I think the analogy is a bit off, and here is why: The beauty of the church was not like the outwardly attractive woman, but the inwardly attractive woman. You see Jesus spoke about “what makes the temple holy”… it was not the gold (outward beauty) but the temple which the gold is used (inward beauty).

The two taco bell guys are the unbelievers, but the Church, if the women, should not be designed to appeal to the ways of the unbeliever, but should be true to itself, which would mean that when we speak of modern churches with their appeal to the masses (big giant cathedrials, mega churches, tv networks, et cetera), what then is it that makes them either valuable or not valuable?

Is it the good looks of the woman? Or the good attiude of the other woman?

The good looks of the first woman is like the beautiful designs of the physical structures of the churches of America.

The good qualities of the other women are the other churches, of any kind, which teach good sound biblical doctrine.

Where the outwardly attractive friend/church will get ignorant guys that feed on junk (spiritual and physical) to notice her, it takes one who is willing to look past the outwardly to see what they value.

Is it more junk? or more than junk?

I think the other woman, although may not be as outwardly attractive as the first, is inwardly more valuable. That value however can be found in people with or without outward good looks.

Therefore the Church should be like the second woman, because ultimately attractive looks fail, but the conversational intelligence of the first woman (the word if you will) will always endure.