on purity & chivalry [old thoughts]

From deep in the past (slash October 2005):
- context: follow-up from a pleasant late-night conversaton with Nita/Huyck about many things. of particular interest here was a female form of 'chivalry.'

---

I've been thinking about our conversation on Saturday night, namely the female "form of chivalry" and my impulsive word-vomit in response. Over thelast couple days, the thought has gone from being pregnant and not completely formed to.. less pregnant. Sort of like prairie-dogging a baby. Anyway, here goes.

When *most* folks think about purity, they think of chastity, innocence, and Brita water filters. I contend that there is an alternative form of purity thatgets sadly overlooked, especially for women. We'll call it the "purity of identity." The woman who knows who she is and who God made her to be has purity. The woman who remains who she graciously is in the face of cultural pressure and natural insecurity has purity. [As opposed to remaining who you are for self-satisfaction] The woman whose identity is submitted and given to God (not without continual battle) has purity.

All of these aspects of purity are serving to men in and out of relationship with the woman, in the same way that chivalry does not choose who to serve. For those not in a relationship, the woman's purity of identity humbles and sets back men who would try to pressure, manipulate, or take advantage of her. Her purity also shines forth the peace and grace that only come from being at peace with God in identity, regardless of her doubts and insecurities because she is given over to God no matter how she feels, and that act of giving over allows God to always radiate that peace and light to others. For a man in arelationship/marriage with her, her peace with God becomes an example to him tolay his self-imposed burdens down and yield to God. Her purity soothes and serves him in a way that I can't really describe, but simply *know.*

Someone might respond that the description of purity above is general and healthy for all Christians and thus shouldn't be considered with the feminine.In response, chivalry is identified with the masculine and yet the spiritual/life principles involved are universal. The reason why chivalry *is*generally discussed in a masculine context is the same why the purity above should be discussed often in the feminine: the spirit and support therein is most sorely lacking amongst the gender associated. Moreover, there is somethingthat cannot be completely nailed down inside women that responds powerfully toacts of chivalry; the same for men to the purity above. All of this being said, "sweetness" is also a good candidate. However, I think that sweetness follows from the spirit of purity in the same way that chivalry follows from the spirit of service and self-sacrifice. I guess that technically that does make "sweetness" the female form of chivalry, but the sustainable life of "sweetness" is *only* possible with the purity above. It must be the true root, the connection to God's purity and peace. A quick note: the woman who is pure in identity *will* wrestle with insecurity and social/cultural pressure from those near and far. The key isn't that she is excluded from what everyone else goes through, but in her identity's root in God *by* her submitting and giving it over to God.

---

Nearly a year later, I have this to add:
Kierkegaard relates despair as the dialectic partner to faith, and in defining despair he describes two categories:
- despair to will to be oneself
- despair not to will to be oneself.
The more awareness of self and of despair the deeper and more intense the despair becomes (simultaneously bringing closer and pushing further from faith).
How is this relevant?

For young men in the West, the Enemy's current primary tactic involves unawareness and ignorance of the self, thereby leading to unrecognized despair. Or, more sadistic: he helps reveal pieces of the self and then offers substitutes/distractions/ex post facto rationalizations as a means towards purposed ignorance [of the self].
For young women, the questions "who am I?" and "who should I be?" are never far from awareness, thrumming through the common pulse of shared culture. The questions are posed (i.) without fulfillment, leading to conscious despair/insecurity or (ii.) with fulfillment, leading to a misled state (rather than necessarily purposed) of self-ignorance.

In the original writing, the form of purity described is essentially the same as Kierkegaard's description of the state-of-faith/escape-from-despair (to will to be oneself, not to will to be oneself):
wherein the soul, in itself and in relating itself to itself, rests transparently before the Power that established it.

Thus the purity described above is properly viewed as the existence of and product of deep faith, brought about as an incomprehensible gift of grace.

This has the practical effect:
Seeking after this kind of purity is as futile as any other works-based salvation:
- if you think you've succeeded, you haven't.
- if you realize you haven't, your despair will intensify.
Ultimately, the closest thing that we can do to forcefully bring such faith into our lives is to submit. Thus the space for God and His perfect faith alive/purity alive in us.