Biblical Dating: Intentional, Accountable, Complimentarian, Godward, Pure
by Ted Slater on 12/02/2006 at 10:55 AM
We've been having a lively discussion over at the first "Biblical Dating" thread. I'm starting a new one in an effort to clarify that biblical dating as defined in this article by Scott Croft is not about a legalistic list of rules, but about a few principles based in Scripture.
The principles that tend to differentiate biblical dating from most "modern dating" include the following:
- Intentionality
- Accountability
- A complimentarian view of the sexes
- A Godward perspective
- Purity
I may have missed one or two, but those are the ones that stick out to me as most relevant. For an exploration of these attributes, please read Scott's article.
I have to say that most Christian dating includes some of these characteristics, even if it's fundamentally based on "modern dating." The thing about Scott's model is that it presents a set of principles built from the ground up on the five characteristics listed above. It's an approach that will attract those with an adventurous and pioneering spirit, as it's currently still fairly unpracticed by the majority of Christian singles.
Please don't see these principles as "legalistic." They're not. Different people are free to walk them out differently. I, for example, chose perhaps an extremely cautious approach to purity, not even kissing my girlfriend until the pastor told me at the altar, "Ted, you may kiss your bride." Others practicing the principles of biblical dating might not hold to such an extreme conviction.
As I wrote in my first post on this topic, I would be interested in your thoughts on these principles.
1. Brooke said the following at 12:39 PM on Dec 2:
I think my main problem with the article was that the author calls his principles "biblical" thus implying that it is the one right way to approach dating and that any other way would be wrong. I do agree with some of the ideas presented and disagree with others, but there are many ways to approach relationships and still give honor to the Lord.
2. Howell said the following at 12:57 PM on Dec 2:
I would replace Accountabilty with: Submission to community over individualism/islandism. It is more encompassing.
3. Charles H. said the following at 12:59 PM on Dec 2:
Per Ted's request to move the conversation to the newest posting:
Chris - Thanks for your response. To answer your question, sex before marriage is indeed directly addressed in multiple locations in the Bible. I'm rather surprised to hear you say otherwise, considering that a Blue Letter Bible search for 'fornication' shows that it occurs 36 times in Scripture (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:3, Galatians 5:19) none of which speak of it in a positive manner. Kissing before marriage is not fornication. If a particular Christian feels that it will lead him or her to fornication, then it's appropriate and necessary to avoid it in that case -- but then it falls simply under the command to "flee sexual immorality." In that case it's no different from any other unusual steps a person may take to shield himself from a particularly strong temptation... but of course, this does not mean that such steps should be required of all believers.
Regarding your second point ("any intimacy that would not be permissible between a married person and a person they are not married to also ought not be permissible between any unmarried people"), I disagree... and actually, the outline you give for "Biblical" dating suggests that you do too. Truly avoiding all emotional intimacy before marriage, as I plan to avoid it with others once I'm married, would require something on the order of arranged marriage. Your point is that this intimacy should develop under supervision and with accountability -- but that it will indeed develop before marriage. So if the main issue is that "if I am seeing a woman, she is still not mine and I am not hers -- until we are married," then how does the presence of supervision and accountability change this?
You accept that "there are situations where parental oversight is not possible," but then state that "the Biblical understanding is that a woman is under the headship of her father until she moves to be under the headship of her husband." I still have trouble reconciling these two statements. My college girlfriend had a father, albeit one who was a Buddhist. How about if he were a Christian in name only? A Christian from a different denomination? A man who considered himself a strong Christian, but who treated the faith as a way to advance a liberal social agenda? I'm not asking this to be a smart aleck; I'm asking this because the notion that we're to choose whether we ask permission doesn't jibe with your assertion that each girl belongs specifically to her father until she marries.
Regarding your final point, I completely agree that guidance is important for any couple considering a serious relationship. But as you point out, this can come from any number of trusted Christian sources. It does not have anything to do with courtship, dating, or for that matter any Western concept of finding a mate: a family in India could just as well seek a pastor's guidance when considering which young man ought to meet their daughter on his wedding day. It is a straw-man argument to present my rejection of courtship, and the specifically paternal (or familial) guidance you suggest, as "rebellion against spiritual guidance and authority."
Christine - My feelings exactly. Your comments about not living at home, of course, echo what an overwhelming majority of Christian women in my age group are likely to say. Perhaps the remarks about asking parental permission come across differently to a teenage audience; I wouldn't dream of asking a 30-year-old woman if I could have a chat with her father before asking her out.
Mike T. - You raise a very good question. I too don't understand how the logistics work. In practice, having attended a fellowship where a fair percentage of the members were Josh Harris devotees, the actual sequence of events was frequently as follows:
1. Date (well, it got some other name, but it boiled down to dating)
2. Get seriously interested in each other
3. Say "Oops! We should be courting!"
4. Ask for spiritual guidance, etc.
By #2 a couple was essentially boyfriend and girlfriend. This led to an a very odd social dynamic, with the unwritten first step of trying to discover if a girl was already pursuing some secret relationship. It's easy to see how this occasionally led to hurt feelings.
Ruth - 1 Thess. 4:3-5 speaks specifically of fornication. I'm uncertain how Paulsen gets "deep emotional and spiritual connections" from that.
I'm getting a Torx T9 screwdriver soon to remove the hard drive from my dead laptop. Hopefully afterwards I'll be able to post the original rebuttal.
4. Ted Slater said the following at 1:25 PM on Dec 2:
Let's try to keep this on track. This post identified five characteristics that differentiated "modern dating" from what Scott Croft labeled "biblical dating."
If you see something "unbiblical" about the principles Scott presents, please identify them and defend your position. It's not sufficient to merely disagree with them.
I'm glad to see so many readers wrestling with this.
5. Randy 'Vic' Taylor said the following at 2:43 PM on Dec 2:
I think my main issue (along with a few others that commented in the other thread) is there are methodologies suggested that appear nowhere in the Bible, yet Croft's model is called "Biblical Dating".
As I said in my comment in the previous thread, by referring to it as that, it insinuates that other models are 'unbiblical'. Perhaps his model would be better accepted (and using a more humble approach) if it was called "Parent/Elder-Approved Courtship" or "Accountability Dating".
Since men are initiating the interest in a woman (unlike in the Bible when parents or elders arranged most marriages,) calling it "Biblical Dating" is presumptuous and inaccurate. I can follow biblical or honorable principles Ted outlined above:
* Intentionality
* Accountability
* A complimentarian view of the sexes
* A Godward perspective
* Purity
...and still not involve my biological or church families. Some people have their purity in check and know themselves better than their church families or even their parents. How well have your last few blind/arranged dates gone for you? :)
In fact, where is the instruction that applies to premarital relationships in the Bible where I must be 'accountable' and 'intentional' while deciding who to marry? (Hint- there is no contextually specific scripture that applies to dating or courtship in the Bible.)
Once again, I'm not saying these are bad things, but they're a human invented formula for marriage integrating honorable traits and behaviors. If you can date while remaining pure and you both have a heart after God, I see nothing in Scripture to add to make it MORE biblical. Dating with intention is good as is accountability that God is first in the relationship and purity is a priority. They are excellent safety nets that men have devised to attempt to eliminate hurt in male/female relationships. But it's not THE "Biblical Dating" method.
If I missed a place in Croft's article that allowed for successful methodologies OUTSIDE of "Biblical Dating" (Croft's method), I apologize. I just didn't see it.
6. John said the following at 3:13 PM on Dec 2:
One issue that bothers me (and which several other posters have alluded to) is how this Biblical dating method applies to older singles. "Courtship" was, as I understand it, originally a method by which homeschooled kids (like Josh Harris) could meet members of the opposite sex when they had no interaction with their peers in a school setting. Courtship/Biblical dating sounds as though it would work well with older teenagers/young adults who had been prepared for it.
Where does that leave older singles (in their 20s, 30s and above)? To the extent the Bible commands "Biblical dating" (and reasonable minds clearly can and do differ on this point), do those of us who have not lived under our parents' roofs in years and who have positions of responsibility still have to undergo a ritual designed to control randy, immature teenagers? It feels a bit like going back to high school and having to request a hall pass to go to the bathroom.
7. Ame said the following at 4:40 PM on Dec 2:
I like the term, "Accountability Dating."
And i like this discussion ... if nothing else, "dating/courtship" should be something we've thought thru and prayed thru and are deliberate about rather than something we do and wonder in hindsight "if . . . . ."
8. Ted Slater said the following at 5:14 PM on Dec 2:
John, it strikes me that you may have not read Joshua Harris' books or read Scott Croft's article. Both Harris and Croft provide universal biblical *principles* by which singles might pursue relationships with the intent to marry. They are rooted in Scripture, not in the homeschooling culture. There is no "ritual designed to controls randy, immature teenagers" in either of their writings.
"Courtship" is nothing new. It is millenia old, and wasn't introduced to us by any currently living author. "Modern dating," however, *is* a relatively recent phenomenon. We are working on an article series that provides the history of dating over the past couple hundred years -- should be a fascinating set of articles.
Now, it's true that one of the principles Scott discussed is "accountability" (or as Howell implied above, "submission to appropriate authority"). This is a *biblical* principle, to be practiced by 20-year-old and 70-year-old alike.
I was 36 when I married for the first time, and I put these principles into practice with the woman I married. Among other things, I included her parents in "the process," out of a desire to respect the father's authority, not out of a need to be controlled by some constrictive ritual. Her family lived hundreds of miles away, so I took advantage of 21st century technology to build the relationship with them.
Besides accountability and submission to appropriate authority, which of the other principles do you find unbiblical and/or irrelevant?
9. Randy 'Vic' Taylor said the following at 7:37 PM on Dec 2:
Ted said: "Besides accountability and submission to appropriate authority, which of the other principles do you find unbiblical and/or irrelevant?"
Did someone say those two principles were unbiblical? I certainly didn't. I just challenged this 'Accountability Dating' method (my term) is not THE 'Biblical Dating' method (Croft's term.)
But while were on the subject of those two principles, if you are good with money, responsibly tithing, pay for things with cash and have more money in the bank than most people, do you need someone to hold you accountable towards financial matters?
If a woman doesn't stuggle with pornography or downloading sexually immoral content on her computer, does she need a porn accountability partner and software that shares her internet activity with her accountability partner?
My point is, if you're not emotionally or spiritually disciplined enough to 'handle' dating, because of the purity pitfalls or you haven't developed enough discernment of who you are as a person and what you're going to need in a mate, courtship sounds like a terrific method.
But if you're mature, self-aware, and guard your heart and purity, you only need accountability if you're weak in one of those areas. There isn't a biblical mandate that everyone have accountability if they aren't stumbling in the dating area of their lives.
As far as submission to appropriate authority, most 36 year old women I know ARE the appropriate authority. There's a difference between seeking wise counsel and seeking out some sort of authority that doesn't necessarily exist. Courtship has been around for a long time, it's just very recently that the method has been purported to be THE biblical method. Let's not forget, in biblical times, women couldn't even own land even upon the death of her husband. Those were cultural customs and laws, not biblical mandates from God.
Lastly, just because courtship is currently 'counter-cultural' doesn't make it THE biblical method of dating. Because women owning land back then and dating without seeking an authority figure would have been 'counter cultural' then too.
10. Ted Slater said the following at 8:21 PM on Dec 2:
Vic -- Scott specifically did not use the term "courtship" to describe the principles he laid forth in his article. "Courtship" has connotations that we are trying to avoid. Instead, he is intentionally drawing from Scripture to propose a model for engaging in a dating relationship with someone you might be interested in perhaps marrying.
I appreciate your identifying "accountability" in relationships as one of the characteristics you don't see as biblical. It is helpful that you are so specific.
You wrote, "As far as submission to appropriate authority, most 36 year old women I know ARE the appropriate authority." The thing is, Jesus was submissive to the authority of His Father. Remember the centurion in Matthew 8? He recognized that he was under authority, and Jesus commended him for it. As I wrote before, whether you are 20 years old or 70, there are authories in your life to whom it is wise and right to submit. When going through a relationship which might lead to marriage, recognizing and submitting to that authority is freeing and helpful.
I believe that we all need input from other Christians. Even as a 36-year-old guy, I valued the input of my friend and pastor, Eric. I was grateful that he made himself available to listen to my questions and concerns, that he told me what he saw in "us," that he provided some guidance during various steps of the relationship. I think those who forego such relationships miss out.
I frankly don't think accountability in pre-marriage relationships can be compared to accountability in finances. Relationships like we're talking about are by nature "sexual," as they are between a man and a woman. I don't know of a single guy who does not struggle to retain his purity in his thought life and interactions with the opposite sex. I know how difficult it can be to retain that purity with someone you're really attracted to. The Lord does too -- in relation to *sexual* sin He says, "Flee temptation." We are told to *resist* other types of sins, which tells me that those associated with male-female interaction are truly a different animal altogether. I think it's wise to seek out accountability when in a relationship that may lead to marriage.
I've sent an email to Scott asking him to respond to some of the concerns being brought up. I look forward to reading his comments.
11. Jess said the following at 9:07 PM on Dec 2:
I always thought that accountability was more about prevention than the cure.
12. Jonathan said the following at 9:27 PM on Dec 2:
At least there are principles in Croft's model of biblical dating. "Modern dating" dating has no principles.
I would also like to point out there are other models of biblical dating, such as the one Ruth used (sneak up on the guy at night when he's sleeping, uncover his feet and lie down). I don't endorse that particular method, though I'd be extremely flattered if the ladies tried it on me.
13. Kerry said the following at 9:31 PM on Dec 2:
I just have a question regarding this approach to dating. I am confused about the lack of emotional commitment before marriage. Under these guidelines is there no time alone together as a couple before marriage? I know of a particular situation where one of my friends is dating a person who deals with anxiety disorders/obsessive compulsive disorder. Before he could reveal this to her, they had to develop a close relationship so he could trust her with this information. Now, should he have waited until they got married to tell her of his disorder? Or should he have had to tell her about it in the presence of another individual? Honestly the lack of any alone time or emotional commitment confuses me. However, I know the pain of breaking up with someone after a three year relationship, so I would like to know how it is possible to "date" in this manner without being emotionally close.
14. Randy 'Vic' Taylor said the following at 3:33 AM on Dec 3:
Ted said: "I appreciate your identifying "accountability" in relationships as one of the characteristics you don't see as biblical. It is helpful that you are so specific."
For the second time, I never said accountability was unbiblical, I said there are no instances of accountability being referenced as an ingredient decreed by God in premarital relationships. As I noted twice before, the norm in biblical times was not accountability, but surrendering all control to parents and elders as that was the custom.
And not a bad plan mind you since most were undereducated, dependent, child brides that lived with there parents, rather than college-educated women that own property. Using the same logic methods in constructing a scriptural basis for "Biblical Dating", I could make a stronger argument that "the borrower is slave to the lender" suggests the Biblical Method for buying a house does not include having a mortgage.
Regarding Jesus showing submission to His Father, since we all know that he never married Mary Magdelene (ala Da Vinci Code) or anyone else, the closest thing I can see in Jesus' life is the selection of His twelve disciples. I haven't memorized the Gospels, but I don't hear one account in God's Word where he asks any authority but the individuals he called to follow Him (including asking His Heavenly Father.)
And yes, Jesus commended the Centurion, but that had nothing to do with dating or courtship or even his respect for AUTHORITY. Jesus commended him for his faith (Mt. 8:10)
Surely you're not equating a Roman centurion 's analogy of commanding soldiers to a father's relationship (and authority) over his grown daughters? The main themes of Matthew 8 have to do with the faith of the centurion, the power of Christ to heal, and that even a revered (feared?) Roman bowed down to the power of Jesus Christ. Using that verse to apply to parental authority or dating is proof-texting.
Ted also said: "Scott specifically did not use the term "courtship" to describe the principles he laid forth in his article. "Courtship" has connotations that we are trying to avoid. Instead, he is intentionally drawing from Scripture to propose a model for engaging in a dating relationship with someone you might be interested in perhaps marrying."
But the problem is, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, even if you don't call it a duck, it's still probably a duck.
And the buzzsaw I think Scott is running into here is, not only does it still sound like courtship (and draws similar reactions), he's creating an inelegant and presumptuous leap for those who know God's Word by calling it a 'Biblical' method.
And as for dismissing my financial analogy because relationships "are by nature 'sexual'", I guess what you're saying is that that those that are able to successfully stand on their own two feet (four for a couple) still need accountability. That is, even if they demonstrate self-control in that area. As Jess said, accountability can be used as prevention instead of a cure, it's just that the Bible doesn't mandate that.
Like Croft, I too believe in a complementarian view of the sexes AND the sufficiency of scripture, God's written word. But God didn't mandate a prevention plan for Adam and Eve in the Garden, He just issued a command for obedience to not eat from one tree. If Adam and Eve developed a method or plan of accountability to keep from eating from the tree, that would have been great, but it wouldn't have been 'God's approved plan'. Like other readers, I think Croft's ideas are fine, but to purport his is the 'Biblical' way to date suggests it is the only way. Scripture says "guard your heart" and "remain sexually pure." I just humbly suggest there is more than one method of doing so that might be more effective for some than others.
15. Scott Croft said the following at 7:59 AM on Dec 3:
Forgive me for coming to this discussion really late, but hopefully I can make up for some lost time (feel free to scroll through to what you consider to be the non-boring parts of this lengthy post).
Ted has done a great job of characterizing my article in my absence, and I'm really encouraged by the discussion that's been going on - even those posts that tend to suggest I'm out to lunch on this topic. My hope in this series is to flesh out some of the details of "how this works" logistically and practically in future articles. This introductory article was really just an initial outline. Based on the questions that have come up so far, for instance, it seems clear that emotional and physical intimacy - especially premarital kissing - the "hows and whos" of initiation, and some other key practical issues need to be among the topics addressed sooner rather than later. I look forward to those discussions.
In the meantime, let me address just a few things that have come up in this discussion. First, as Ted mentioned, the article lays out general principles, not rigid rules. To take an example mentioned in several posts, I absolutely realize that in this day and age it is often impractical or even unwise to initiate with a woman by speaking to her father. Maybe the father is not a Christian, maybe he's hundreds of miles away. There may be many reasons why this wouldn't work, and there are other ways to proceed with intentionality and with a desire to be under accountability. We discuss options in the seminar I teach on this topic, and I'll to try to clarify some of them in a later piece.
In this and many other points, it's the principle that will be clearly biblical, not the details of implementation. There is some play in the joints in working out most of the principles we'll discuss. I don't believe I've ever said or written otherwise. Just remember, it's really easy for sinful human beings to sacrifice the biblical principle itself on the altar of "flexibility" in implementing it.
A few other clarifying comments (in no particular order) might be helpful at this point:
1) the claims of one post notwithstanding, I am in no way advocating that any man start a conversation with a woman he does not know well by essentially asking whether she would be interested in marrying him 6-12 months from the date of that conversation. That's called proposing, not dating. I'll talk more about this in an "initiation" article.
2) I think a couple of posts used the term "legalistic." That word has a specific theological meaning, and it does not apply to anything I'm advocating. "Legalism," simply defined, is the heretical belief that some behavior or conduct or work - in addition to believing the Gospel - is necessary for salvation. Just so I've stated it clearly, I believe that nothing is required for salvation but faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ - and even that very faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8&9). I view this discussion not as a salvation issue, but as a dialogue among people within the household of faith about how we might best glorify God in a particular area of the Christian life.
3) Let's also not fixate on the term "courtship." It is often used but rarely defined. I used the term once in my article, but not in any substantive way. I'm perfectly happy with the term "dating." In fact, I'm not much concerned with what you call the relationship we're describing, as long as we go about the relationship biblically. We can discuss differing views on what that means as the series unfolds.
4) As I mentioned in the article (and Ted reiterated in one of his posts), simple statements of disagreement with the approach I'm suggesting - without biblical support - don't really advance the ball. When we talk about some of the details of this approach, we're obviously not dealing with issues (for the most part) upon which there is explicit, detailed scriptural instruction. We're talking about making an argument from scriptural principles and examples about which way to proceed. I can point to a number of passages, implicit or general though they may be, that seem to militate against the establishment of deeply emotionally intimate relationships with the opposite sex outside of marriage. If you disagree, then make the case from scripture - even at a general or implicit level - that such intimacy is actually good and right. Again, as I wrote in the article, scripture may be SILENT on some topics, but it is USELESS on none (not even how much debt to take on in a mortgage).
5) I'm intrigued by (and very sympathetic to) the practical argument that "modern society makes modern dating necessary," but I must disagree. As a theological matter, to the extent that we can deterimine what God's word says about an issue, no worldly circumstance can make disobedience "necessary." As a practical matter, there are churches that do encourage this approach, as well as singles who seek to live by it. I know they're out there, because they write me often. We've heard from some of them in this discussion. We don't need to "leave all of modern society behind" to be obedient here.
Thanks for all the comments, everybody. I encourage all of you to stay with the series and to keep posting your views, and to pray that the Lord would be glorified by the discussion.
16. Abigail said the following at 12:07 PM on Dec 3:
My problem with this article was the comments about emotional intimacy. I understand the reasons to avoid emotional involvement without the framework of a committed relationship, but I think the idea of "limiting emotional intimacy" before marriage is ridiculous. I really don't see where that comes from scripture. Love is always a leap. Making the risk required for vulnerability is an integral part of any healthy marriage, and I don't see how emotional detachment during dating/courtship would promote a thriving friendship to build a marriage on. I'm not suggesting people throw themselves headlong into a romance with whoever they feel attracted to, but I think it is unwise to promote relationships that are emotionally shallow. I guess it looks nice on paper, but I haven't seen it work out in real life.
While I don't think the "modern dating" mentality is healthy, it seems like we've gone a bit to the extreme when emphasizing the dangers of "date-breakup-date" relationships and now people think it will ruin their lives to break up with someone. It is a lot easier to heal your broken heart than to prosper in a difficult marriage where you can't control the other person.
Every relationship is different, and I don't think it is wise to put any model on a pedestal like this. Most of the principles here are very good, but I'm concerned with the way this author is promoted as "Biblical" when he also apparently holds many other beliefs about timing (etc) that just cannot be drawn from scripture. It works out very well for some people, like Ted and his wife, but it isn't fair to say relationships that fall outside of his boundaries are not biblical.
17. BethanyLayne said the following at 9:11 PM on Dec 3:
One thing that bothers me, Vic, is how you seem to think that accountability is optional and unnecessary for many people. You are right in saying that in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve had a command that did not include accountability - but look at how that story turned out. Would it have been different if Eve had had an older, more experienced woman to talk to about her temptation? We are sinful beings (and Eve's temptation happened before sin even entered the world). To think that a person can be perfect and untempted in an area which has been the downfall of nations not to mention thousands (millions?) of humans beings (that area being the relationship between a man and a woman) comes across sounding very arrogant. If a person is in no way tempted sexually then perhaps that means he (or she) should not be dating in the first place. After all, dating is a means to marriage and Paul said that if you aren't buring for it don't do it. In I Tim 5:2 Paul tells Timothy to treat younger women as sisters in all purity. To date without a purpose does not seem to me to be following this principle. As to being accountable to authority, please check Hebrews 13:17. My leaders are those in the church who are looking out for my spiritual wellbeing - and that wellbeing includes who I am considering setting up as my future spouse (another spiritual leader). If those leaders I respect have major reservations about who I date I think I should step back and take another look. We do not always see as clearly as those outside looking in.
Thank you for this discussion (Prov 27:17).
18. c-n-n said the following at 11:53 PM on Dec 3:
i'm enjoying these comments. all have brought up thought provoking points. :) i feel that scott's article is fulll of excellent wisdom for dating today, but i've also been reading some of the other comments and agree with them, that maybe this shouldn't be called THE biblical way to date, as if it is the absolute authority. Its a good point. The best point one of them made was that during the time the books of the bible were written, marriages were arranged by parents. they weren't about men pursuing women. that was interesting to me b/c i had never really conciously thought about it. if we really want a BIBLICAL form of dating, maybe all of our fathers should have a servant who he sends into the land of his family to find a wife for his son. :) this must happen only after the son's mother dies, mind you, b/c it is at that point that he becomes lonely and needs the companionship of a wife. then, the servant must ask for a sign, lets say, the perfect women waters both the servant and his camels... sounds good to me.... and then the servant must be required to give the women gifts of earings, bracelets and ... nose rings... after that he must then speak with her family... who suggest that she should wait ten days... but she refuses their wisdom and goes off bravely to become the wife of a man she doesn't know. then apon meeting, that man man takes her into his tent and makes her his wife. hehe.... now that is biblical dating!! it requires a servant... some camels... a nose ring... and a tent! hehe.
:) the bible commands us to be sexually pure... and that is not a suggestion.... it commands us to honor our mother and father... and the word teaches on the blessings that come from community involvment in worship and daily living. there's no reason why these things shouldn't be used as guiding principles, as scott wisely advises. some of the comments are right though, the method mentioned in the article is not THE biblical method. The way marriages come about dramatically changes from genesis to revelation which causes me to believe that the period between singleness and marriage is strongly culturally dictated. Most often the rules set cultrually are set to protect the purity of daughters. Dating today does no such thing, so i welcome the church making an attempt to bring definition to a gray area, but lets recognize it for what it is... reverting to an old and maybe wise tradition... but not necessarily the one and only biblical method.
19. DanL said the following at 6:15 AM on Dec 4:
The area where I am still the most uncertain about is that of emotional intimacy. I’m still not certain I quite understand what the author means by this. From time to time Boundless has published articles along the line of “how far physically can I go with my girlfriend/boyfriend.” Given than I think scripture is rather clear on this question (which Boundless has pointed isn’t even the right question to ask) I am surprised that Boundless doesn’t elaborate on the issue of emotional intimacy more. Especially since I don’t see this issue as clearly addressed by scripture (I am *not* saying it isn’t addressed my scripture, only that it isn’t as clear to me; perhaps I’m just dense). At least one previous post mentions this topic and then talks about kissing and holding hands. I don’t think this is what Croft was intending (since I would call that physical intimacy). I believe he had in mind something more a long the lines of a particularly close friendship. Hopefully he can correct me if I am wrong.
If I am correct is what he is trying to state then I must reluctantly say that I think he is being un-Biblical. While I can not point to any scriptural references that address this topic between men and women heading towards marriage, I can think of one particularly close male/female relationship that was purely platonic – that between our Lord and Mary Magdalene. I can also think of several “emotional close” relationships between same sex friends, David and Jonathan being the prominent one to come to mind. This should at least show that emotional intimacy is something that need not be tied romantic involvement.
I have a few more thoughts on this matter, but I must get to work now.
20. Howell said the following at 10:51 AM on Dec 4:
The point of living in accountablility/community is that something we may struggle with something tomorrow that we do not struggle with today. Life has a way of introducing us to new experiences and challanges that we never see coming. It is a checks and balances thing.
21. Torey said the following at 2:35 PM on Dec 4:
I tend to get a little worried when I hear of anyone meeting and marrying in a very short time span (for example in an earlier post it was stated by an advocate of "biblical dating" that a couple following this approach met and married within four months). This, to me, seems, well, slightly irresponsible. You CANNOT know a person well in such a short space of time and, though it may be well and good to say that "we're both Christians, have the blessing of our families etc and God will help us work out the details" the fact is, we are also all HUMAN, and it takes time for what may a few months down the road qualify as "irreconcilable differences" to surface in any relationship. Besides, when you are considering a lifetime commitment, what is so bad about investing a year or two in a relationship to make sure it's the right choice? I am not slamming anyone's dating style, but I personally would be EXTREMELY uneasy about marrying someone I had only known for four months, and my parents undoubtedly would feel the same way.
22. Chris Krycho said the following at 4:32 PM on Dec 4:
I think it's important to realize that there is no such thing as an "irreconcilable difference." All differences are reconcilable, save where one or both of the people are walking unrepentant in sin (and that IS reconcilable, but only by repentance). If two people are both solid believers, in agreement about their desire to marry, and have the support of those around them, why not? Responsible Christians are more than capable of working through any differences that will arise - with help, perhaps, but nevertheless capable.
I think it's also important to remember that no matter how "compatible" we seem before marriage, any couple married for any length of time will tell you that their spouse is far more different from them than similar. All marriage relationships require immense amounts of work.
It seems to me, furthermore, that the mentality of waiting to know if you're compatible ties back into the "soul mate"/"one for me" mentality that Boundless has rather aptly addressed before:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001306.cfm
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001123.cfm
http://www.boundless.org/departments/beyond_buddies/a0000891.html
http://www.boundless.org/2005/answers/a0001228.cfm
23. Andrew said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 4:
I think the worries about quick marriages should be put in context. My church has had quite a few marriages that started with relationships and moved to engagement and then marriage in a matter of months. However, the couples had known each other for at least a year or more. They worked in ministry together and fellowshipped in groups together. They were able to look at the other person's heart through their actions, words, and prayers to discern their devotion to the Lord. Many times, they both harbored feelings for the other person, but held back for awhile til as Paul says it burned. Then when they told each other their feelings, they could only rejoice as they knew the Lord had brought them together. The "getting to know" part of a relationship can develop through the friendship. This allows for the situation that has been presented.
24. Joy W. said the following at 8:34 PM on Dec 4:
Regarding the Torey's concerns above, about marrying quickly...
My parents had their first date Labor Day weekend of 1976. They were married 30 years ago today. If you do the math, that's three months from the first date to the wedding day.
There are a couple of things that I think are key in their situation, though...
For one, they had been slightly acquainted with one another for a year or two already, so they weren't total strangers. Also, they each felt that God was directing them toward the other, and each independently spoke to a mature Christian who knew them both. They then began to pursue a dating relationship with the help and direction of those mature Christians in their lives.
I don't understand how this happened, but people really can go from knowing each other only slightly to a life-long commitment in a very short period of time. Under God's leading and the prayerful support of other believers. I'm not saying it always works that way, but it can.
25. Ed said the following at 9:44 PM on Dec 4:
CS Lewis spoke memorably of a devilish strategy in "The Screwtape Letters":
We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under...
***
Boundless has been quite concerned lately about the decline of marriage even among Christians and also the rise of the average age of marriage. I'd agree that it is a source of concern. However, I'd argue that a significant part of the problem is the advice that has been doled out to singles over the past 15 years or so, beginning with Elisabeth Elliot and Josh Harris and continuing through the "courtship movement" (though not everyone uses the C-word). I believe that this advice, though well-intentioned, is actually subverting the goal of moving singles toward marriage.
A common thread that runs through the writings of "courtship advocates" is the need to guard one's heart. The assumption, sometimes stated but usually not, is that having a broken heart over a relationship is one of the worst evils that can befall a
person. In some courtship circles this broken heart idea is even
a name: "defrauding". So great is the pain of a broken heart that drastic measures must be taken to avert such a tragedy.
These measures include severely limiting time alone, discouraging emotional intimacy, keeping physical affection to a bare minimum or eliminating it altogether, consulting with one's parents and authority figures extensively. Above all else, it seems to mean avoiding any declaration of romantic attention or affections until one is reasonably sure that a relationship will end in marriage.
I could see the wisdom of this advice if I saw scores of singles in the church balled up, crying their eyes out because of broken relationships and defrauding. Maybe that's going on somewhere. But what I see much, much more of is singles not dating at all. I see guys who are so afraid of breaking a woman's heart that they take no action whatsoever until they feel a sign from God that she is "THE ONE". I see women who sit at home week after week, dateless, because they think it might be too forward to smile at a guy and innocently flirt with him a little. Singles whose interactions with the opposite sex are so platonic that nothing could ever develop from them. Men and women who seem to be on course to become monks and nuns, not married people.
In order to move toward marriage, most people need two elements - a rational element and an emotional element. The courtship advice emphasizes the rational element -- is she a strong Christian? Does he have impeccable character? But it shortchanges the second element. In many people the emotional element only develops when there is some risk -- a candlelight dinner at a great restaurant, a secret whispered in the ear, the holding of hands. These are the emotional moments that move people from the "rational evaluation phase" to the "moving forward to marriage" phase. But these things are also risky -- one's heart can be broken if things don't work out.
But is a broken heart so bad? Are we really so fragile that a failed romantic relationship will be the death of us? Do we have to regret each moment of romantic hope subverted? Or can we look at things with perspective, realize that God can work all things for good, dust ourselves off and try again?
Why don't we give singles the advice that it is OK to date, even if they don't know if the person will be the one they will marry? Surely this is better than singles hovering around each other endlessly in group activities, each one speculating on the feelings of the others without anyone actually taking a risk that could lead to a broken heart. Why don't we say that it is OK to take a risk, to share affections even if the future is unclear, to talk about some of your hopes and dreams even if you aren't sure that you will marry that person. Are these things really evil and impure? Or are we just a little too uptight about them?
26. Jason W said the following at 2:55 AM on Dec 5:
I think what people are forgetting when they read an article like Scott's is that he is talking about being guided by biblical prinicples -- and as a result of being guided by biblical prinicples we will date biblically. Although the bible doesn't address it directly, we can get our hearts right in all the *associated* areas, which makes it a lot easier to work out the *details* as one may say. There isn't a one size fits all for these type of relationships -- but we can get godly principles into our lives and glorify God in all we do, even in dating relationships.
About emotional intimacy. Josh Harris in "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" has the *little relationship prinicple*:
"Intimacy is the reward of commitment".
While he doesn't give any hard and fast rules about when it is appropriate to deepen emotional intimacy, he does say that if we can't back the level of intimacy with commitment -- then we shouldn't be at that level. Increasing levels of intimacy should be accompanied by increasing levels of commitment. A man and a woman about to pursue a relationship with marriage as it's goal, would obviously have more intimacy than two friends who meet only on a Sundy. During their dating period if God moves them towards marriage, their relationship will increase in intimacy with increasing commitment. Emotional intimacy in a dating relationship then doesn't appear to be a bad thing per say -- but it must be matched with commitment. What this endeavours to do is prevent people who aren't prepared to commit to become emotionally intimate before they are ready to match it with the commitment required.
27. c-n-n said the following at 1:34 PM on Dec 5:
i've seen similar things as Ed.... people just not dating at all b/c they are afraid of hurting someone.... or ... women who assume that the second a guy asks them out, that means they will get married soon. BUT I think both are misguided interpretations of the whole "i kissed dating good bye" movement. Not behavior that would actually be commended by either Harris or Elliot. Its been probably five years or more since i've read any Harris, but if i remember correctly, he didn't start 'courting' his wife b/c he had a massive revelation of marriage, he started that relationship b/c she had strong Christ-like qualities that made her a good possibility for a wife.... then he waited to tell her that he loved her until he was ready to back that with the commitment of engagement. isn't that how it happened? He entered into a risk by asking her out that first time. I even remember him writing about a close friend who's courtship ended, and others being sorry for him that his courtship had not been successful. Harris responded by saying that it WAS successful because they determined that they were not a good fit for marriage. That was the goal, to see if they were or were not fit to marry. Finding that they weren't was a successful part of that process. Correct me please, if i'm misquoting.
Ms. Elliot, in her book "let me be a woman" writes about how during her high school expirience (which was an all girls boarding school), they had socials every friday night. The neighboring boys at the boys boarding school were required to ask a girl, who was required to say yes, every week... but never the same girl twice in a row. The young man would meet the young women at the bottom of the staircase and sign her out... then he would return her to the same place and sign her in... all highly supervised activity. She made the point that her generation was taught how to date... they were taught proper interaction between men and women at an appropriate age, with mature supervision to help them through the process.
I'm not so sure how Harris would feel about that, but i think there are some strengths to that process that we're all missing out on... i mean, its not perfect, but it could teach proper respect.... any thoughts on that?
I'm just bringing these up to make a point that the lack of dating in the church, and the later marriages are not something i think Elliot or Harris would advocate... The lack of risk taking could more be associated with a spirit of fear, that maybe was the result of how the masses have inappropriately interpretted their writings, but how responsible are they for that? I mean, if you read their books, they are clearly pro-marriage, and pro- appropriate risk taking to get there.
28. Christine said the following at 8:09 PM on Dec 5:
In reading what c-n-n has to say here about relationships in the context of Elisabeth Elliot and Joshua Harris's books, made me stop to think. I know that we are considering this in the context of Scripture, but I do think that there is something to be said about considering romances such as the Elliots. The Elliots didn't get married within a year - rather it took them five years. They also spent time alone talking - going on walks, going for a Coke, etc. Their relationship was built upon a solid friendship and was built over time (they didn't get married or engaged in a year's time...).
I say all of this to say that it seems to me that the Elliots' relationship wouldn't exactly fit the model that seems to be presented in Scott Croft's article, but I think that a case can be made that this relationship was one that sought to glorify God through godly relations with the opposite sex.
I really agree with those who are struggling to accept the idea that there is only one way to biblically date. Yes, there are certain principles that do apply to all of us, but I don't think that we should set standards such as time limits on marriage or asking for permission when they aren't issues of sin.
29. Mark said the following at 9:11 PM on Dec 5:
A couple of months ago I submitted a comment on the intentionality of dating. In my verbose response I mentioned "How to Get a Date Worth Keeping" by Henry Cloud. Up to this point, I'm surprised that no one has brought him up, because he appears to be the antithesis of Croft. I came off rather harshly on the book before, but after reading the defense for the "biblical model" of dating, I'm starting to see some of the advantages of casual, or get-to-know-you-type dating.
I have a hard time believing that the godly way to get to know someone is does not involve being alone with them. (What's the meaning of "alone," anyway?) Maybe it's the engineer in me, but that way just seems inefficient. How many group outings equals one good conversation? Plus, it's quite possible that a girl may act one way around her church friends and be totally different, have another non-church "vocabulary" she uses outside of that group setting. I can relate to a previous post-er in that I dated someone who had severe OCD. I KNOW she never told that to anyone at church. After a couple of good heart-to-hearts with her I found out this crucial bit of information.
To say that you're not going to date someone unless they're THE ONE is presumptuous and a little arrogant. I once had the mentality of "my next girlfriend will be the last one." That was about three girlfriends ago. Unless you spend some time polishing your social skills in one-on-one situations with members of the opposite sex, how are you going to be able to really shine when THE ONE finally emerges on the scene? That's not to say that I'm out there trying to "play" the field--my end goal is marriage. I'm just accepting of the fact that, right now, I have a 100% failure rate at dating. If the next relationship doesn't work out, it won't be anything new. There's always someone else. Life, and dating, will go on.
30. c-n-n said the following at 4:57 PM on Dec 6:
:) christine- i'm glad my comment made you think about the course of the elliot's relationship (actully, elisabeth would call it a 'love affair,' which sounds more scandalous to me!). it was VERY VERY different from something that maybe even josh harris himself would advocate for. Jim told Elisabeth that he loved her, right off the bat... i think later he regretted saying it so freely b/c he felt it caused her pain sometimes. they did spend alone time together, but usually in public, and for goodness sake, she moved all the way to ecuador to serve along side him before they were even engaged!
their relationship was definately strongly characterized by restraint in a lot of ways, but it was also a lot more care free than what we're often taught is allowed now. I especially got that picture when i read Jim's journals. Jim's dipiction of their romance is a little more wild than Elisabeths... he often referred to her as "militant" in her behavior and convictions, where as he was a little more compulsive. Elisabeth wouldn't tell him that she loved him, or kiss him, until they were engaged. I think much of that type of restrait came on her part... but i also remember reading in the Journals about them laying on the ground near a waterfall talking... There was "passion" in their five year long relationship but they remained pure (hence the title). That passion should be part of dating... its expressed in of Song of Soloman before they are married... its expressed by jim and elisabeth... its ok and healthy to have that passion. I don't know that i'd set up the elliots relationship as ideal, i mean, jim went on a 'make out' session with other women before he was finally ready to commit to her. I don't know why she stuck around sometimes! hehe... and it may not have been best for him to have expressed his feelings so early... but they did honor the Lord, both in their restraint and in their expression of passionately wanting to be together. I don't think its the Lord's heart for us to become 'robotic' in our approach to marriage at all... i think he delights in the ways of a man with a maiden as long as the man and the maiden obtain high levels of sexual purity. I know as a woman myself, i want to be 'woo-ed' by a man and i want some of that passion to be present!!