This is also fascinating, because even C.S. Lewis wrote that, "to love at all is to be vulnerable," which goes against the core notions of "guarding your heart," as many of us had understood it growing up. Great, if that's not it's actually supposed to mean, but I guarantee you that's not how 95% of us understood the phrase in middle school or high school in church basements.

But here's the other thing. When you really get down to it and start examining what "guarding your heart" is supposed to mean, what you're going to find are really selfish motivations at the core. Part of the inherent (though usually unspoken) promise of the idea of "guarding your heart," is that if you do that, you're not going to have any relational woes and that if the relationship doesn't pan out for whatever reason that you're going to emerge largely unscathed. Essentially, the philosophy of "guarding your heart" is relational insurance, and that's wholly disgusting to me.

Sure, actually being vulnerable and actually learning how to love someone selflessly might be more painful in the long run as you allow yourself to truly open up to another person, but if the goal of this "guarding your heart" garbage is that you never experience pain in relationships gone wrong, then you have some significant growing up to do, my friend. This line of thinking degrades romantic relationships to a very basic transactionary state that most Christians would vehemently disagree with: I won't hurt you if you don't hurt me. Let me tell you again that's not how relationships operate at all.