about this stuff:
1. She must love Jesus.
2. She must like and be attracted to YOU.
If those 2 fall in place then I usually encourage a “GO FOR IT BUDDY!”
Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting….a woman who possesses these causes many a man to compromise many or all of the above Biblical principles. Otherwise, why else would Solomon have written it? It’s a challenge to all men (such as myself) who are yet to wed.
Well this started a fantastic conversation between friends and strangers in a coffee shop and for that I thank you! :)
The general consensus between us was that this list is a bit unrealistic and borderline legalistic. I am in agreement that godly women should strive to be like the Proverbs 31 woman and I don’t doubt your good intentions to encourage thoughtfulness when entering a relationship, but the “MUST” is a rub.
A man should pursue a woman only with marriage in mind. God compares the marriage relationship with that of Christ and the church. To make a list of what a woman should be like before she can be considered for marriage seems contrary to how God has designed it. Christ loves and gave himself up for the Church because he is loving and gracious not because we fit his criteria- we never could! We are no longer responsible to the law because of the Gospel- because Jesus died. If our husbands are to love us like Christ loves the Church then they are to graciously love first and foremost.
A man should be able to see fruit of a woman’s faith in Christ, yes. And don’t get me wrong… the list is great! Everything on it is something any Christian woman should strive for. But, when entering a relationship with any human- post fall- you can’t be so rigid. We don’t add up- men or women. These can’t be “MUSTS.”
Thanks Megan for your very thoughtful words! I praise God that he would use our labors for encouraging and equipping discussions like that.
Dear Meghan,
Thank you for reading TVN, thinking about what I wrote, thinking about it among others, and taking the time to respond to this blog! I am glad that our blog has provoked such thought and discussion. I, however, have some questions for you before I respond fully to your comments.
First, you wrote that the general consensus between you all was that this list is unrealistic and borderline legalistic. Perhaps you could explain which of the requirements on this list are unrealistic and borderline legalistic? Furthermore, perhaps “legalistic” is the wrong word altogether? Legalism refers to keeping the law for salvation. This post is about a different topic altogether. I wholeheartedly and admittedly affirm that salvation is only based on Christ’s achievements and thus nothing we can do – I wouldn’t be on this blog otherwise, as I have to hold that belief to be on this blog.
Second, I am not following the point of your second and third paragraphs. Perhaps you could tease this argument out a bit more? Specifically, what do you mean by “graciously love first and foremost”? Do you mean that the Christian man should simply dismiss all signs of ungodliness in a woman’s life when he is considering dating or marrying her? Also, you wrote that a man should be able to see fruit of woman’s faith in Christ – what do you think that looks like? The list I provided is what I think that looks like based on Proverbs 31:10-31.
Finally, I will respond to your argument fully. But, I would like to respond as best as I possibly can by being certain of about what you wrote.
I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thanks.
-Ben
Great article! As many of the articles are often written with men in mind, I certainly enjoyed a challenging article for women. I must agree with Meghan on this article. I assume that what Meghan means by saying it is border line leagalistic, is that it is lack ing in grace. Making lists of things you look for in a man or woman is a great idea. It will help you see where your non negotiables are what you really desire in a mate. However, if your list demands perfection (the MUST part) you will be doomed feel as if you are “stuck” with your spouce. Using this term “stuck” is not helpful. There are many occasions in every marriage when one or the other falls short, and the idea of “Arg, I’m stuck with you” should never be played with. This is one of those “take ever thought captive” kind of times, realizing that Christ never says that he is “stuck” with the Church, rather, graciously loves and forgives. Maybe it would be more helpful to say that the woman should be activly pursuing the above, rather than MUST BE. The Proverbs 31 woman seems to be nearly perfect, and I hope and pray that through santification that I will grow in likeness to her and Christ. But in the meantime I am grateful that my husband loves me still and takes active part in my sanctification.
I agree with Grace completely. This piece is very much lacking in grace. Grace’s suggestion of “actively pursuing” rather than MUST BE is far more realistic and a much better reflection of reality. I daresay that no woman can embody all of these characteristics at all times, no matter how much she may strive to do so.
Ben, I’m with the ladies on this. I think this is off a bit. I also think, given the whole of the Bible’s teaching on this (marriage, at least), the Proverbs 31 woman is who she is because of the husband’s care for her, washing her with the Word, loving her as Christ loves the Church, honoring her, etc (Eph 5, 1 Pet 3). Sure, women should be challenged to grow in holiness and all the things outlined in Prov 31. However, the burden is on the man. Proverbs 31 is not a checklist for men (or boys) to evaluate their options. It’s a wise man (I guess Lemuel, rehearsing advice from his mom) looking back at his life, admiring an ideal, noble wife.
I like Greg’s evaluation in comment #1. That works. In my experience I’ve seen too many well-meaning, young Christian dudes (boys) waiting and waiting on God to send him the perfect helpmate. These boys end up unhappy when they are turned down repeatedly. No woman wants a man to come after her with a list of “musts.” No woman wants a man to berate her every time she fails to live up to the list.
I get your point, I just think it’s off mark a bit. A Christian man should not dismiss ungodliness, as you say. He should step into it, rather than discarding the relationship. The evidence of faith (fruit) should be there, for sure. But if you are engaging a woman you intend to marry/date, and you will not seek to encourage her as a sister in Christ, for fear of getting “stuck” with her, then you are failing as a Christian man. You are not honoring her.
Dear Grace,
Thanks for reading and commenting on this article. Let me start with what we agree and then where I would like to question you on some issues.
First, I agree that men and women should make lists of what they want – hence my list.
Second, I also agree that in marriage people should avoid saying “arg (like pirates) – I am stuck with you.” My point in bringing that comment up in the post was to remind men that they need to take great care in picking the woman they do because it is a permanent choice. It is NOT meant to be something to claim after the fact. I agree with you in the context of a marriage that that very thought is sinful and thus needs to be taken captive to Christ. But what I wrote is different. Do you see the difference here?
Third, you claimed that men and women should make a list of non-negotaibles; you also claimed that if this list of non-negotaibles demands perfection then that is wrong – it will lead to feeling stuck. My list of MUSTs is a list of non-negotaibles. For example, if a woman does not want to read her Bible and refuses to do so, then by no means will I date her. If she lies to me, then by no means will I date her. On the reverse, I also know of plenty of women who have similar lists, some of which are based on 1 Tim 3:1-7, by implication of course, and not requiring a desire for the ministry as one of them.
Fourth, I agree that a husband plays a part in the sanctification of his wife. Nevertheless, I am not talking about marriage. I am talking about dating. A Christian man dating a Christian woman could have some role, but it would have to be different given the difference of the relationship. I am uncertain of what my opinions are on this matter; perhaps this could be material for a future blog?
Fifth, do you personally think any of these MUSTs are unrealistic?
Sixth, what is your stance on Voddie Baucham’s book called “What He Must Be”? That is, do you think he is wrong for requiring certain characteristics from men before they can marry his daughter?
Seventh, given that Greg is your husband, perhaps we could have list given as a blog from the other side – that is, “What He Must Be – from a Christian Woman’s Perspective.”
I look forward to continuing this conversation. -Ben
P. S. Dave, I will respond to your comments soon – just ran out of time for today.
Ben, I feel a discussion on “What He Must Be” (either a list or review of Vodie’s book) coming soon… great leading questions. I look forward to the continuation of this conversation and pray it is edifying.
Ben,
Hello!
Legalistic is the term I wanted to use. What you are doing in making a list this long of non negotiables is essentially creating a “law” for who to date. The Lord says we should not be unequally yoked but what else on this list is commanded by God as necessary? I agree that making a personal list of desirable traits is beneficial- I too look for certain characteristics in a spouse. Where I see the problem is that you intend this list to be applied to all young Christian men looking for a spouse.
Of course I do not think men should disregard signs of ungodliness. A godly man should marry a godly woman but a woman does not have to meet all of these criteria you listed to be a godly woman. She must love Christ.
Even if you can find a woman who lives up to these MUSTS, happiness is not guaranteed as you suggested. That woman will fail her husband and he will fail her. We are sinners in need of grace and that truth is applicable to every situation, dating and marriage especially. This is why God dictated that man loves his bride and gives himself up for her as Christ did for the Church. He knows grace must abound for such a holy institution to work with such broken people.
I, like Grace, hope to continually grow in likeness to her (Prov31), but the fact that I am not there yet does not DQ me from marriage. The Lord has promised to continue his work in me until the day of completion and my husband, whoever he is, will be excited to be a part of that work taking place! Every woman is a work in progress- the Christian man should understand that, leave room for it and rejoice in it.
-Meghan
All,
Thank you for your comments thus far; they have been very helpful to me.
In his most recent comment, Ben stated that his list is intended to apply only to dating. I think this diffuses many of the objections (including my own). For if it was applied to marriage, then it would indeed be legalistic. I think this term is rightly applied. If legalism in salvation is a standard which men must meet to be saved, then legalism in marriage is a standard spouses must meet in order for happiness to reign.
The comparison (helpfully raised by Meghan) between marriage and the relationship between Christ and the church is an important one in this discussion. Grace pervades Christ’s every interaction with his church; so, too, ought gracious love to define marriage. See Grace’s point here.
Yet, again, Ben is not here discussing marriage–but rather dating. Thus, it seems that the weight of most of the comments fall on the extent to which Ben has taken the list. The thrust of Greg’s and David’s comments is that this list ought to be much more humble. First, it seems all agree that Christian persons ought to look for Christian spouses. And beyond that? One must use wisdom and discernment.
Are we then back to Ben’s original post? I think not, for two reasons: One, if I may be candid, the bar Ben has constructed is impossibly high (see David’s point here). Two, I don’t just plain don’t like bars. Ben is right to make a distinction between dating and marriage; one is a Biblically-recognized institution, the other is not. Yet is there any aspect of our lives that ought to be unchanged by grace? When I search among the young Christian women around me for a girlfriend, I am indeed looking for certain virtues. Yet MUST they ALL be present? No. Will they ever? No.
In marriage, I hope to find a daughter of God who is seeking the kingdom and is eager to do so with me.
Perhaps one would call this a bar–a bar set much lower. Yet is it? Is not rather the distinction between the church and the world, the sheep and the goats? And this is not our distinction, but God’s. We are free to search among the brothers and sisters around us and find a spouse to our liking (and vice-verse, a la Greg’s comment).
I hope that my sisters in Christ are not striving to meet any standards. It seems to me that standards serve only to condemn failure. Rather, I hope they are seeking righteousness in loving, grateful, and obedient response to the God who has saved them. This is certainly attractive, but it is not done for me.
In the end, perhaps everything I’ve said seems only an iteration of Ben’s original post; perhaps my distinctions are slight or negligible. If it appears so, so be it. Yet it is my sincere hope that we will change the terms in which we are discussing the issue. Let there be no more talk of standards. I regret to be contrary, but I must say that I hope there is not a discussion of What He Must Be.
If young Christian men need to be told to stop dating pretty women who are not Christians, by all means, let us tell them. And when that is over and done, let us examine how grace changes everything–even dating.
(Please forgive me for referring to everyone in the third-person, I did so only for expediency’s sake.)
2 things Jonathan:
1) I believe Voddie Bauchum has already accomplished such a discussion about “What he must be.” See his book here —> http://www.amazon.com/What-He-Must-Be-Daughter/dp/1581349300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292470846&sr=8-1
2) J, you said “Let there be no more talk of standards…” I believe, in a since, that when you refer to ‘seeking righteousness’ that this is in fact seeking a standard. As we seek to be like Jesus, we seek his standard – perfect holiness; however, we must be careful of ridding ourselves of all standards because seeking to be like Jesus has specific implications for how we live our lives. That is why the Bible gives standards (prescriptive qualifications according to Scripture) for elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3), husbands and wives (Eph 5 & 1 Peter 3), etc. As God has revealed himself in Scripture he has also revealed how men and women should live according to his word. This also includes implications on how they should relate to one another in complementarian ways according to their differing relationships. Nonetheless, we must remember, dating is a now-a-day cultural phenomenon. In Scripture, it was the parents who decided whom their daughter or son would marry. How would they decide? Based on specific standards.
Let us remember though that God’s grace, through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, covers even the craziest lists of unmet standards.
(I understand in Ben’s most recent comment, he made clear that he is “not talking about marriage,” however, I will be addressing the post, wherein he states, “I want to set forth a paradigm of what a Christian woman MUST be before a Christian man should date, engage, or marry her.”)
Ben,
I am glad you are thoughtfully considering the woman you will date/marry. I am, however, concerned, in the same way the women that have responded seem to be. As a married, Christian man, I do not believe it is helpful to hold a girlfriend/wife to this high of a standard, one they are likely to not meet on a daily basis. While I do hold that it is your honor and duty as the leader in the dating/courting/marriage relationship to encourage and walk alongside your companion in the Christian walk, not least the areas of virtue listed in Proverbs 31 and your “MUST” list, I do not find it fruitful to pine after an apparently already perfect woman. It is clear from your list that all the requirements of your candidates are visible and, therefore, easy to spot but, I believe, hard to find. Some of the most important things you should be looking for in a mate are not so visible as the “virtues” you have laid out for us (i.e. salvation, compassion, hospitality, nurturing spirit, trust. These are things I was looking for, by the way.).
Consider, for example, your future wife has read this post, knows everything you expect of a mate, and therefore, mimics all 18 “MUSTS”. Given the notion “love is blind”, you fall for her, propose to her, and marry her. Now that she “has” you, she starts telling white lies, spending frivolously, and refusing to read her Bible, etc. You are now, in your own words, “stuck” with this woman because you perceived she met your qualifications of what you thought was the perfect wife.
What I think our above friend of the female persuasion, Meghan, was getting at in her second point is men should be persuing women (pre-girlfriend/wife) that are an image of the church. You wouldn’t, for example, be thrilled to be “intelligently reading the Bible”, only to find that God has placed 18 (or even one, for that matter) stipulations on your salvation! (I am not saying that you should consider yourself your future wife’s messiah, I am merely reiterating the comparison Paul, himself, has made.)
Now, I don’t believe it is a bad thing to come to a dating/courting/marriage relationship with expectations. But, I do think your expectations can be too high (and, quite frankly, can crush your partner under the weight they can never be what you expect them to be). These expectations should be kept at a reasonable level that is preferably discussed during the courtship/dating period, prior to marriage.
As an example, I will use “MUST” #4. You cannot reasonably expect your wife, or any godly woman to be strong, emotionally, at all times. Paul says, in I Peter 3:7, “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel….” You are clearly supposed to lead your wife emotionally, not expect her to be a brick wall before you are even dating!
And, in closing, I will use “MUST” #3 as a personal example. Consider your wife has been supported (financially) by her father until the day he gave her hand to you in marriage. I will expound further that you make sufficient funds to provide for your newly found family with only your income. Finally your wife has expressed to you that she does not wish to work in a vocational setting, only in the home and as a mother. It is clearly not necessary that she hold or look for a job. This demand simply does not apply across the board, as any imperitve (MUST) must.
Ben, I think you may have made a misstep here. It strikes me that there is a strong distinction between a father protecting his daughter by evaluating who should be allowed to date her (this seems to be the focus of Baucham’s book) and a man looking out for his own interests in choosing a wife.
In case the distinction isn’t obvious, consider what a woman stands to lose in making a poor choice of a husband since she will be leaving the authority, protection and provision of her father for that of her husband.
In light of this distinction, I think the “MUST” word, among other language in your post is too strong to fit what I suspect is your true aim. As others have said, it is well for a man to choose wisely when he picks a potential wife and having a list of desirable traits that help him in that decision is good. However, making those desirables into imperatives seems unjustified here.
While I find nothing necessarily wrong with the content of the list of requirements ( they are indeed good and desirable), I suppose what strikes me most is the constant MUST. This primarily is what smacks of idealism bordering on relationship-legalism, so to speak.
As you probably know, unfortunately, the medium is the message. When I was dating, I set a few items as non-negotiables (at this point, I don’t even remember what they were anymore) and counted everything else as either secondary or even tertiary. The main question for me was: If the Holy Spirit never sanctifies this person beyond their current state, could I be satisfied and happy in marriage?
The seeming danger, as already pointed out, is that you may potentially crush the spirit of most women who might be interested as they measure themselves against this list. On the flip side, you may just end up single for a very long time if your standards continue to appear so rigid.
As always though, your post is thought-provoking and enjoyable to discuss.
Wow, I must admit that I am surprised at the amount of comments this blog has acquired. Thank you everyone who has read and commented on this blog!
I am quite surprised at how much negative response this post has received. These MUSTs seem realistic. In fact, nearly none of the responses to this blog have actually addressed the list specifically. Future comments ought to address the actual content of this blog. To claim merely that this list is lacking in something like grace is really writing nothing at all because I admitted in the blog that “Clearly, more could be written on this list.” In fact, I invited more characteristics to be mentioned – which could very well include grace. Still yet, this list was never meant to be exhaustive. I wrote nothing of the connection which rightly needs to be present between both Christians, a connection to which even the Bible speaks (Proverbs 30:19). Also, many of the marriage related comments are, as Jonathan mentioned, out of the discussion at hand. So, I will avoid addressing those.
Now, I have specific comments to individuals who commented. I also intend all the individuals who have commented to read all the comments to everyone else since some of what they wrote will be answered in response to others.
Greg, this list is intended to define precisely what it means for a woman to love Jesus. Without speaking of tangible manifestations of what loving Jesus looks like that phrase can become quite meaningless.
Dave, you have misinterpreted Proverbs 31. This list is in fact given from the mother of King Lemuel to him so that he would learn how to pick a wife (Pro 31:1). In addition, the way it is written helps with this – it is an acrostic with each line beginning with a new letter in the Hebrew alphabet. Thus, this list was intended for memorization for young men to recall when they see a woman in whom they might be interested. For further explanation, see the commentaries by Garrett, Longman, Kidner, and Waltke. Thus, and this comment is also directed to the others, if this section of Scripture is written for this purpose then it is also authoritative for Christian men and women today. Paul explains that all Scripture is God-breathed and thus is authoritative and is thus to be taught as such (2 Tim 3:16). If any of you disagree with this attribute of Scripture, then that is your prerogative. Nevertheless, at TVN we hold to this attribute and thus seek to see how it applies in our everyday lives.
Meghan, I am actually dating someone with whom you went to college and even served with on a ministry team who actually thinks this list is pretty normal and, as she said, “common sense.” In addition, perhaps legalism should still not be used because now it is taking on an entirely different meaning. Also, I would ask you to consider Greg’s comments about standards. Scripture presents these to us. We must give them due thought and application.
Joel, thanks for commenting on the actual list. But, I think you have misinterpreted 1 Pet 3:7 by assuming that Peter is discussing emotional strength. Perhaps he is discussing something other than what you mentioned. His main point in mentioning this is to preface what he is about to write in 3:8-9: “8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;
9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.” Peter does not explain exactly what he meant by referring to women as “weaker.” Thus, as interpreters we must have more exegetical humility than claiming we know precisely to what he was referring.
In addition, your comments on the third MUST are a bit off given that some circumstances could be different. If you, and others, have read this MUST in this fashion then I would suggest that your application of it need not be so rigid.
Everett, I would agree that a distinction is present between a father’s concern for his daughter and a man’s concern for his future wife. Nevertheless, simply because a distinction exists does not mean that from the man’s position this situation is any less serious. And no, this is not for his “own interests in choosing a wife.” Consider the implications of the wife which is chosen. One’s children will be affected, one’s ministry will be affected, one’s broader family will be affected, one’s employment could be affected (especially in ministry situations), etc., which will all impact how well one brings glory to God in all aspect of life. Also, consider the authoritative nature of this passage and that other Scripture makes certain requirements for other things. Perhaps the Scriptures have something authoritative to say, by implication, to this particular circumstance.
Josh, if the content is good and desirable, then why would it be wrong to consider these as necessary requirements? If by “idealism” you mean “living by high ideals” then I daresay nothing is wrong with that term. In fact, I quite like it. We should in fact live by the high ideals presented in Scripture. Also, this “relationship-legalism” needs a different term given the actual legalism. This is something that was made up by the commentators of this blog. Also, your question concerning sanctification speaks to exactly what the content of this blog addresses. That is, I am addressing what I believe the “current state” of this woman should be. If you and others disagree with my description then that is fine. But, with which would any disagree and actually be able to say that a woman could be excused from any of these?
Christie, whose comment is missing from my screen at the moment, women actually can embody these things. Which of these things do you find unrealistic and unbiblical?
Finally, one of the reasons why I wrote this post is to reveal how much more thought needs to take place on what Christians think about dating. And, that this thought needs to be informed by authoritative biblical teaching. I also want to thank everyone who has read and responded because now I have several topics for future blogs on the issue of dating. Also, I will only respond to future comments which deal with the actual content of the blog in a specific fashion. Everyone who reads this blog is entitled to disagree with me. Nevertheless, we should expect to use Scripture properly if we are going to disagree, especially given that it is our source of authority.
- Ben
Ben, yeah, I get it. But I don’t think I necessarily misinterpreted the passage. Lemuel didn’t write it when he was a youth, more than likely. But, yes it was written for youths in order to train them to find a noble wife. I believe in the authority/inerrancy of Scripture. I don’t think anyone here would claim otherwise.
But, the picture in Prov 31 is of an ideal wife. It is not meant to be an exhaustive criteria of “musts.” As for interpreting Proverbs, they are mostly are general truths, not a list of “musts.” I believe you are adding to Scripture when you do this. When you say ” if a woman fails to meet the aforementioned requirements of what a woman MUST be, then she is not worth it,” it comes across pretty harsh towards women. Again, this is not a list that every woman must live up to in order to be perceived as “worthy” of your time, although she should pursue those qualities.
As a Christian man, I would not let you date my daughter if this were your approach towards her. An impressive Christian man sees his own faults and seeks to change, and in pursuing a woman he should seek to be making her more beautiful, nurturing and cherishing her in order to make her into the woman whom God desires her to be. As a man, your role is sacrificial love in pursuing a woman, not telling her she needs to live up to a “must” list. That is cowardly, and can be emotionally damaging to a woman over time.
Ben,
My comment was that I believe you should have said “actively pursuing” rather than MUST. To say that a woman MUST be all of those things implies that she cannot fail in any of those areas and seems to be a bar set higher than any human can obtain.
I do not disagree that these are all biblical requirements for BOTH men and women. However, I do feel that no man or woman can ever live up to them at all times while still on earth – especially the MUSTs on optimism, dignity, etc. – hence why I agree with Grace that “actively pursuing” is a far more appropriate statement. To say that one is actively pursuing optimism allows grace for moments of pessimism interspersed in a life seeking to be optimistic. To say that one MUST be optimistic does not.
I’ll let this be my final thought and to serve as clarification to my previous comment. As I said, I find nothing particularly objectionable about any of the characteristics you listed. However, what strikes me, (and I suspect others who have commented negatively) is that the use of MUST before all 18 lines. When I read this it implied two things to me:
1) They must be fully-developed and ever-present, and 2) These 18 are rigid, non-negotiable, and without exception; either she shows all or none at all.
This is why I have trouble fully-affirming your list: it seems unrealistically high (that was the idealism I referred to, but you knew that) and uncharitable.
This was probably the trouble that both Grace and Christie were referring to when they suggested that you replace some of your musts with “Actively Pursuing.” And I suspect, or at least hope, that you could affirm that. Because if you could look at a young woman and say, “Yes, she meets 1, 2, 10, and 14, and is actively pursuing the rest, but hasn’t attained; therefore I cannot date her,” then you are cruelly rigid.
One of the blessings of godly relationships is that at the end of it (if it doesn’t consummate in marriage), then both of you love Jesus better for having been involved together. Therefore, if the girl I was interested in dating struggled with #15, resolving conflict, it wasn’t grounds for giving up on a relationship, but instead I saw it as an opportunity for helping her grow in grace. This sort of shepherding will continue throughout a lifetime of marriage together.
Therefore, when I was dating, my then-girlfriend, I asked if she met only a handful of non-negotiable standards 1) Does she have a tangible love for Jesus Christ? 2) Does she show a tangible love for the Church? 3) Can we have intelligent, meaningful conversations together? 4) Is she teachable? 5) Do we laugh together? Everything else on your list above, I would have affirmed but said that they must at least be present in embryonic form not as MUSTs.
I would also caution you, Ben, to give thoughtful pause to the response you’ve been receiving. Given where you are posting and the kind of people who are inclined to comment on the Veritas Network, maybe it should say something to you that the overwhelming response you’ve received as been critical instead of affirmative. But again, I say that this probably as more to do with the *way* your list was articulated instead of the actual content.
Again, I always enjoy our conversations together, Ben, as you live out a life insistent upon a thoroughly biblical worldview.
Josh – You expressed what I was trying to say much more eloquently than I did. =)
Ben,
Thanks for responding to my comment. I do agree that we should not jump to conclusions as to what any biblical author means when it is not explicit in the text itself. However, the fact that we do not know what Peter meant when he said women are weaker vessels followed by a list of virtues only proves further that Christian men should not be so strict in their expectations on future mates.
In defense of my critique of your third MUST, I realize this circumstance may not apply to everyone, which is why neither yours nor mine can be an imperative (a MUST). I am merely pointing out that if you were in my situation, you could not date such a girl, given your current criteria, because she doesn’t have a job.
Thanks everyone for responding to this post. I certainly did not think it would receive this kind of attention!
Dave,
I supported my interpretation of Prov 31 with commentaries and you did not. Perhaps more research is needed here. Proverbs are obviously general truths. Nevertheless, they are still binding. Furthermore, as was stated in the post, my list of MUSTs is what I believe Prov 31 looks like today. If you disagree with that then that’s fine.
The quote you cited was taken out of context. It was directed towards men. It was not my intention for this to sound harsh to women. It was my intention, however, to indicate that Christian women should be quality, bearing the aforementioned attributes.
Finally, unless your daughter fit these non-negotiables I listed then I wouldn’t ask to date her. I am kind of surprised by the entire last paragraph because it seems to be directed more towards me as a person rather than the content of this blog. Please direct future comments to the content rather than at the author of the post. Thanks.
Christie,
I meant the MUST to connote non-negotiables. But, these are also presented as general truths about this woman. That is, generally speaking, she must read her Bible regularly. Thus, if she has a week where she is too busy for whatever reason, I will still date her. But, if she never reads it, then that is when I would not date her.
I also think this list, as high as it is, is realistic for believers. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is too high?
Josh,
Please read the comments to others as well. These MUSTs were never meant to be so rigidly applied.
I am not sure what you mean by “they must at least be present in embryonic form.” Perhaps you could explain further?
Also, a very small percentage of readers actually respond. In fact, some have responded to me through other means, even affirming my list. Nevertheless, I have been considering the responses I have received.
Joel,
Peter was talking about current wives, not future mates. So I do not think your comment is correct. Furthermore, Prov 31 seems to indicate that women should be a certain way and that King Lemuel is to look for in a woman, as prescribed by his mother. Perhaps this passage has implications for men looking for future mates.
I think you are abusing the third MUST. Nevertheless, I do not know of any woman, who is post-college, who does not have a job and/or is not looking for one. So yeah, I probably wouldn’t date her if she did not have one or was not looking for one.
Ben,
The problem that I have with your list is that I’m not sure that anyone is going to embody all of those characteristics EVERY day (particularly things such as dignity, not prone to complaining, uplifting words, etc.). By saying MUST, the list seems to be nearly impossible to live out every day due to the sinful nature that still exists.
Possibly, the biggest problem for me in this post is the tone felt harsh to me, as if there was no room for failure. Your most recent comment softened that tone, so I don’t believe that you intended the original post to sound as harsh as it did, but I do think that there would be some wisdom in considering the tone of a post of this nature in the future.
Ben,
I don’t know you, but forgive me for proffering two thoughts:
I’m siding with whomever said this list is a bit legalisitic. Legalism doesn’t just mean “keeping the law for salvation.” It certainly can mean that, but its base meaning is one of being servile to the law rather than the law being a servant/tool of that which it protects. Solzhenitsyn was masterfully clear on this point. In your case, this list is a bit too much of a master whereas it should be a tutor.
And in regards to Dave’s supposed misreading of Proverbs and his scandalous failure to cite commentaries (of all things!), we should remind ourselves here of the purpose of interpretation. Augustine persuasively argued that it was to build up love of God and love of neighbor. What it absolutely cannot be is about who is “right.” I believe Dave’s interpretation has more ‘charitas’ in it, which is why I would argue for its superiority – regardless of the pantheon of commentaries one may or may not be able to muster. You are perhaps more interested in the ‘via’ or the route of interpretation, but having failed to achieve ‘charitas,’ you have yet to travel far enough with the text. Once again, I defer to Augustine.
Finally, if there’s one MUST you left off your list, it’s this: She MUST be a human.
Love covers over a multitude of sins, brother. And a woman who loves Christ, and yet lacks some of these “musts,” will develop many of the qualities you desire to see if she has a man leading her and serving her like Christ loves the church.
No one disputes that the qualities you list are good. They only dispute the spirit with which they are listed.
Respectfully,
Tyler
Tyler,
Thanks for your comments.
Legalism is still the wrong term because it is a soteriological term, unless your suggesting that I am claiming that trying to date someone like the aforementioned to merit salvation. At that point this term would begin being used correctly in our dialogue. As of yet, however, it has been misused.
I’m claiming that Dave is wrong and that other scholars would disagree with him. I disagree with Augustine and I can since he is not my authority, though he appears to be yours. Augustine also claimed, in that same book which he wrote the comment you cited, that even if people have divergent interpretations that it is fine if both persons love God more because of their interpretation. That’s nonsense. God’s Word is meant to be understood, such that right and wrong interpretations exist. Thus, we should seek for our interpretations to be correct.
As I said in the blog, more could be listed.
Ben Montoya
Good discussion guys. I believe the proverbial horse has been beaten (or whatever that saying is). The majority holds that Ben’s MUSTS are little extreme or legalistic (however one defines extreme or legalistic).
We have also concluded that the aforementioned principals from Ben are good to strive for, but the grace of Jesus Christ and his work of sanctification are even better.
Thanks Ben for your hard work in thinking though this article and for boldly and intelligently defending your positions.
Blessings,
Greg Gibson
Good points to have as a framework in courting. Keep this in mind, Christian women are not born that way. They grow over the years to become Christian women after they come to know Christ. The same is for Christian men. This means all Christian men and women have something to work on when they first meet and for the rest of their lives. So that means you and I have a lot of work ahead of us.
Amen, Alan. Great thoughts!
Thanks for your comment, Alan!
Reblogged this on I am one wired heart. . ..