First, I have to explain why we are doing this gimmick with gnomes and not some other creature.
My mom used to have this little pair of porcelain statues that she kept in her china cupboard. You may have seen this type of thing before. They were shaped like a little Dutch boy and girl in stylized traditional costume, and they were both leaning forward adorably with their eyes closed. You were supposed to position them facing each other so that they appeared to be kissing …. which, of course, Mom always did.
I didn’t think much of these figures when I was younger. I took them for granted, as one does. They were readily available in Holland, Michigan, near where we lived.
But this year, as I was reviewing Mary Harrington’s book and thinking about the Prov. 31 woman, it occurred to me that those little figures were teaching us a profound lesson. I thought I would like to photograph them for a blog post.
But alas, the Dutch boy and girl were either in storage, or lost.
The next step was to buy a similar pair of my own. It was around Thanksgiving, so I thought the home decor store might have such a set. Boy and girl Pilgrim? Boy and girl Indian?
Long story short, the closest I could get was football-fan gnomes.
This isn’t a complete disaster. I like gnomes, and Mr. Mugrage and I are now football fans (though these gnomes are not wearing the colors of our sons’ team).
But anyway, if you find kissing boy-and-girl sculptures (especially Dutch ones), please send them to me. In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Gnome will do nicely for our illustration of a matching set.
You see … this is not patriarchy. A man by himself cannot be a patriarch.
And this … is not matriarchy. A woman by herself cannot be a matriarch.
You see, term “patriarch” OR “matriarch” implies the existence of a household. It implies that the “-arch” has had children and possibly grandchildren with a member of the opposite sex (hence the patr- or matr- part), to whom they are married, and with whom they are now ruling over this household (hence the -arch part), seeing that it prospers. This situation is simply not possible without either the mom or the dad. If the dad is a patriarch in the true sense of the term, then he has a matriarch beside him, and as the -arch implies, she is receiving just as much honor in her motherly role as is he in his fatherly one.
See, like this:
What those little kissing Dutch figures were trying to tell us is that patriarchs and matriarchs are a matching set.
Happy Valentine’s Day to all you gnomes out there!
Once upon a time, in the 1950s, dating just meant “going on a date.” It was a very short-term commitment, lasting only a few hours. You went out for ice cream or whatever, and then you went home. If you couldn’t stand the person, there was a natural limit to how long to you had to spend with them (the length of the date). If you liked each other, you might go on another date some time. But you were not bound to go on date after date with the same person. The idea was to go out with a variety of people, to get a sense of what sort of person might be for you. Eventually, you might “go steady” with a person you really liked, and maybe eventually get married.
But then … the Sexual Revolution happened. The expectation that a date might mean actually having sex was introduced. Suddenly, dating a variety of people made less sense. It clashed with the old-fashioned sexual mores (and with common sense) that said it wasn’t good to sleep around. Now, “going steady” with one person became the norm, and people who dated around were seen in a negative light. After all, if you were going to be sexually involved with somebody, it had better be with just one person at a time.
Futhermore, because this was a big societal shift, now nobody knew what the rules were. On the part of some of the drivers of the sexual revolution, this was intentional. They thought that society, rules, and norms as such were inherently oppressive, and that getting rid of all these things would usher in a hippie, free-love paradise. What it actually ushered in was total confusion. And while total confusion might work to the advantage of a few libertines who want to live completely unrestricted, it stresses out regular people (especially young people) who just want to know what they are supposed to do.
This confusion has persisted from my generation (X) down to the present day. It creates endless amounts of frustration, misunderstanding, and wheel-spinning as generation after generation struggles to re-invent the wheel. It also creates lots of tension and hostility between the sexes, because as it turns out, the way men naturally approach things and the way women do, do not mesh terribly well when completely unguided by any kind of norm.
The secondary car crash, caused by the train wreck
Christians, naturally, had their own reactions to all of this. We looked at modern dating, which could mean getting very sexually involved as a teen, cohabiting as a young adult, and so on, clapped our palms to our cheeks, and went “AAAAAG! This is not right!” Nor were we wrong. When I was growing up, in the 90s, the choice seemed to be between trying to do the highly risky methods of modern dating – but hopefully in such a way that you didn’t have sex before marriage, although that was kind of a crapshoot to be honest – or taking the sensible course and not dating at all. I, and many other Christians, went for the latter, but this left us without any path to get to know the opposite sex or find a suitable spouse.
Some Christian communities decided that the solution to all this confusion was “courtship” — or, as some called it, “biblical courtship.” One of the early advocates of this system was Douglas Wilson, a pastor and writer for whom I still have great deal of respect. Courtship seemed to a lot of people, myself included, like a godly alternative to the train wreck we were witnessing. Unfortunately, in an effort to avoid the train, the courtship car drove directly into the other ditch, into a wreck that was equally fiery. That’s what Thomas Umstattd Jr.’s book is about.
Components of Courtship
As older Gen Xers, my now-husband and I dodged a bullet on this one. We had both read some Douglas Wilson and we both saw the problems with modern dating since the 60s, and so when we met and realized we kinda liked each other, we wanted to do some kind of courtship. However, both of us were adults, out of the house, and living hundreds of miles away from our parents. I had gone to university, then lived with my parents again for a year while working so I could go to missions school. My husband, almost a decade older, had been to university, grad school, and had lived in various countries overseas. So, we were fully launched. Still, we tried to “court.” My husband e-mailed my dad (yes, e-mailed) and asked for permission to date me. I called my dad and said, “Aren’t you going to ask me what I think?” and he said, “Well, I assume you like him?”
In our case, “courtship” ended up meaning little more than meeting each other’s parents, getting to know them, and showing them honor as we prepared for marriage. And that’s certainly not a bad thing. But it’s very different from how it was implemented in some Christian communities, where the parents were hard-core.
When I write about courtship online, defining courtship often becomes the most controversial point in the comments. I believe that the lack of clear definition may be contributing to the crisis.
Each community feels that its form of courtship is superior to the others. Many feel that any problem pointed out in Modern Courtship as a whole doesn’t apply to them.
Umstattd, p. 53
As such, Umstattd describes courtship with a list of common characteristics:
Modern Courtship is exclusive (only court one person at a time – not like 1950s dating)
Courtship is explicitly “for the purpose of marriage.” “This kind of thinking leads to unintended consequences. Offering to take a girl out for ice cream is tantamount to asking for her hand in marriage. Awkward!” (p. 54)
Courtship requires parental approval. “Modern Courtship gives parents the right to veto any relationship. In essence, they have only a very definitive no vote. The more people in the relationship with a no button in front of them, the higher the likelihood that one of them will press it. The result is that fewer people get married.” (p. 56 – 57)
Courtship requires high accountability. “The courtship trend of high accountability at the beginning of the relationship and lower accountability as the couple moves towards marriage is exactly backward. First dates are awkward enough without a third wheel sitting there not talking — or worse, not shutting up.” (p. 58)
Courtship comes packed with purity rules. “‘The problem,’ [one man] said, ‘was that we were so accountable, we never had a moment to get to know each other. Sure, we didn’t have physical temptation, but we also didn’t have quality social interaction. After we got married, I felt like I’d married a stranger.'” (p. 59)
Courtship is intentional and intense. “Greater intensity leads to greater awkwardness. There is a lot to be said for slowing down and reducing the intensity.” (p. 62)
Courtship requires marital readiness. Most people do not feel ready to get married when they are young. They worry about finances, or about finding or being the perfect person. But a good model is to get married young. Most people will never feel ready.
These bullet points are taken from pages 53 to 64 of the book.
Uh oh, we turned the dial the wrong way!
Getting too serious too soon is a problem that Modern Dating and Modern Courtship share. Both of these systems result in singles going through one committed, heartbreaking relationship after another. They differ only in frequency and style of intensity. Modern Dating is more physically intense, while Modern Courtship of often more emotionally intense. Going steady too soon is one of the leading causes of unnecessary heartbreak for young people.
ibid, p. 88
In other words, the courtship crowd, in an effort to fix the inappropriate sexual involvement of modern dating, turned the dial in exactly the wrong direction: in the direction of more intensity, not less! This leads to more heartbreak, not less. That, if I had to sum it up, is the thesis of this book.
Umstattd goes into some detail about additional problems, one of which is the enormous amount of leverage that the courtship system gives to overprotective dads. The result is young men who are never allowed even to take a young woman out for coffee, and consequently feel like failures, and young women who feel unattractive, unaware that there are many young men who would like to date her, but her dad has been screening them out without even telling her.
How to date like a normal person
The [Christian] Baby Boomers created the rules of courtship out of fear. They wanted to protect their children from the mistakes they made during the Sexual Revolution and its aftermath. The rules came from good intentions.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, millions of young people embraced the tenets of courtship in part or in whole. And it’s no wonder why — in a culture where we demonized dating, and divorce ran rampant, Modern Courtship seemed like the only alternative.
Many of those young people are still single today, but they don’t have to be.
If you’re one of the millions of frustrated singles, there’s hope for you: there’s an easier path to marriage that’s more fun and still honors God.
If we want to get back to the marriage rates of our grandparents, we need to learn from them and adopt their approach. It’s my hope that the Traditional Dating practiced by our grandparents will be part of the solution to resolving the Courtship Crisis.
Umstattd, p. 68
In other words, according to Umstattd, the way to date like a normal person is to date the way your grandmother (or maybe now, great-grandmother) would have: don’t go out with the same fellow twice, and be home by ten.
I really wish this had been the system when I was growing up. Courtship wasn’t really a thing in my circles, so we were left, as I said, with Sexual Revolution or Nothing. Or Make It Up As You Go. Consequently, although not scarred by purity culture or courtship, I was one of those women who felt unwanted and never got asked out … and was afraid to say yes on the rare occasions when I was.
I would like my kids to be able to enjoy the practice of Traditional Dating. However, there’s a problem. Traditional Dating, like any society- or community-wide custom, depends upon everybody knowing the rules. Everybody does not know the rules. In my observation, most Zoomers still have the expectation that once a boy and girl go out or hang out once, they are “a couple” until further notice (whether that means they are sexually involved or not), and would have to “break up” if they wanted to go out with someone else. I’d like to take this pressure off our kids. But, as with so many cultural rebuilding tasks, it looks as if we are going to have to do this the hard way. Which means doing it on a case-by-case basis, with parents of Christian young people talking to one another about norms and expectations.
I would really love it if the parents of all the young women my sons know would read this book.
One Last Disclaimer
A major goal of the courtship trend, as well as purity culture (“guard your heart!”) was to avoid heartbreak. And yes, there is a large amount of totally unnecessary heartbreak that the sexual revolution had brought to those who faithfully practices its tenets. (Idols always devour their worshippers.) I absolutely agree that it ought to be possible to live in this world without throwing your heart and body out into the arena, going out and collecting heartbreak after heartbreak, trauma after frustrating and degrading trauma.
However, that doesn’t mean that it’s possible to go from being a kid to being a married adult without ever getting your heart broke.
Being a teenager is rough in every society. You feel things more intensely. Finding a wife or husband is a challenge in every society. Most people are going to have some near misses.
In other words, no system, certainly not courtship but also not Traditional Dating, guarantees protection from living in a fallen world. And no system, however wise, guarantees every person a smooth, easy path to marriage.
When applying Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, we have to differentiate between biblical practice, principle, and command. Just because Jacob had two wives and a seven-year engagement doesn’t mean that God wants all men to have two wives and seven-year engagements.
What we have in the Old Testament are a lot of stories: each one different from the others.
Sometimes a woman is the protagonist in a romance (such as Ruth with Boaz) and at other times the man takes the lead (like Jacob with Rachel). There are arranged marriages (Isaac and Rebekah) and women who entered marriage through a harem (David and Abigail, Michal, and Bathsheba). Some women even chose their own husbands (Zelophehad’s daughters).
The Bible is surprisingly quiet when it comes to laying out a system of courtship. In fact, Jesus even qualified the Old Testament marriage laws when He said the divorce code was written because of the hardness of Israel’s hearts (Matt. 19:8).
The Apostle Paul, who is usually very direct, speaks with all kinds of qualifiers when talking about romantic relationships. He makes a special point to say that not all of his instructions are from the Lord in I Corinthians 7:25 – 28. I can’t think of another topic where Paul is this cautious with his words.
Could it be that God expects courtship systems to reflect the culture of the folks getting married?
What we need is a system to help young people make good decisions.
Many other book bloggers did “2024 Goals” posts in January. That seems like a nice way to generate a blog post, even if this goal post (haha) is a little late.
Finish woolen knee socks, to be worn with trousers, before Spring (for self)
Wanderer shawl: bias-knit chevron patterns to show off the beautiful striped yarn my sister gave me for Christmas (for self)
Brioche hat: continue to make different editions of this brioche hat, in different color combinations (gifts for various others)
Maybe try to ad lib a brioche bonnet (for sister in law?)
as the Spirit moves
TBSE
To be set up: My classroom in the new school building, which we hope to be moved into by Fall.
TBW
To be wrote: The book that goes with this map:
Last year, I went on a writing retreat in order to make some progress on the draft. At this rate, it looks as if I may have to do the same thing again.
TBC/P
To be cleaned/planted: Clean chicken coop (add more space for hens?), maybe actually plant a garden this year???
TB Top Secret
Various family events with loved ones, which privacy forbids blogging about.
A Caveat
Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”
Last week, I lost my voice for four days. (Actually, as I write this, it is Day 5 and my voice is coming back occasionally, fading in and out like an AM radio. By the time this post goes up, it will be “last week.”)
I didn’t even feel sick particularly. I had taken a shower, then gone outside with a hat over my wet hair to move my chickens into the garage because the temperatures were in the negatives. Turns out Grandma was right: don’t go outside with wet hair. By about 48 hours later, my voice was getting froggy, and the next day, it was gone.
I’m a Latin teacher. You see my dilemma.
I had always disliked talking to people (nearly always women) who whisper everything they say. Unless there is a baby sleeping in the house, these women always gave the impression that they were so much more elegant, refined and nice that I could never hope to compete. (And I couldn’t. I am naturally blunt, with a rich, resonant, rather loud speaking voice.) Now I was one of them. For the first day or two, I couldn’t make myself heard at all. After that, if I really forced the air out, I would sound like a tracheotomy patient … or like our President when he’s about to make what he considers a really telling point.
The first thing I found out is how terrific my students are. They happily complied with me teaching by mime. They helped read passages out loud to one another. They were far, far more cooperative than usual.
I know that someone is immediately going to make the point that this is why I should lower my voice to a whisper whenever the classroom becomes loud. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The problem with that is that is that you have to keep it up for quite a while before it starts working. Also, I don’t like to inflict a raspy whisper on my interlocutors as a matter of course. It sounds, frankly, unpleasant.
I actually had to whisper a lot more to my family at home than to my students at school. So much of what happens in the classroom is based on routines and chants that they already know. All I had to do was indicate the chant or poem or verse, and they could say it. At home, things are more organic. Needless to say, my family found the whisper unpleasant.
Second point: The instinct to match your interlocutor in tone and volume is really, really, strong. My students tended to whisper back to me, even though they knew they did not need to. Anybody I encountered in public, such as at the library or the diner, tended to do the same. Many of them, by the way, clearly found this annoying, which leads to the third discovery: I’m not the only one who feels shushed by people who whisper.
I hope you all don’t mind this personal-story post. I enjoy reading personal stories by the bloggers I follow from time to time.
Excerpt from a letter written by Mr. Weston, one of the Pilgrims’ financial sponsors, to Mr. Carver, governor of the Massachusetts settlement. This letter arrived by a second ship about a year after the Pilgrims’ arrival:
That you sent no lading in the ship [i.e. sent the Mayflower back empty] is wonderful [i.e. surprising], and worthily distasted. I know your weakness was the cause of it, and I believe more weakness of judgment than weakness of hands. A quarter of the time you spent in discoursing, arguing and consulting would have done much more, but that is past, etc. If you mean, bona fide, to perform the conditions agreed upon, do us the favor to copy them out fair and subscribe them with the principal of your names. And likewise give us account as particularly as you can, how our moneys were laid out. And then I shall be able to give them some satisfaction, whom I am now forced with good words to shift off. And consider that the life of the business depends on the lading of this [second] ship, which if you do to any good purpose, that I may be freed from the great sums I have disbursed for the former and must do for the latter, I promise you I will never quit the business, though all the other Adventurers [i.e., sponsors] should.
Thomas Weston, London, July 6, 1621
Here is an excerpt from William Bradford’s reply to Weston:
Your large letter, written to Mr. Carver and dated 6th of July 1621, I have received the 10th of November, wherein after the apology made for yourself you lay many heavy imputations upon him and us all. Touching him, he is departed this life and now is at rest in the Lord from all those troubles and encumbrances with which we are yet to strive. He needs not my apology; for his care and pains was so great for the common good, both ours and yours, as that therewith (it is thought) he oppressed himself and shortened his days; of whose loss we cannot sufficiently complain.
At great charges in this adventure I confess you have been, and many losses may sustain; but the loss of his and many other honest and industrious men’s lives cannot be valued at any price.
You greatly blame us for keeping the ship so long in the country, and then to send her away empty. She lay five weeks at Cape Cod whilst with many a weary step (after a long journey) and the endurance of many a hard brunt, we sought out in the foul winter a place of habitation. Then we went in so tedious a time to make provision to shelter us and our goods; about which labor, many of our arms and legs can tell you to this day, we were not negligent. But it pleased God to visit us then with death daily, and with so general a disease that the living were scarce able to bury the dead, and the well not in any sufficient measure to attend the sick. And now to be so greatly blamed for not freighting the ship doth indeed go near us and much discourage us.
William Bradform, Plymouth, November 1621
In fact, as Bradford writes, “Mr. Weston, who had made that large promise in his letter that if all the rest should fall off, yet he would never quit the business but stick to [the Pilgrims], if they yielded to the conditions, and sent some lading in the ship. But all proved but wind, for he was the first and only man that forsook them, and that before he so much as heard of the return of this [second] ship, or knew what was done.” (Of Plymouth Plantation, p. 104)
Out of Babel Books 