Research Shows Anti-Christian Discrimination in Academia


Dr. George Yancey is a sociology professor and a self-proclaimed Christian at the University of North Texas (UNT).

Yancey earned his doctorate from the University of Texas at Austin and has since published a plethora of peer reviewed articles and books on hot topics, such as race and religion.

Last week Yancey spoke to the Christian Graduate Student (CGS) organization at UNT on his article published in Christianity Today entitled “Into the Academic Lion’s Den”. According to his research, and the research of others, Yancey discovered politically and religiously conservative academics are at a distinct disadvantage in academia.

“My research shows academics in higher education hold social conservatives and evangelical Christians in low esteem,” Yancey said. “My research is not the only research out there, if it was, you could say ‘he’s a crazy Christian thats gone off the bandwagon,’ but it’s not.”

As a place for higher learning, Yancey provides two main reasons why discrimination may exist against Christians in academia.

“Anti-intellectualism is a problem within Christianity,” Yancey said. “Part of it may be do to the academic treatment of Christians, but I also think it may be due in part to individuals who are Christians, that don’t want to do the hard work of digging intellectually into their faith.”

Yancey doesn’t shy away from intellectualism. In fact, if atheism or some other form of religion were more intellectually compelling, he claims he would change his religious view.

“Christianity is intellectually sound,” said Yancey. “If you can intellectually convince me otherwise, I would believe it.”

Yancey spoke to students about the need for Christians in higher education in order to diversify academia in ways otherwise ignored.

“As a Christian, it allows me to bring a different perspective into things from a different light,” Yancey said. “It brings another perspective and it enriches academia.”

Yancey advised Christians pursuing a career in academia to do some personal inventory before they undergo the challenges it may bring. Including the discrimination they may face while in college and also future employment.

“One researcher was looking for anti-Semetism in academia,” said Yancey. “What he actually found was anti-Evangelicalism among academics.”

The discrimination Christians have often faced in academia does not end in the class room. It begins there and moves outward.

“Research shows that if you are a conservative Christian, people are less willing to hire you,” said Yancey. “There are going to be difficulties and challenges because there is antipathy if you are a conservative Christian.”

Yancey reminded his listeners not be one dimensional in their educational pursuits, as he recalled his early work on religion that criticized Christianity.

“I learned that it is important to do research that both critiques and supports the church,” said Counseling graduate student Alexandra Rose, who attended the meeting. “One of the most important takeaways from the lecture was that we Believers need to be ‘on top’ of things both academically and spiritually.”

Rose expressed she was uniformed of the research Yancey’s presented and had yet to undergo any anti-Christian bigotry on campus.

“I wasn’t necessarily aware that Christians are viewed as anti-intellectual,” said Rose. “I cannot think of any personal experience of religious discrimination.”

The animosity some Christians students may or may not experience, is possibly due to their particular degree path.

“I have definitely heard some underlying comments against Christianity from my professors,” said History and Political Science Senior Zach Morgan, who snuck into the CGS meeting. “Before I went to the lecture, I wasn’t aware of the animosity graduate students may face.”

Yancey’s perspective has also contributed to understanding race relations in the United States.

“Part of my job is about bringing people together and that comes from my faith,” Yancey said. “On my last book on dealing with race I worked with another Christian academic.We researched the steps needed to bring people from different races together. Not merely documenting the problems and saying one group needs to do this and everything will be fine.”

To expand his argument, Yancey used marriage as an example of how the United States approaches race relations.

“They way we treat race relations in the United States is: my group has to win everything, or else were not happy,” said Yancey. “If you’re married, you know that does not work. You may win an argument 100%, but you know that there will be something to pay later on.”

Yancey asserts that a different perspective in academia is needed if we are really going to deal with racial issues.

“Certain people in academia believe that higher education is the answer to make people better,” said Yancey. “If you see some of the themes of how we approach things, education is going to do away with racism, its going to do away with homophobia, its going to do away with poverty – we just got to get people educated. Where as Christianity has the notion that humans are deprived and that an educated person is still a deprived person. The evils within us are not just something we can educate out of people.”

Despite the criticism some Christians may feel in academia, Yancey defends the need for the Christians perspective, and warns against the bias every worldview may bring.

“My Christian perspective has made me more critical,” Yancey said. “I have to be very careful, because we all have confirmation bias. So the things that I like Im going to be less critical toward than things I don’t like. And that is true for everyone. Im not unique in that; its true for academics who have more of a humanistic perspective; its true for me. I think thats actually a helpful thing because ideally in academia, even though this is not always how it plays out, you have people criticizing everything. I think I bring that to academia. I do criticize things that perhaps other people don’t criticize.”

Universities are ample in culture and religious diversity. Variance is one of the many factors that contributes to enriching these intellectual institutions. If the proponents of diversity only exemplify the differences found only within their particle schools of thought, then what is lacking is actually the very thing they proclaim to admire. A lack of diversity amongst the diverse is stagnate uniformity and intellectually impoverishing for all.


Disillusioned with Perfection

Humans have been intrigued by the prospect of achieving the apex of civilization for millennia. So enthused are we modern people at thought of human perfection that we look to the future of technology as our god who will unlock all the maladies of our condition. Gilgamesh is dead and we have inherited his search.

Is it likely we will ever achieve this zenith, when what we’re looking for is something we’ve never seen? Are we riding on an arrow with target in sight, or is what we’re trying to hit a moving delusion?

In an age of so-called progressivism, one tends to think that to turn back upon the pages of history is to turn back upon the pages of a barbaric people and watch the story unfold into the apogee of mankind. A book so fantastic its end could only be read from a heavenly perspective behind a cover of pearls on pages of gold.

I’m fascinated with noble pursuits of science and what it has solved for the sake of mankind. There is no doubt we’ve conquered monsters, from dragons to diseases, clergy to climate, Casper to cancer, geocentrism to geography, and yet we have incurred an even greater monster.

Optimism is a good thing, but when our last monster becomes the monster of being limited in anyway to anything, we’ve become optimistic monsters.

Remember the drunken man named History who mounts his valiant stead? His horse takes him one step forward before History falls off the left side. History gets back on only to fall back off to the right. And so History, like a drunken man, pinballs through time, rising and falling.

“We look back upon history, and what do we see? Empires rising and falling, revolutions and counterrevolutions, wealth accumulated and wealth disbursed. Shakespeare has written of the rise and fall of great ones, that ebb and flow with the moon.

I look back upon my own fellow countrymen (Great Britain), once upon a time dominating a quarter of the world, most of them convinced, in the words of what is still a popular song, that ‘the God who made them mighty, shall make them mightier yet.’

I’ve heard a crazed, cracked Austrian (Hitler) announce to the world the establishment of a Reich that would last a thousand years. I have seen an Italian clown (Mussolini) say he was going to stop and restart the calendar with his own ascension to power. I’ve heard a murderous Georgian brigand in the Kremlin (Stalin), acclaimed by the intellectual elite of the world as being wiser than Solomon, more humane than Marcus Aurelius, more enlightened than Ashoka.

I have seen America wealthier and, in terms of military weaponry, more powerful than the rest of the world put together–so that had the American people so desired, they could have outdone a Caesar, or an Alexander in the range and scale of their conquests.

All in one lifetime, all in one lifetime, all gone! Gone with the wind!

England, now part of a tiny island off the coast of Europe, threatened with dismemberment and even bankruptcy. Hitler and Mussolini dead, remembered only in infamy. Stalin a forbidden name in the regime he helped found and dominate for some three decades. America haunted by fears of running out of those precious fluids that keeps their motorways roaring, and the smog settling, with troubled memories of a disastrous campaign in Vietnam, and the victories of the Don Quixote’s of the media as they charged the windmills of Watergate.

All in one lifetime, all in one lifetime, all gone! Gone with the wind!

Behind the debris of these solemn supermen, and self-styled imperial diplomatists, there stands the gigantic figure of One: because of whom, by whom, in whom, and through whom alone, mankind may still have peace–the person of Jesus Christ.

I present him as the way, the truth, and the life. Do you know Him?”

– Malcolm Muggeridge








Recently I was invited to a fundraising dinner banquet where I was asked a lot of questions about myself. I welcomed these questions as if their novelty was a catalyst to uncover some newly undiscovered honesty in which had yet come to surface. Of course I was hesitant to be so candid, for a second or two, but with same interest and equal delight of the topic, I found no difficulty to converse about myself. Why it’s the easiest thing I can do and I’m usually up to the idea when I’m feeling particularly interested in myself anyway. However, I began to realize my disdainful use of “I” and “me.” Before I knew it I’d entered into discourse where I was the key stakeholder, totally monopolizing the conversation. It’s a shame I can’t give the slightest detail about who I was talking to that day.

As I recall their questions, most of my answers were, “I am a graduate student, blah blah blah,” followed by many more question about my academic pursuits. By the time we had finished talking, I found that the majority of people who followed up their questions with other questions, were surprised at the differences of study between my undergraduate and graduate degree plans. This led to a lot of advice giving (which I undoubtedly appreciated), and a lot of explaining.

I don’t take advice lightly, so its natural for me to put it into a framework that helps me understand. It seems half my energy is spent trying to figure out why advice is being given in the first place. Is it because some particular approach being made is flawed, or is it the general passing along of knowledge, or just the simple sharing of experiences? And the other half is spent trying to find ways in which I can apply the information, or store it for later. Often the best advice has come, not from their instruction, but from the need in which they believe the instruction should be shared. The best instruction always hits square between the ears, and yeah, may hurt. I love it when, despite all my proud and polite considerations, every which way I turn, unavoidably this truth is the only remedy.

Some people have concluded that advice and belief are a result of our social-conditionedness to our local and historical settings. We like to think most of our beliefs and ideas, and the way we think, are our own. Usually they are not, they say. And I believe this to some extent.

We have to admit we are attracted to people who share our way of life and that influence and reinforce these “likes,” and of course we do. I’m not saying that all our belief producing processes are a complete result of this, but we are encouraged to hold on to certain values while, at the same time, discouraged to hold on to others. That’s what makes great/fie civilizations or good and bad circles friends.

But our beliefs, whatever they may be, are not locked-in absolutes based on our sociocultural settings.

I once heard a student on campus tell my friend the only reason he was a Christian was because he was raised in America. We could play tennis with this assertion, however. We could flip-the-script and say that the only reason she was pluralist is because she was raised in America where freedom of choice is an ideal cultural value. Otherwise, if she were born where freedom of choice is not advocated for, she might not be a pluralist. So, are we to believe everything about our belief producing processes are a result of our locked in social context? No, that would make all our beliefs and values relative merely to where we come from. On top of that, one cannot conclude that all our beliefs are relative to where we are, because that would relativize the statement itself. You cannot have relativism all the way down to the bottom. That would be relativizing relativism.

No matter, we are always being pulled in some direction that tells what is true and what is not. As I said earlier, that does not mean that everything we think and believe is a result of this, but it does mean that deciphering the differences can be challenging.

When I think of myself as a husband, I’m flooded with thoughts of what that means. These thoughts affect my perception of my office as a husband and how I am to conduct this position properly. How do I find guidance and where do I turn for this guidance?  How do I find a good model and how do I know this model is a good one if I don’t even know what a good one looks like? Who am I to compare? Naturally, anyone is my position can see my dilemma. The problem is, if I am not careful I may become a shape-shifting husband, ebbing-and-flowing with every change of guidance. It’s good to be flexible to advice and bad to believe all advice.

If I compare my husbandships with others, its likely result will either be (1)self-righteousness, or (2)unrighteousness.

When we sit and contemplate too long how we have been as husbands, we will eventually start comparing ourselves to the other guys. When we compare our active good will with the lazy cruelty of other men’s neglect, we get puffed up, glorying in our good deeds toward our wives. A sense of self-entitlement and demand for respect from our wives boils up and we are back to square one. This time more self-centered than before. If we take the unrighteous route, which begins by finding tranquility in our failure to be good husbands, then we’ve lost the compassion that drove us to become husbands in the first place. We cannot be apathetic toward our lover’s feelings; otherwise we are being selfish and inconsiderate. Marriage is always a two-way road. So when we’re content with our failure we’re failing more than just ourselves. We’re failing our lovers and giving in and accepting our self-made status quo.

I often say, our wives should be our life long research projects. We must analyze, test, accept, dismiss, and conclude the advice given to us by our mentors. While offering suggestions to those in need. We can never put our relationships under a microscope, that would dismiss love to merely a naturalistic view. Love will never be found in a laboratory no matter how much time is spent trying to unravel the various brain chemistry involved.

I cannot conclude by giving the advice I seek. But I can suggest particular avenues that have led to positive results to my lover’s individual self worth. In return, reinforcing what I believe a good husband to be. I conclude that marriage, like most things in life, should be a life long process, filled with failures and victories on both our parts. Knowing and accepting that I will fail my wife can be looked at from these two perspectives. I choose the (3)third by finding encouragement in my failures. Not by accepting the setbacks as destructive, but accepting them as constructive routes that lead me down the lighted path, which I should follow. Otherwise, this failure is nothing more than complacent self-regard and ideological arrogance.



A Grammatical Marriage: Reading between the lines

A Grammatical Marriage 

The other day I was caught off my guard when a friend told me that I have a lot to learn and by no means an authority. I was immediately swept over by a sweet sense of relief and I was gratified to reply promptly with, “I agree.”

I’m no authority, and as obvious and as self-evident as our weaknesses may, or may not be to us, they’re obvious to those who know us best. Take my wife, Raven and mother-in-law, Pamela, for example: after having known me for just a few months, both decided there were some Logan problems that needed fixing.

Most people want to fine-tune or better what they’re already good at, instead of working on their flaws. So where they began makes more sense to me know than it did at first. Raven and Pamela have taken upon themselves the daunting task of teaching me proper grammar, and if you haven’t already noticed, you will soon see how much I’ve learned so far.

With all pedantic humility, I will attempt to reconstruct your thoughts and ideas about me. Yearning to prove I might have less to learn than all you supreme sages may think. I’m going to make an effort to speak simply and plainly, not boasting my newly acquired grammatical sophistication, and of course, avoiding the use of complicated terms you, not me, ostensibly wouldn’t understand, such as speechmentation, fragmentalation, and diagramation, not withholding how to recognize run-on sentenceation.

As you can see I have been working hard on my grammar and my grammar has been worked on hard by me. I’m extra excited about next week’s lesson- active and passive voice- whatever that is.

If the self-deprecation was missed, you’re probably asking, “what’s your point dude?” I’m glad you’ve made it this far.

After many arduous grammar lessons I have found a new love and hate for the English language. With a greater understanding I’m learning how to properly formulate sentences. Hey, I agree, I have a long way to go and should know this stuff already. I’ll admit, I’m slightly embarrassed, but as humble as a person who calls themselves humble is warranted to be, I’m not too proud to YouTube a video-or-two of School House Rock either. It’s kind of cool actually.

However, I have to say that I cannot help feeling somewhat disenchanted with all the rules of grammar that so many great writers don’t follow themselves. I’m beginning to see the springs and mechanism exposed in the sentences at work. During this process they seemingly lose their surface beauty.  Imagine you’re visiting an art gallery, but instead of observing the beauty of the artistry, you take down the picture from the wall and look on the back. I feel I’m undertaking, not only one of the most colossal intellectual battles every eight-year-old faces, but a distasteful one too.

Don’t misunderstand me; I’m sure as my ignorance diminishes, the beauty thought lost will return to me in some deeper, more profound way.

One of my hopes is that learning from my wife will benefit me in other arenas of life. I have found that behind every lesson exists another lesson. And that if one tries, and is self-aware of these lessons, they too will find how profitable and applicable they are. For me, its a great reminder of how smart my wife is and that her understanding surpasses mine in many ways. When I acknowledge and understand that she better understanding some things, it’s then that we co-operate most efficiently as two different people. I cannot complain when I realize how different we are, otherwise I would be asking her to be like me, and that would just be weird.

When I step back and listen to her closely, we function like a well-oiled machine that needs the regularly scheduled tune-ups. I’ve noticed when I don’t listen to her, my character flaws bubble to the surface in frustration and I’m exposed at my worst.

Let us be honest and thankful for these moments of weakness. Many times in my life it’s been from the fruits of my sin that positioned me in a way that I could see both vantage points at the same time: me of myself and her of me. Once again, let us be thankful for these moments, because they not only refine and polish us, but also keep us from the true danger of indifference. The fact that I’m aware is reason in itself for thanksgiving.

One thing I am an authority on, no matter what credible sources disagree, is being a new, slightly dimwitted husband. And nobody can take that away from me. It’s in the newness of it all that I learn the most.

I’ve been able to see within my marriage an operating system made of springs and doodads that are far too advanced for me to take apart and reassemble. Provided these many mechanisms that make relationships tick exist, it’s impossible to dissect, replicate, or formulize the process for a perfect one.  The easiest and most ignoble thing we can do is throw wrenches in the system by wanting people to think we’re smart. By letting Raven be my teacher I’m learning something more important than grammar. If I would have just disregarded my lack of understanding, when she wanted to teach me, as if I had had none, then by my own admission I’m pretending to be something I’m not.

Concealing matters that we’re too proud to admit still exist regardless of our omissions of them. Eventually, they will bubble up again and if we don’t share or confront them when they’re fresh, they will resurge outside their appropriate time and will only leave room for misinterpretation by the other person.


A Husband: Cook or Impostor?

Cooking is easy; following a recipe is not easy. Fortunately for some of us, there is a bright side to unorganized cooking. 

It’s been said that there’s no secret recipe for a perfect marriage. As a newly married person, I have recently acquired the commodity of parents in law. One of the terrific things that differentiate them as authorities on the subject is that they are married and cooks. So, as a naive husband and petty cook, I’m able to plead ignorance for my mistakes, in and out of the kitchen. And on those rare occasions, I’m obliged to extol the prestige of my achievements to their good graces. 

One day, however, I will be revealed as an experienced husband and decent cook. Yes, eventually my prosperity card as a confessed greenhorn in matrimonial amalgamation will expire and I will be resolved to dupe as a self-professed expert. But the self-professed, oblivious novice, who claims to learn from his mistakes and seeks advice after all his ill decisions from those who are willing to empathize with his transgressions will do for now. 

So, my father in law is a baker. His name is Eric and he knows bread. Bread is his business and his business is his bakery. Eric loves bread more than anyone I know. He loves to talk about bread and l love listening to him talk about bread. There is a complete science dedicated to bread and he is an expert on matter. Now that I’m a member of the family, I frequently lollygag to the bakery. I pour a cup of black coffee (without paying), gaze through the glass display, just to prolong the pleasure my taste buds await. When I feel extra special, I flounder my way around with diplomatic immunity and go behind the swinging doors where entry is only accessible with an apron. I’m beginning to feel at home in this delightful little bakery. 

There are things I’ve learned from being around food. Baking is one of them.

Baking is an industry that has lasted all the tests of time. It has transcended every culture and has outlived even its own. It has toppled and flexed more influence than Alexander the Great, or any dictator of Gallic Wars. Its finds no need to cut Gordian Knots, or shed any tears for lack of battle. It worries not of coupe or treachery. From influence, to production, foods always on the rise, never waving its white banner of surrender, but triumphantly parading its victorious colors across region, race, and religion.

Indeed, food is a model ambassador on a mission throughout the world. It’s the sustenance for all human existence and links people groups together. I think hidden beneath the prescription of ingredients, sits an unexpected friend. Her name is wisdom and she is honest, ready, and quick tongued. She shouts from rough tops, calling all those who have ears to hear. Seek her and you will find her. 

I married a baker’s daughter and last week I cooked eggplant lasagna. As I was setting up my mise en place (which is redundant)and began whisking the roux for béchamel, I figured this was going to be the best eggplant lasagna ever, and my wife’s going to love it. I had everything in its proper place and followed all the directions perfectly (under supervision of a seasoned chef). What could go wrong? Well, nothing actually, but something more important was deeply impressed upon me. 

I know my wife has tasted far better eggplant lasagna than that which I offered that day. Though the recipe was followed perfectly, the lasagna was mediocre. But my wife was flattered by the meal. Why, you ask? Surely a baker’s daughter has tasted far better?

Here is what I believe the answer to that question is. Since love is in the air, I’ll share what my friend Richard advised it to be from a Jewish perspective. Telling someone “I love you” is active. The Hebrew word for love is ahavah. Which has as its two-letter root in the word hav (give), preceded by the letter aleph, which means “I will give.” Love is more than an emotion, its an action, its doing, yes, its a verb. 

 Though some food should probably be shunned, not all blundered recipes result in pariah food. When I gave Raven my eggplant lasagna, she didn’t fall in love with its fine ingredients, or its thoroughly placed wheat noodle. Each bite wasn’t an ecstatic explosion in her mouth. Rather, each delightful delicatessen was a reminder that I am willing to give and serve. Just as parents sacrifice and give to their children throughout the child’s life, in doing so, they become more attached and connected to them. Parents do far more for their children than the reverse, and I believe it’s because of their “doing” that they do love so much.  

 So, I like to think after each bite Raven was reminded of my willingness to give. Though it wasn’t much, our love grew that day. I was able to give her something that brought me joy on her behalf. I found the more I gave, the more invested I became. The more I give the more I love, the more we give the more we love what we give to. 


Freedom v. Constraint: Married or free?

Over the years I have heard many different opinions and ideas on marriage. Many of my friends, I think,  have over played their hand by bluffing with the usual banal remarks of the pitfalls that come along with marriage. As a former single person, at times, I could not help but to entertain these ideas, luckily, without fully accepting them.
Often I heard , “This is it, no more freedom for you” or “Are you sure your’e ready to sign your life away?” Even the smirky comments like,” He’s tying the not, boys” have about them gall that gets under the skin.
So far, I have found marriage to be a very liberating experience. Contrary to what my friends and I (back in the day) thought, being married has allowed me opportunity and freedom that otherwise I would never have experienced.
Marriage is not a straightjacket for goals or ambitions.
While I was engaged people used to ask me if I thought I was ready for the commitment. Most of the time I would say I thought I was. Often, they would follow up their questions by challenging me with circumstances they assumed I had yet to give any consideration. Letting me know I will no longer be able to do this, or that, because I would now be married seemed to be their main agenda. I was interested in what their view for the purpose of marriage was and  their definition of freedom, and less interested in their advice. I like to give them the benefit of doubt and believe they had only my best of interest at hand.
Anyway, I have found that its best that I not base my freedom off negative terms of what I can and cannot do. More eloquently, Timothy Keller puts it like this:
If you have musical aptitude, you may give yourself to practice, practice, practice the piano for years. This is a restriction, a limit to your freedom. There are many other things you won’t be able to do with the time you invest in practicing. If you have the talent, however, the discipline and limitation will unleash your ability that would go otherwise untapped. 
In other words, he is saying that when a person volitionally gives up their freedom to engage in things, the outcome may lead to a richer kind of freedom that would have otherwise gone undiscovered.
The same is observed in some forms of governmental law. When a particular law is put in to practice limiting what citizens can and cannot do, it is (hopefully) for the betterment of the community as a whole. For example, imagine if we lived in a society when it was perfectly legal for a teenager to start driving on highways and interstates upon their thirteenth birthday. Most likely, it would be the best birthday present ever, so she would think. However,that freedom would result in catastrophe and the burden of a hundred new laws, more ridiculous than the one before.
Ok, so you don’t buy that. You say no civilized government would allow such negligence in a society advanced enough to drive on complex street systems. But even the rules of the road restrict us to drive in a particular way. These laws prescribe our driving direction, limit our autonomy, and guide traffic in order that we may get from point A to point B in a safe and efficient fashion. It is the restrictions that allow us the freedom to drive as we do.
So we can see that certain limitations are liberating and that freedom is not simply the absence of constraint.
Marriage has given me the ability to love in a relationship deeper and more fully than my friends or I could have imagined. Don’t misunderstand me, I have lost some freedom, like the pianist lost freedom in order to practice. But really, the choice to practice is freedom to choose. That is, a choice to choose to be disciplined, which produces marvelous genius at the end. I cannot love my wife with out giving up my autonomy, but the exchange is so much greater. I will not be able to honor my lover if I give her no say and make only unilateral decisions.
Ok, why is love so great, marriage in particular? Well, while all the other people are saying that you’re whipped, you feel immortal, raptured in eternal paradise. In marriage, I no longer have one foot out the door. I’m able to fully trust in a dedicated, life long commitment to propagate and contribute to society for the common good. The pastor of my church has often said to me that my wife is my life long research project. He is right. I find myself studying her in order to find out what she fancies. No matter the inconvenience or cost, I want to bring her pleasure. I want to make her happy with out having to ask what brings her joy. I want to observe and analyze. I want to have qualitative time with her and quantitatively compute my findings into categories of she will relish.
Come to think of it, I guess I have lost some independence, but its been a mutual loss of independence. As Keller puts it, if we don’t adjust then the relationship will be, “exploitive and will oppress and distort the lives of both people.” My wife has changed for me, therefore, I am not afraid to give up a little freedom to change for her. That is liberating.

Marriage: A husband producing process

As a newly married man I have to admit, marriage is awesome.

Every day I have the blessing of hanging out with my best friend, whose feelings toward me are equally reciprocated.

Who doesn’t long for that kind of relationship?

I remember the day when I dreamed and wondered who my wife would be, what she would look like, how I would meet her, and when I would meet her. With that, along came all my doubts during my more lonely seasons. The days when I thought I wouldn’t never marry. Many of those dreary memories from my quondam life were filled with disbeliefs that I would never be qualified to be a “good” husband. That I should just get used to single life, with no till death do you part.

However, within the still small voice of my heart of hearts cried the desire to love a wife.

The other day on campus I was talking to a fellow graduate student who took interest in how I met my wife. I gave him my life anecdote, which was followed by how I pursued Raven, my wife.

He was truly astonished at what I had to say, because he felt I pursued her in reverse order and ever way that was right I wronged.

Contrarily, I was not astonished in the least by my friends position. However, there was a time I too would have considered my actions to be opposite in nature.

After my second date with Raven I was resolute in explaining  to her my purposes for dating. I shared with her that when I undertake dating I don’t take it lightly. That to date is for the purpose of marriage. I’m not dating for practice. I’ve had plenty of that already.

As she looked at me, her big round eyes and high cheeks, all I could think was, “Logan, you crazy idiot! Well, there goes another available one.”

Surprisingly, she respected my honesty and I think she might have felt a little sorry for me t00. It was obvious how nervous I was, but it didn’t matter. I knew I had to be clear with her from the beginning! The last thing I wanted was any play of dishonesty.  I needed to let her know why I asked her on the second date. If she was going to allow me to pursue her, I wanted her to know my reasoning.

We took it very slowly and waited months before we decided to kiss. My display of honesty and courage in shooting her straight from the beginning, lead me to a woman who was looking for an honest and courageous man. She didn’t want practice. She wanted to see qualities she expected to possess, practice, and display herself. Even if this one honest and courageous moment leaves me virtuously overdrawn, I can’t let her down.