There was a question at Athol Kay’s site asking how Christian teachings match up with the concepts of Game. “Christian teachings” is a rather broad term, and can refer to a variety of things ranging from any doctrine that any nominal Christian has ever taught to the specific and sole teachings of Christ on the matter. Since I do not know what, specifically, is meant by “Christian teachings,” I will supply my own definition, which in this case will simply Biblical teachings.
In specific, the reader has concerns in five areas: 1) Attracting other women, 2) Alpha attitude, 3) Indifference to emotion, 4) Willingness to walk away, and 5) Hot kinky sex. Before addressing each of these in turn, though, there are a couple of things that need to be put in order.
First, it is critical to understand that the relationship between males and females mirrors the relationship between God and Man. In Ephesians 5, the Apostle Paul compares the relationship of husbands and wives to the relationship of Christ and the church. This general metaphor is also found in the Old Testament as well, particularly in the book of Hosea, wherein the prophet Hosea is told to marry a prostitute in order to illustrate to the Children of Israel the pain that God felt for their unfaithfulness. They way that a man feels when he knows his wife is a whore is the way God felt when the children of Israel forsook him for other gods.
Second, it is important to understand that humans—that is, those who bear the image of God—are expected to imitate God as dear children. Thus, it would be hypocritical for God to tell his children to act in a way that differs from his own behavior, or to condemn his children for engaging in the same behaviors that he has engaged in.*
With this in mind, consider the first matter: is it wrong for men to try to attract other women? In Romans 11:11, Paul asks whether Israel had stumbled so as to fall. He answers this question in the negative, and goes on to say that salvation had come to the gentiles in order to provoke Israel to jealousy. In essence, God gave up his special relationship with Israel and turned his attention to the gentiles in order to make Israel jealous. The relationship dynamic, in a metaphorical sense, is that of a husband engaging with other women in order to provoke strong feelings in his wife. If God can and did do this, it would be hypocritical for him to condemn his children for doing the same thing. Thus, it is not wrong for men to provoke jealousy in their wives.
The second matter—alpha attitude—is a bit vague in meaning. I assume it refers to the general attitude of high self-regard (arrogance or confidence, depending on one’s view) and self-direction (leadership or selfishness, depending on one’s view). God claims that he is radically superior to man. Since their assertions were and are correct, this is not arrogance but rather a simple assertion of higher value. I would posit that as long as one’s assertions of higher value are observably true, then it is not inherently arrogant to highlight one’s superiority. The command in Romans 12:3 is to not think of yourself more highly than you ought. It is not arrogant to, say, claim that you are extremely good at playing guitar if, in fact, you are extremely good at playing guitar. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable demonstrate higher value, and to be confident in one’s higher value if one actually has higher value in some specific dimension. Regarding leadership, I will simply point out that leadership is not only permitted, but actually expected, per Ephesians 5.
The third matter—indifference to emotion—also has interesting theological connotations. In Matthew 13, Christ, in the course of explaining the parable of the tares and the parable of the dragnet, claims twice that those who are unacceptable in the sight of God will be cast into the fire where there will be “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.”** There will certainly be emotional turmoil among those whom God punishes. Interestingly, though, God is indifferent to this emotionality. Those who have sinned against God will be punished, and no amount of crying or histrionics will change that fact.
A broader point to be made regarding emotions is that of their purpose in creation. Quite simply, we must ask ourselves why God gave man the ability to feel. Perhaps it was merely a way for Man to bear the image of God (and God certainly experiences emotion). Perhaps it was a way to prevent life from being interminably boring. The emotions we feel certainly give life some degree of meaning. However, we are not to be ruled by our emotions. We may feel a certain way about something or at a given point in time in response to a specific stimuli, but we are not to be ruled by emotions.*** Extending this principle further, we should not be ruled by other people’s emotions. As Christ said on the Sermon on the Mount, no man can serve two masters. Man should thus serve God, not his emotions, or anyone else’s emotions, for that matter.
The fourth matter concerns a willingness to walk away. This is really nothing more than an extension of the third matter, and both are merely applications of aloofness. In the interest of brevity, I will simply note that even though God desires that all men to repent (i.e. turn to him), he neither forces men to repent nor excuses their lack of repentance. In essence, if men do not obey God, he has no problem with leaving them alone to experience the natural consequences of their actions.
The fifth matter—hot kinky sex—has caused some consternation among Christians, probably because most people (Christians especially) are idiots about sex. Catholics have correctly pointed out that humans were expected to be fruitful and multiply, and sex is thus intended to be procreative in nature. Unfortunately, many have ignored the part of the Bible that talks about how two are to become one flesh. Neurological studies indicate that rather intensive pair-bonding generally occurs during sex. This suggests, then, that the purpose of sex is more than mere procreation; it is also a way to solidify the most sacred of bonds.
The two goals of procreation and pair-bonding are not inherently exclusive. By the same token, they are not synonymous. In fact, it would appear that the former is a subset of the latter, given that pair-bonding occurs during every occasion of intercourse though procreation does not. At any rate, there is a serious problem when one builds a doctrine by considering only one of the purposes of sex. To be blunt about it, procreation is not the only purpose for sex. Therefore, it is theologically shallow to argue that it is immoral to engage in non-procreative sexual acts with one’s spouse. Since sex also has the purpose of strengthening pair-bonding, any sexual act that strengthens the bond between husband and wife would be acceptable. Furthermore, since variety is generally considered the spice of life, sexual experimentation within the confines of marriage is certainly acceptable.
I believe that it was Vox Day who, some time ago, asserted that concepts of Game are certainly compatible with Christianity. I would say, though, that not only are the concepts of Game compatible with Christianity, they are the proper theological application of Christianity, particularly as it concerns the relationship between men and women. Furthermore, the relationship between man and wife mirrors the relationship between God and Man, which means that there are many subtle spiritual truths to be learned by observing not only good relationships, but bad relationships as well. Ultimately, marriage is but a way of looking at God through a glass darkly, and it thus behooves husbands and wives to consider whether their marriage properly reflects God.
* There are a couple of theological side points worth dwelling on here. The first is that since all humans are made in God’s image, all humans are, in a sense, children of God. Some of them may currently be prodigal.
The second is that this theological approach explains why God allowed men under the old law to marry two wives. Romans 2:14-16 tells us that gentiles who lived by the law of conscience would be found acceptable in the sight of God, though the Jews still had to live by the Law of Moses. In essence, God had entered into covenants with two different people. One covenant was with the Jews; the other was with the gentiles. In a metaphorical sense, God had two wives. As such, it would hypocritical for him to condemn his children for doing what he was doing.
** Sounds like a woman who gets told no, amirite?
*** Just to be clear, I am not saying that we should deny our feelings, only that we should not be ruled by them. If we, say, feel fearful, we should acknowledge that feeling but make sure to do what we know or believe to be best. And yes, this is a very tall order.