Jane Gets It

I'm getting off to a bit of a slow start this year with my reading list. It's the end of January, and I just finished my first book last week for my book group: Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. It was an interesting read from the perspective that it was Austin's first novel, and reading it was a study in the growth of a great writer. While it wasn't a well-crafted book, the seeds of Austen's greatness were there, and it was intriguing to see how far she'd come in creating fascinating characters by the time she got to Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and Sense and Sensibility.

Perhaps because the characters and the plot weren't that compelling, though, I paid closer attention to the manners and behaviors of the characters in the book, and it made me wish that our own approach to male/female relationships, courtship/dating, and marriage resembled that era's approach more closely.

Several observations that are neither profound or new from Austen's era:

• Men didn't consider marriage as an option until they were settled in a career and were confident that they could provide financially for a wife and family. In this novel, the male love interest was in his late twenties and was a minister and Catherine, the female interest, was seventeen.
• If a respectable young man approached a respectable young woman and asked her to dance or otherwise spend time socially with him, that young woman could reasonably assume that he had an interest in marrying her. Not a done deal, mind you. But that was clearly a possibility. Otherwise he wouldn't have approached her. It was all taken very seriously.
• Young men and women who were getting to know one another typically didn't go off by themselves. There was usually a chaperone--a sister, brother, friend--who accompanied them.
• There was a concern for behaving properly and a healthy consideration of what others might think.

Probably one of the things I've taken away from my adult dating experiences is that we really haven't thought carefully enough or taken seriously enough the nature of relationships between single men and women. We've created a system that works well for some, but disastrously for most. From the time we're junior highers, we "hook up" with a member of the opposite sex who interests us, and when that person stops interesting us, we move on. And so by the time we finally do marry someone, we've been involved in varying degrees of both emotional and physical intimacy with several people. We gamble with our sexual purity, and some of us win, but many of us lose.  And now we carry as baggage the hurts of all of our broken relationships--right into our marriage.

On several occasions in my singleness I talked with my former pastor about the strangeness of the dating scene, and one of his observations was that Scripture doesn't depict men and women in an intermediate, try-each-other-out-for-size phase of a relationship. He observed that Scripture speaks about brothers and sisters in Christ and husbands and wives (and familial relationships, of course), but it doesn't ever protray an in-between category where we enjoy many of the benefits of marriage (and I'm not just talking about sex--but companionship, emotional intimacy, and some levels of physical intimacy) without being married or without any intention of being married.

I've tried to discourage my children from getting involved in dating relationships until they're in a position in life where they're ready to get married, but the frustrating thing is that no one, even in the church, seems to think that way. We teach our young people--sometimes by what we do say and sometimes by our silence--that pairing off with a member of the opposite sex is just a reasonable, normal, and, in fact, fine thing to do as we grow up--kind of like getting a driver's license. And so, despite Henry's and my best advice, our daughter has a boyfriend, and, as freshmen in college, they're several years away from even beginning to think about marriage. But to suggest another way is to be countercultural, old-fashioned, and unrealistic.

But what if we taught our young people the Austen/eighteenth-century approach? What if we taught our sons that they really shouldn't think about a relationship with a young woman until they were prepared to get married--agewise, careerwise, and emotionally? What if we taught them that a girl who isn't their family member is a sister in Christ, and she should be treated with respect and dignity? What if we taught our children what we adults all know is true--that it's nigh unto impossible to maintain sexual purity in a male/female relationship where we've invested our emotions, our time, our bodies to some extent? And for that reason, we should wait to make that kind of investment until we're prepared to get married? What if we encouraged them to be friends with one another until they had achieved a maturity level where they were ready for marriage? What if we taught them that the relationship they should be building during their teen and early adult years is their relationship with Christ--which would help them one day to have a healthier marriage relationship?

And now you may be thinking that all of that is unrealistic, old-fashioned, impractical and would never work. And yet I've had dating relationships the modern way, and I've had one--the best ever--the Jane Austen way. Modern dating led to frustration, disappointment, and hurts. The Austen way led me to the most romantic courtship and marriage I could have ever imagined.

Dear Kristi . . .

My sister Kristi went to heaven twenty years ago today. She would have turned forty this past December 6. If I could talk to her, this is what I might begin to say to her.

Dear Kristi,

Wow! Twenty years ago today you went to heaven to be with Jesus. Sometimes it seems like time has flown past in a blur, but other times--when I think about all that has happened in twenty years, the others who have left us, the new people that have come into my life, the fact that I've very nearly raised two children to adulthod--it seems like I feel every second of that twenty years.

You know, of course, about Jon. I'm sure you're with him often--maybe even now. He probably told you about Katie and Jonathan. I'm so sorry that he didn't get to know them very long. I'm so sorry you didn't get to know them at all. Did he tell you what they were like when he had to leave them? Katie in so many ways reminds me of you--good and bad. She really doesn't look anything like you--except for her height--and Jon probably told you about her gorgeous red hair. We've often wondered if you asked God to send us a little redhead. And you know she's named after you--Kathleen Kristi Lynn. What else could I have named her?

She's stubborn like you, likes to talk, loves music, and definitely has her own sense of style--like you. She keeps her room a mess. She takes joy in little children--like you did. Mom says Katie was her "rainbow," her promise that there was still good in this life. It's a little crazy, but she does something else weird that you did--she doesn't wear socks in the winter. Everytime I see her all bundled up--coat, hat, and gloves--I look down at her feet, and she's not wearing any socks because "they don't look good with flats." And I immediately think of you. Even after twenty years, you're not far from the edges of my mind.

And Jonathan! You would have loved seeing him as a little boy. I look at pictures of  him from the past, and he was, without a doubt, the most beautiful little boy I've ever seen. It's hard to tell, at this point (he's sixteen), just who he is and what he will become, but he's smart--like Jon. He loves history and politics. He and Dad are best buddies--and always have been. They watch car races together, go to Taco Bell together (can you believe Dad eats at Taco Bell?), and Jonathan tells him the things he doesn't tell anyone else. It's been hard for him, all these years, having to live with two women, but he's starting to grow up, and I'm eager to see how God will use him and his abilities.

The years after Jon went to heaven were pretty hard. Here I was--early thirties, two little kids, and stuck in Michigan--away from my family. Mom and Dad were still reeling from losing you, and then Jon. They are my heroes, though. They moved up to Michigan, and they helped me raise the kids. We have quality parents. I taught school for awhile, had a brief stint working in a bookstore, went a couple of rounds with depression, dated (ugh!--a topic I'll save till I see you), and finally ended up with a job I love. All those years I couldn't help but wonder why God would take both you and Jon. So many times I've wished I could have my sister to pour my heart out to; to go shopping with; to make me laugh like you always did; to go on weekend getaways; to love on my poor, fatherless kids. I needed you after Jon died, so I guess it's something I'll never understand. One of the times I miss you the most is when I see sisters together--like Mom and Aunt Lou or Aunt Carol. I have some dear friends that I thank God for, but none of them could ever be you to me.

The good news: God is faithful, and He's carried me through all of this stuff. I am a different (and better)person for having suffered loss. Although He's taken away, He's also given--in abundance. I have Mom and Dad and Katie and Jonathan, Tim and Zella and Elizabeth and Garrett. (I'll let Tim tell you about them--but I love to see the cousins together, and you would too.) And I've been surprised by joy, to borrow a phrase. Almost two years ago, God gave me Henry, a better man than I could have asked for or imagined. When we got engaged, Katie said, "Mom, you're like a Disney princess," and that's how I've felt because that's how he always treats me. It's strange that someone so dear to me knows nothing of you, but he knows loss like I do. His younger brother died back in the nineties. He knows pain. He loves music and has a beautiful tenor voice. He's a godly man, and he loves Katie and Jonathan too. By the way--I have my dream job. I'm an editor at a Christian book publishing company. Life is good.

But I do miss you so, and I think about you everyday. One day soon we will all be together again. By then, January 16 will be long forgotten as a day of sadness. I can't wait to join you in the Great Adventure--to introduce you to my children, to sing with you, laugh with you, talk to you, my little sister.

Love,
Annette

New in 2010

Happy New Year! I suppose that eleven days in still qualifies for a new year. It does seem like a long time since we were opening our gifts, celebrating with family, and visiting with friends on New Year's Eve, but even at that, I'm still trying to find my footing again and figuring out what to do with myself since the holiday busyness has wound down. Transitions can be a little unsettling at times

So since all of the possible "best of 2009" lists have been created and forgotten and we're a little bored with them by now, perhaps a better idea for my first post of 2010 is to  recount all of the new things that have come with a new year--at least for me.

• The biggest new thing is pictured above to the right. I wrote in my last post that Katie had an accident while she was driving my car to work. The Monday after Christmas, we learned that our insurance company had determined the car was totalled, and so the Tuesday after Christmas Henry and I--after some diligent research--went car shopping. I ended up with a 2007 Toyota Corolla, a car that we agree suits me much better than my Subaru Forester (which was an excellent car and served me well for eight years). My Toyota looks much like the one above, only it is black, my favorite car color. Also new is now getting used to driving a car that doesn't have all-wheel drive or an ABS, a challenging adjustment in a Michigan winter. It's all working out well.
• I have a new responsibility at our church. I have been asked to serve on our church's library committee, and since book buying is definitely one of my spiritual gifts, it's all going to work out well. Unfortunately, our committee chair broke her ankle right before Christmas, and with only a few days left in the year and lots of book money left in the budget, I asked if she minded if I purchased the books that my pastor (a great list that was about a page and a half long) and another Bible study leader had requested. It's been kind of exciting coming home from work to yet another box of new books. Now we need to process them and get them on the shelves.
• Another new thing is a responsibility I've completed. For a little over a year now, I've been editing grade 5 and 6 catechism curriculum for a new curriculum that has been developed by Pastor Scheuers and others in Chino, California. It's been an exercise in perseverance because often the last thing I'd want to do during the evening was yet more editing. But it's a worthy project, and it will be gratifying to see children in my own church, especially in fifth and sixth grade, carrying around the books that I edited next fall. It's new to come home from work, fix supper, and realize that I don't have to work on the catechism. And this leaves me open for some more new editing opportunities for Reformed Fellowship, the organization that my own Henry is president of.
• I have new book review published in the January/February issue of  Modern Reformation magazine. Last year I submitted my review of Why We're Not Emergent, and it finally made it in.
• I'm starting a new reading list. I actually exceeded my reading goal for 2009: reading one fiction and one nonfiction title a month. I'm going to keep the goal the same this year. I failed to meet my goal of reading Calvin's Institutes during the Calvin 500 year celebration, but I got about halfway through, and I'm still plugging away.

So these are the things that are new for me in 2010. I'm sure there will be more, because if there's one thing that isn't new, it's that everything changes, often faster than we can keep up.