WE DON'T EVEN LIKE IT

Dear Professor Theophilus,

About the Office Hours column "Missionary Dating": I just wanted to say that not all guy and girl relationships are romantic. You seem dead-set that they are. My best friend happens to be a guy. And we spend lots of time together — "dates," by definition. But the thought of anything romantic disgusts us. We don't even like to hug or make affectionate touches towards each other. And I pursue other guys as romantic interests (and he hears all about them). So, I think your adamancy about all guy-girl relationships and all time spent together being romantic is a bit uncalled for.

Reply

It's amazing how determined some readers are to misunderstand that column. What I said was that all friendships between men and women are affected by the difference in sex; I didn't say that all friendships between men and women are romantic. Your friendship with this man, however, clearly is. Romance isn't the same as hugs and kisses. In fact, at a certain stage it can even be heightened by their absence. Didn't you know? That's especially true in a sex-drowned society like ours, where so many people are on the make. Romantic intimacy is impossible with someone who is always pressuring you for sex. It's such a relief to get away from the pressure that it's romantic not to hug and kiss.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

A QUESTION OF TIMING

Dear Professor Theophilus,

I enjoyed reading To Marry or To Burn." You said something that intrigued me:

True, the ridiculous length of time during which we keep people idle in order to educate them makes youthful marriages more difficult to manage economically today than in former ages. That problem is nothing to take lightly, but there are ways of dealing with it. Besides, we should adapt the educational system to human nature, rather than expecting human nature to adapt to the educational system.

I'd love to hear more about this.

Reply

It's not complicated. Think of a time when it was normal for people to be married in their teens. Most people were poor, but they were as well able to labor at that age as at any; other young men of common birth apprenticed at trades or went into commerce. Members of the noble class sometimes acquired various kinds of learning, but usually not at universities. Those who did matriculate at universities were few in number, often began when much younger than students today, and were frequently destined for holy orders — which meant, not marriage, but permanent celibacy. Most marriages were arranged, and no one was troubled by the fact. Adolescence, as we know it, did not exist; people passed directly from childhood to adulthood, and didn't expect an extended period of play in between. Various rituals dramatized the admission of the young person into the adult community.

That society had problems of its own, but making people go to school for many years between puberty and marriage was not one of them.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

TELL MARY FOR ME

I'm a new Christian, and I've laughed and cried and grown with some of your characters over the past 14 months or so. Are the stories you write recent or are they snippets from years of experience? At any rate, do me a favor and tell "Mary" that it's been a blessing to be able to read about her struggle to come to faith and the repercussions — I know how she feels sometimes, and it's been so freeing to read that I'm not alone in this.

Reply

The stories vary — some are nearly transcripts of actual conversations, but others are pure fiction. Of course, even the near-transcripts have to be edited so that they fit into 1,500 words, stay on point, have narrative coherency, and make Theophilus wiser than I am — and even the fictions incorporate snippets and themes from years of actual experience, just as you guessed. The character of Mary is a composite of lots and lots of new Christians whom I've loved, so I can't pass on your message directly. Fortunately, Theophilus doesn't have the same limitation, so I'll ask him to pass it on for me! I'm so glad that the story of her struggle has been liberating for you. The desire of my heart is that my column point to our Liberator.

Grace and peace,

THE AUTHOR

STRUGGLING WITH HELL

Dear Professor Theophilus,

I have a problem. I know God exists. I know God is just. I know God is love. But why doesn't He make it a little more obvious just Who He is? I have this answer: God must keep Himself partially hidden from us, because if we saw Him in all His glory, we would all perish (speaking of those not redeemed by Christ.) Thus, it's because of His love that He hides Himself — He allows us time to repent. But still, that answer just doesn't seem to satisfy my heart. Surely He could hide Himself in a little more obvious way? At least just make us choose between His existence and His non-existence, rather than the smorgasbord of actual religions?

Why does God allow so many religions to come into being? Each claims to be the one true way. But obviously, they can't all be. It's small comfort to be told "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." Yes, it helps me to believe in the goodness and love of God, yet I know that millions and millions of souls will be lost forever in tormenting fires. The Bible clearly says that many will end up there. Maybe even most — broad is the path that leads to destruction, but narrow the way that leads to life.

I tell you right now that I am really struggling with the reality of hell. Am I supposed to look at the millions passing me by going to hell and "rejoice in the Lord always"? And I suppose I could always go with the answer "what does the clay have to say to the potter" or perhaps "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me." Yet still I don't feel satisfied. How do you deal with it?

Reply

That's a long question. Actually it's two questions: Why doesn't God make His reality more obvious, and why does He allow millions and millions to go to hell? I'll answer by examining your assumptions. You assume (1) That the reality of God isn't obvious, (2) that people can't help being confused about Jesus, and (3) that millions and millions do go to hell. As to assumption (1), the implication of Romans 1 is that the reality of God is obvious. Paul doesn't scold the pagans because they ought to know about God but don't, but because they do know about God and pretend to themselves that they don't. He says everyone really knows about the Creator; we just torture ourselves (or comfort ourselves) with the idea that we don't — and our reasons for doing so aren't pretty. I know that's not the fashionable view, but I think it's the biblical view, and I think — as a former atheist — that it's true.

As to assumption (2): Jesus says plainly that His sheep know His voice, and follow Him. In other words, none of His sheep hear His voice and yet fail to recognize it. "Yes," you may ask, "But what about those to whom the Gospel has not come, or to whom it has been misrepresented?" Christ has not told us His provisions concerning them — but do you really want to tell the God whose very being is love that you won't trust Him to do the right thing unless He lets you in on the details, so that you can judge for yourself? Jesus also said, "And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." What that tells us is "I know all about your fears for them; trust Me."

Now as to assumption (3): The Bible doesn't tell us that millions and millions are going to hell. It doesn't give any figure at all. It says that the road is broad — meaning easy — but that doesn't tell us how many are on it. It says few are on the road to life, but even a large number may seem few to a God who is unwilling that any should perish. There may or may not be millions and millions on that road; God simply hasn't told us. So there's no point torturing ourselves about that either. We do know God's attitude toward suffering; he let Himself be nailed to the Cross for us, taking the worst of that suffering upon Himself. But we also know that He won't interfere if someone is determined to reject Him.

Here's what I want you to do. Go to a Christian bookstore, pick up the book The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, and read it. It's paperback, and it's a fast read — it's told in the form of a story. Lewis's theme is that the reason some people are in hell is that they want to be there. That may seem preposterous, but I think he's right. Read it and see what you think.

After you've read it, write back. I don't expect your questions will have disappeared, but I'd like to know whether they remain the same, or change.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

YOU MEAN IT HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING?

Hey Theophilus,

If you tell a person of the opposite sex "I love you," is engagement expected to follow closely thereafter? My girlfriend is hurt because it's been seven months since I first told her "I love you," and I haven't yet proposed. She buys into the idea that a man shouldn't keep a girl waiting too long for a proposal.

Also, when you say the words, "I love you," does it mean you should accept the person faults and all, rather than nit-pick and question his behavior?

Reply

To use the word "love" for a mere feeling — as you seem to have done — is careless and cruel. Authentic love is not a feeling, but a permanent commitment of the will to the true good of the other person. In a romantic context, therefore, the words "I love you" mean "I have resolved, if you will have me, to give the rest of my life to you alone." They are properly used only as a preamble to proposing, with marriage to follow shortly, and to speak them when no such intention has been formed is to use a woman's heart as your plaything.

A century ago, when people still knew how to deal with cads, you would have been horsewhipped by her father on the steps of your favorite hangout, and your only hope of redeeming your reputation would have been to submit meekly and publicly to the punishment. In our time that option is no longer available, but if you have any decency at all you will confess to her that you've been stringing her along.

I take it that the occasion of your second question is that she replied "I love you, too," and now you think you are beyond criticism. When a man loves a woman, he is more aware of his faults than of hers, and he ardently desires to become better for her sake. The answer, then, is that she doesn't have to accept all your faults; she doesn't have to accept you at all. Try to be more worthy of your next girlfriend, because if this one catches on she'll drop you like a hot potato.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS