'Biblical Dating' Author Replies

The two posts on our "Biblical Dating" article have generated so many comments that I asked the author, Scott Croft, to address some of them. He'll be covering in depth in his monthly articles many of the concerns readers have brought up, but he did take some time to reply to a few of them. Here's what he wrote:

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.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. jen said the following at 2:56 PM on Dec 4:

Can we talk more about emotional intimacy and emotional boundaries? This is something that I'm struggling with, and it definitely doesnt get talked about as much.

2. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:40 PM on Dec 4:

Scott Croft wrote: "First, as Ted mentioned, the article lays out general principles, not rigid rules"

Unfortunately, I don't get that impression from the article and certainly didn't get that impression from attending his seminar in person.

A "general principle" from the Bible would be something like 1 Cor 10:31

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God"

That doesn't give any explicit commands of what we need to do or not do, just that whatever we do, it needs to be for God's glory. A certain act in one circumstance could be for God's glory (reading the Bible at home), and in another circumstance could not be (reading the Bible on the job when it's not break time).

A "rigid rule" in the Bible is essentially a non-negotiable command with almost no exceptions. Matthew 19:18-19 for example:

"Jesus replied, 'Do not murder', 'do not commit adultery', 'do not steal', 'do not give false testimony', 'honor your father and mother', and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Let's take one particular "rigid rule" in the article:

"Biblical dating assumes NO physical intimacy, and more limited emotional intimacy outside of marriage"

This essentially means that in order to be "Biblical" before marriage one must NEVER:
- Hold hands
- Kiss
- Hug
- Dance

Which in my opinion is a grey area depending upon many factors.

A "rigid rule" does not need to be explicitly mentioned to be such. As Vic pointed out, "if it quacks like a duck..." meaning that if one is given a "free" choice to make, but the parameters of that choice make it so that only one option can qualify those parameters, then it isn't really a free choice (i.e. principle) after all. Looking at the Biblical model we have:

1. That begins (maybe) with the man approaching and going through the woman's father or family

Compared with the Modern model:

1. That begins with either the man or the woman initiating with the other

Here we have 2 choices. Is there any other REASONABLE way to initiate a romantic relationship with another person other than going through that person directly or going through those she knows? I'd argue 'No'.

In this case, Step #1 is a "rigid rule" because immediately you will fall into either one methodology or another. There is no "principle" here because cannot NOT apply Biblical step #1 and NOT fall into Modern step #1.

Step #2 Biblical model:

2. That is conducted under the authority of the woman's father or family or church

#2 Modern model:

2. That is conducted outside the formal oversight or authority of either person's family or church

Again, we have a "rigid rule" because you either can have oversight from a family/church or you do not. However this isn't as strict as step #1 though as there may be ways to have "some oversight" in Modern #2 (such as the parents asking the girl, 'How is it dating so-and-so). But if "oversight" refers to what I think Scott is refering to, then I would say it is a rigid rule.

Step #3 Biblical model:

3. That always has marriage (or at least a determination regarding marriage to a specific person) as its direct goal.

#3 Modern model:

3. That may or may not have marriage as its goal and is often purely "recreational" or "educational"

Here we do have some overlap. It may well be that both models a person has marriage in mind, thus the principle could be "have marriage in mind when you date". The only rigid rule would be "don't date someone you wouldn't consider marrying" which as rigid rules go, I agree it is a good one.

Finally, remember what I posted about what Scott Croft believes is acceptable behavior when in the dating process:
- Make your intentions to marry known immediately and upfront (rigid rule)
- No 1-on-1 time away from a group setting together unless you are engaged (rigid rule)
- Marriage needs to occur within 6-12 months after initiation (somewhat rigid. Implies if you don't than you are just "playing around")

Conclusion: A lot of long-winded arguments to essentially reveal that despite saying this model is more about principles than rigid rules, the evidence does not seem to point that way, and it is that I think most people have problems with; especially saying that it is "Biblical", thus implying one is out of the will of God if one does not follow these steps.

3. Natalie said the following at 10:26 PM on Dec 4:

I have only had one serious relationship, therefore my feelings on this topic are all based off my one experience and other people's experiences that I've heard about.

1) Having my parents' (who are both strong Christians) 'okay' before I see a man will definitely be a must in my next relationship. My two older siblings chose mates who my father disagreed with, and now they are both divorced. Seeing as my dad is 2 for 2, I will value what he has to say, and welcome both my parent's input in who I decide to see in the future.

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind if my dad would pick out my future mate. He knows me better than anyone else in this world and his vision is not clouded as mine often tends to be. However, I do realize this is not the case for many people.

2) I agree with accountability and spending very little to NO time alone with the opposite sex. Not because I (or he) is not self controlled, but because satan has more opportunity to seriously mess up lives (and multiple lives at the same time) than in any other area of life. The only other area that comes to mind is murder.

For example, Christians know what is biblically right and wrong (sex outside of marriage/murder) and do not set out to have pre-marital sex/murder someone, but satan tempts them LITTLE by LITTLE until they are right beside, or over the fence. However I have heard of far less Christians who have murdered than those that have had sex outside of marriage…

If a couple is spending a lot of time alone, satan is more easily able to tempt them, whereas a couple in a coffee shop or mall, alone, yet not completely alone, makes satan's job much harder....

(I do hope this makes sense ... as I'm trying to study for a final)

3. finally, on emotional intimacy.... One way I measure (which may be way off the mark) how much is too much physical or emotional contact with men is by imagining my future husband having the exact same contact with a female other than myself. If I would be upset by it in the future, than why am I allowing myself to engage in such contact now?

For example, some of the conversations I had with my boyfriend, were very personal, and had he been my husband, I would have been very hurt had he gone to someone else for the comfort he desired, or the advice he was looking for. Just as I'm not going to go around kissing any random guy after I'm married, I'm not going to give away my emotional intimacy to any random guy after I'm married.

Therefore, if there's something that should be sacred between a husband and wife, physical and/or emotional, I'm going to save that for my husband, and my husband alone. And, for definition sake, while I'm dating/courting/seeing a man, he's NOT my husband.

4. Jake said the following at 9:06 AM on Dec 5:

Natalie: can we take it that in the future you will not mind your husband asking another woman's father if he may begin a courtship with his daughter; spending one-on-one time with another woman in a coffee shop or mall; attending relationship/premarital counseling/accountability sessions with another woman conducted by a pastor or church elder; getting down on one knee, presenting a diamond ring, and proposing to another woman; and planning a wedding and honeymoon with another woman? Because you expect to eventually do all of that with a man who will not yet, at the time, be your husband, correct?

If not, then how does your position make sense?

5. Adam said the following at 12:24 PM on Dec 5:

Hey Everyone!

I am a Hebrew student who is going to be getting a degree in the topic in a few months here, and going to graduate school for Hebrew studies. I have reviewed Scott Croft's article here:

http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/2006/12/courtship-controversypart-iiibiblical.html

I believe Mr. Croft is in error on this topic, and I attempted to demonstrate that in my review through the use of sound exegesis and sound logic.

I agree that the best way to deal with this issue is to have both sides go back and forth. I hope that it will spark more thought and interaction on this topic.

6. Adam said the following at 12:35 PM on Dec 5:

I agree, Jake. That is one of the arguments that I use. I think another good argument is that one cannot expect that their spouse will marry someone other than you [spouse], therefore, you cannot marry someone who is not your spouse.

The problem is a mistake in ethics assuming that every single human being has the exact same ethical obligations. That is false. For instance, the executioner who administers lethal injection has a moral obligation to put criminals to death. Should we assume then that everyone has the moral obligation to execute criminals? Should we assume that, if I know that someone has commited murder, I now have the right to break into his home and kill him? Obviously not.

7. Philip said the following at 10:44 PM on Dec 5:

As I understand it, Scott is using 'biblical dating' to represent what he considers to be dating done with the wise application of the relevant biblical principles and 'modern dating' to represent the other extreme, where no consideration is placed on what the bible has to say and if biblical principles are followed it is only by chance, not a desire to be biblical. Everybody who has an opinion on dating, including Scott, will lie somewhere along a range of dating methods, according to the extent they correctly incorporate biblical principles. 'Christian dating' models would be expected to exhibit many of the principles that Scott endorses. He is certainly open to arguments that some of his principles should be changed or removed to bring the collection closer to what biblical dating ought to be.

Its understandable that people want to respond to the brief references that Scott has made to his view of biblical dating as way of introduction, but I believe it is premature. The main point of the article is to say that we should seek to understand what biblical dating is, not to explain what Scott thinks those principles are. I can see hints of things that I may disagree with, but I am waiting until he explains them fully before I make up my mind. I am hopeful that many of the complaints that commenters have made will prove to be misunderstandings.

Scott says he is establishing general principles not rigid rules. I assume he means the principles he describes as being part of biblical dating to be what he sees as how things should generally work out, not things that must be done in every situation. I expect Scott will make that clearer when he explains the ideas. He hasn't yet defined what he means by 'physical intimacy', so it is too early to form conclusions on that.

As for the word courtship, different people have used it to describe their particular attempt at describing what biblical dating should look like, and I think the word does not accurately convey anything in particular, while overemphasising certain procedural aspects. There can be 'bad courters' who follow the particular rules but fail in other areas, but there is no such thing as a bad 'biblical dater' since if you are being fully biblical in your dating, then you aren't doing it badly.

As I said, the main point of the article seems to be to establish the concept of applying biblical principles to dating. While it also introduces some of those principles, let's give him a chance to explain more fully what he means before criticising Scott over them.

8. Adam said the following at 11:45 AM on Dec 6:

Phillip,

You said:

'Christian dating' models would be expected to exhibit many of the principles that Scott endorses.

That is the problem. He is begging the question. It would be like me calling my position [which would reject several of the things he wrote] as the "biblical method." Well, you have effectively built into your definition, the conclusion to which you are supposed to be arguing. To say that this position is "Biblical" without first defending that idea and proving it from scripture is simply to engage in a circular argument. It appears to be going something like this:

1. This form of "dating" is biblical.
2. Therefore it is biblical in principle.
3. Because it is biblical in principle.
4. therefore this form of "dating" is biblical.

That is the exact form of a circular argument. You cannot call something Biblical in your argument when the whole point of your argument is to prove that it is biblical!

The main point of the article is to say that we should seek to understand what biblical dating is, not to explain what Scott thinks those principles are.

However, he goes through and compares what he considers to be "biblical dating" and "modern dating." How can you contrast the two, and not explain what the principles of each ones are?

Its understandable that people want to respond to the brief references that Scott has made to his view of biblical dating as way of introduction, but I believe it is premature.

However, this is not the first thing Mr. Croft has written on this topic. If you look at his article here:

http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001196.cfm

And his core seminar here:

http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID324006|CHID686940,00.html

the ideas in these documents are in no way different from the article on "biblical dating." You will find that he often pulls entire phrases off of these documents and puts it in this article.

He hasn't yet defined what he means by 'physical intimacy', so it is too early to form conclusions on that.

The point is that no matter how you take the words "physical intimacy," you are left with something which should not be said. If he means something like kissing, holding hands, cuddling, etc., then he bears the burden of proof to show that these things are wrong before assuming that they are wrong as he does in his article. If he means sexual intercourse, or something like that, then I know of no Christian who says that such things are acceptible, and hence, his point about it being unbiblical would serve no purpose.

There can be 'bad courters' who follow the particular rules but fail in other areas, but there is no such thing as a bad 'biblical dater' since if you are being fully biblical in your dating, then you aren't doing it badly.

However, Mr. Croft has presented the principles of courtship as "biblical dating." We need to understand that the popular usage of the term is, in and of itself, referring to the principles outlined by Joshua Harris, Elizabeth Elliot, Albert Mohler, etc. That is how the term has come to be understood. To now change the vocabulary, and, worst of all, to call it "biblical" before offering any proof other than a few inaccurate [as I have hopefully demonstrated], and cursory readings of a handful of passages is simply question begging.

While it also introduces some of those principles, let's give him a chance to explain more fully what he means before criticising Scott over them.

Again, the point is that the article is no different in substance from what he has previously written. Not only that, but most of us have only critiqued what he said, and not what he hasn't said. We have, indeed, pointed out the fallacy of using phrases like "biblical," "illicit," and "sinful" without ever having argued for them being such.

A similar thing has happened with his use of scripture where his interpretation is assumed to be the correct interpretation without any exegesis at all. He says he will get to them later, but, again, he has already built his conclusion into his argumentation. Not only that, some of his interpretations are either irrelevant, as one must already assume that "modern dating" is wrong to use them, or [as I have argued elsewhere] they have nothing whatsoever to do with the text in question. That is something I will, indeed, be looking foward to seeing if his method of interpretation of these texts has in any way changed from his previous writings on this topic.

Either way, it is totally fallacious to put your conclusion into your case while you are presenting your case. You present your case, and then draw your conclusions. Otherwise you engage in question begging that cannot be rationally defended.

9. Randy 'Vic' Taylor said the following at 8:12 PM on Dec 6:

Adam, excellent point by point refutation on your blog. Thank you for pointing out that the sufficiency of scripture doesn't mean every social custom is addressed, not to mention adding things to it like the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches.

Thank you also for pointing out the 'repurposing' of Croft's writings on his church website using the same points and phrases in addition to the embrace of the term courtship, a term he's trying to distance himself from now apparently.

10. Alicia said the following at 3:40 PM on Jan 29:

I sat dumbstruck while reading Scott Croft's article, "To Kiss or Not to Kiss." Kissing wrong? Kissing as a sexual act? Incredulous. I know that premarital foreplay and premarital sex is wrong, but I never thought that someone would view kissing as sinful and wrong.

I asked my pastor and a pastor from another church about this, as well as researched other Christian articles on the subject and they all said the same thing. That kissing in and of itself is not sinful or bad -- it only becomes bad if it makes a person stumble to want to "go further" or if it makes them think lustful thoughts. (Much like the debate of eating meat/not eating meat, drinking/not drinking, Saturday as the Sabbath day/Sunday as the Sabbath day).

Although Croft is of the opinion that you can't kiss without getting turned on, I tend to disagree. Although I myself am 27 and have saved my first kiss, several of my friends kiss their boyfriends with a lingering kiss, without ever becoming aroused.

I think that the word "arouse" is important, because in the Song of Solomon it says not to "arouse" love before it's time (before it's ready, like when you're married). Not everyone gets aroused from a kiss, just like not everyone laughs if they are tickled. God has wired and designed each person differently.

Also, people struggle with different sins and in varying degrees. For example, there is someone that I know that is completely addicted to smoking. I am completely grossed out by it and it is not a stumbling block for me, but it is for her. On the flipside, I struggle with jealousy and she does not. (We struggle with different sins).

A friend of mine struggles with an addiction to shopping and I share the same struggle, though not to the same degree. I don't have an overwhelming urge to purchase everything I see, but she does. (We struggle with the same sin, but at varying degrees).

All of our actions as Christians are supposed to be founded in love (Read 1 Corinthians 13). If our kissing causes someone else to stumble, then we shouldn't do it. But that is not to say that it is a sin for everyone, just because it is to one person.

It is a grey area in the Bible (just like meat/drinking/Sabbath, etc.) because it is not directly mentioned. It says that a person should be fully convinced one way or the other about whether they think it is right or wrong to do (since it's not directly mentioned) and that whatever they do do or don't do, when done in faith, is glorifying to God.

Bob Parkins wrote an excellent flip-side view on this debate. You can read it at:

http://www.newlife.com/Articles/article.asp?libid=662

I wholeheartedly agree with his (and the two pastors I spoke with) viewpoint. Kissing can be good OR bad. I think that it is not bad if used properly. I don't think that Croft should be able to say whether it is right or wrong for a person to kiss, because it is a "grey area" ....God will let a person know whether or not it's ok for them or not.

11. Rachel said the following at 9:44 PM on Feb 5:

I just read "To Kiss or Not to Kiss"... ... And I must say, after thinking about my past relationships, I'm grudgingly going to have to agree with the author.

... I've always gone into my relationships with a "purity" mindset. ... It used to be more than just making out, but in my most recent relationships, the furthest I've allowed it to go is making out... ... And honestly, it just doesn't seem to have much of a point. ...

Why sit and kiss when you could sit and talk about your hopes and life and love and God? ... It seems as if kissing takes the place of any real communication....

"It is easier to take off your clothes than to reveal your heart." Father Dave Beaudry.

The same can be said even without taking off the clothes.. .... When we get into a relationship, our intention is to find out if this person would make a good spouse. ... ... When we discover that the person would not make a good spouse, for whatever reason, it seems as if any physical things done in the relationship have just created heartache. ...... If we keep our relationship as pure as God wants us to, there is no heartache. ....... ...

12. Lauren said the following at 10:34 PM on Aug 28:

I just started reading these articles and they are fantastic! I've had several dating relationships in my past years of dating, and I absolutely totally agree with all that the author is saying in regards to not kiss or any kind of affection as well as the Biblical view on dating. I love also how he uses Scripture to back it up his points. I've definitely changed my perspective on dating and physical affection. I wholeheartedly want to follow it to the best of my ability, Lord willing.

Where in the world are the guys that believe this?? I haven't met any at all! This stuff is amazing!