• One week from now, the sin I fight against inside of me will have a magnifying glass put over it by the constant closeness of another, and yet one week from now, God’s process of sanctification for his children will give my wife and I the opportunity to begin dealing with deeper underlying problems that we never knew God wanted us to confront in our own lives. As Rick Holland describes marriage, it’s “an unconditional commitment to an imperfect person.”

• One week from now, I’ll be financially responsible for someone. Yes, there will be tension, but it’s how I deal with my own selfish pride in that moment that counts.

• One week from now, I’ll finalize my full commitment to her alone, in the form of a vow before God, witnessed by friends and family.

• One week from now, I will be bound to reject the temptations of in any way pursuing other women, appearing to do so, or even accepting the advances of any other woman, for the sake of Karen knowing she is the only one that matters to me. Call this a positive bias in her favor or a discrimination against the pursuit of all others if you will.

• One week from now, there will still be just as many, if not more people watching to see how things turn out for the two of us, or as Stuart Scott put it in The Exemplary Husband, “We need to remember that we already are some sort of example to others. The question is, what kind?”

• One week from now, I will be committed to her safety, to the point where I will not be tolerant of that which harms her. This intolerance will apply to physical threats, emotional dangers, spiritual misguidance, or anything that threatens to destroy my relationship with her.

• One week from now, the two of us are committing to a first-year ban on the habit of the passive entertainment of television-show series that we’d rather not even give the chance to distance us from getting to know each other. We’ll revisit the need for this voluntary ban after we’ve had more time to analyze it’s potential benefits.

• One week from now, I’m not going to stop giving her flowers or chocolate! (And we’ll still be going out on dates).

• One week from now, we’ll be able to look back on our convictions about why we made the choices we did, and the relationship will become all that much more valuable to both of us as we reflect on the purposeful and sometimes temporarily painful discipline it took to faithfully wait for each other, despite the constant temptations that at any point could have overtaken our resolve if it weren’t for the daily grace of God. 1 Corinthians 10:13: “God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”

• One week from now, the excuse that “I don’t know if we’re compatible” will be as convincing in my mind as the rhetoric of a four year old telling his mom he doesn’t want to take a nap, as Karen and I discover that OF COURSE we’re not naturally “compatible” in popular culture’s expression, because only God’s grace can truly walk us through, rather than around, the inevitable challenges we will face in living with each other. (thanks Paul Tripp for the idea behind my analogy!)

• One week from now, all the advice we’ve received from the hours of counseling sessions, the overview books, and the DVD segments, not to mention the great role models of our parents and close friends, will become more valuable resources that we look back on to help guide us through miscommunications and disagreements that will arise from the dark sin we all have inside of us as part of fallen humanity that can only look to God for true hope.

• Lastly, a year from now, I’ll probably look back on this list and laugh a little, thinking of all the other things that I had yet to learn about marriage, about my relationship with Karen, and most importantly about God, since that determines our perspectives on everything else in life.

.

Here’s a book that I heard about a few years back and finally made a priority to read. Let me tell you: it was well worth it. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (first printed in 1985, updated in 2005) takes the reader through some drastic changes in history that turned America from a culture revolving around typography to one centered on images. He brings up brilliant examples such as the debates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglass had back in 1858, where it’s not just astonishing how a debate could take up 7 hours of the day, but that the audience intently sat through the entire thing! (And this was merely to secure an Illinois Senate seat; before Lincoln was President!). Postman goes on to compare what the invention of the printing press meant with that of the telegraph and the television, and you’ll find him going much deeper than just whining about our attention spans shortening. A few of the quotes that impacted me the most are included below:

To an extent difficult to imagine today, earlier Americans were familiar not only with the great legal issues of their time but even with the language famous lawyers had used to argue their cases. This was especially true of Daniel Webster, and it was only natural that Stephen Vincent Benet in his famous story would have chosen Daniel Webster to contend with the Devil. -p 57

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, religious thought and institutions in America were dominated by an austere, learned, and intellectual form of discourse that is largely absent from religious life today. No clearer example of the difference between earlier and modern forms of public discourse can be found than in the contrast between the theological arguments of Jonathan Edwards and those of, say, Jerry Falwell, or Billy Graham, or Oral Roberts. The formidable content to Edwards’ theology must inevitably engage the intellect; if there is such a content to the theology of the television evangelicals, they have not yet made it known. -p 56

You may get some sense of how we are separated from this kind of consciousness by thinking about any of our recent presidents; or even preachers, lawyers and scientists who are or who have recently been public figures. Think of Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter or Billy Graham, or even Albert Einstein, and what will come to your mind is an image, a picture of a face, most likely a face on a television screen (in Einstein’s case, a photograph of a face). Of words, almost nothing will come to mind. This is the difference between thinking in a word-centered culture and thinking in an image-centered culture. -p 61

The modern idea of testing a reader’s “comprehension,” as distinct from something else a reader may be doing, would have seemed an absurdity in 1790 or 1830 or 1860. What else was reading but comprehending? -p 61

Almost all of the characteristics we associate with mature discourse were amplified by typography, which has the strongest possible bias toward exposition: a sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively and sequentially; a high valuation of reason and order; an abhorrence of contradiction; a large capacity for detachment and objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed response. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, for reasons I am most anxious to explain, the Age of Exposition began to pass, and the early signs of its replacement could be discerned. Its replacement was to be the Age of Show Business.  -p 63

Only four years after Morse opened the nation’s first telegraph line on May 24, 1844, the Associated Press was founded, and news from nowhere, addressed to no one in particular, began to criss-cross the nation. -p 67

As Thoreau implied, telegraphy made relevance irrelevant. -p 67

The telegraph may have made the country into “one neighborhood,” but it was a peculiar one, populated by strangers who knew nothing but the most superficial facts about each other. -p 67

By the end of the nineteenth century, advertisers and newspapermen had discovered that a picture was not only worth a thousand words, but, where sales were concerned, was better. For countless Americans, seeing, not reading, became the basis for believing. -p 74

Of course, like the brain itself, every technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others. Only those who know nothing of the history of technology believe that a technology is entirely neutral. -p 84

But what I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. … The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining, which is another issue altogether. -p 87

No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasure. That is why even on news shows which provide us daily with fragments of tragedy and barbarism, we are urged by the newscasters to “join them tomorrow.” What for? One would think that several minutes of murder and mayhem would suffice as material for a month of sleepless nights. We accept the newscasters’ invitation because we know that the “news” is not to be taken seriously, that it is all in fun, so to say. Everything about a news show tells us this–the good looks and amiability of the cast, their pleasant banter, the exciting music that opens and closes the show, the vivid film footage, the attractive commercials–all these and more suggest that what we have just seen is no cause for weeping. -p 87

What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. -p 155

In America, [George] Orwell’s prophecies [in his book, 1984] are of small relevance, but Huxley’s are well under way toward being realized. For America is engaged in the world’s most ambitious experiment to accommodate itself to the technological distractions made possible by the electric plug. -p 156

But it is much later in the game now, and ignorance of the score is inexcusable. To be unaware that a technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple. -p 157

…no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are. It is not important that those who ask the questions arrive at my answers or Marshall McLuhan’s (quite different answers, by the way). This is an instance in which the asking of the questions is sufficient. To ask is to break the spell. -p 161

What I suggest here as a solution is what Aldous Huxley suggested, as well. And I can do no better than he. He believed with H. G. Wells that we are in a race between education and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media. For in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking. -p 163